-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What is the ultimate French toast topping?
AMD bulldozer
- Thread starter killadoob
- Start date
8 core AMD will be fine. The part that bothers me is you mentioning AMD/ATI GPUs which I would not do under Linux, nVidia has much better drivers & less issues under linux.
shovenose
Senior Member
Its not really eight cores
AMD will call a CPU that has one of these modules a “dual-core” CPU, in reality the CPU isn’t true a dual-core product, because there aren’t two complete and complete CPUs inside the product. The “dual-core” name in this case will be used for marketing purposes
AMD will call a CPU that has one of these modules a “dual-core” CPU, in reality the CPU isn’t true a dual-core product, because there aren’t two complete and complete CPUs inside the product. The “dual-core” name in this case will be used for marketing purposes
What resolution are cpu benches done at. Did you look 1280 normally. At 1980 or a bit lower there will be no difference in the fps 1 or 2 fps because gaming its the gpu not the cpu doing the work. Unless you play at a low resolution like 1280Proper review for a proper pomping.
Wow gaming benchies are shocking. This cpu cannot hold a candle to the 2600k, when you ordering dude? I know you will buy this cpu come hell or high water
Last edited:
Lol, so you prefer the original Intel dual cores where they put two dies in one cpu and hacked them together?
shovenose
Senior Member
shovenose
Senior Member
Can you read?
"original Intel dual cores"
Now that I got that out of the way pretty please explain to me how bulldozer is not a proper multicore chip? Anxiously awaiting your reply.
Last edited:
foozball3000
Executive Member
Not sure why anyone would
Multicore rendering, in my case..
It seems that the GPU renderers are all Windows (oddly). But I haven't really made up my mind about what GPUs I'll get.
From what I've found, hardware wise the AMD will be amazing for rendering, far better than the i7. But software is one of the issues, another is that the gain is not that great if you take in account that the ivy bridge will launch next year. For now, it just makes sense to get the intel. (That was hard to type
). Besides, if the bulldozers pull their weight in the next launch, intels are easier to smuggle off to some unsuspecting family member. 
It seems that the GPU renderers are all Windows (oddly). But I haven't really made up my mind about what GPUs I'll get.
From what I've found, hardware wise the AMD will be amazing for rendering, far better than the i7. But software is one of the issues, another is that the gain is not that great if you take in account that the ivy bridge will launch next year. For now, it just makes sense to get the intel. (That was hard to type
nVidia will offer you CUDA & VDPAU (mostly encoding) in Linux.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA#Limitations
What 3D/Rendering apps do you use in Linux?
Have a look at http://www.luxrender.net/en_GB/gpu_support
http://www.yafaray.org/
Last edited:
shovenose
Senior Member
Please elaborate, your explanation makes no sense. You are talking about this things and that things.
shovenose
Senior Member
Look at the picture I posted. See theres 4 modules? That's 4 cores with 2 modules in each. They are in the same package but look how they number their cores. Each module they number as a core which is a gimmick. Is it clearer now?
Yes. You don't have a clue what you are talking about, that is very clear.
You are comparing a simplified block diagram to a slightly more complex one. Lol, is that what you are basing your 'thinking' on because it's way off
Here is a more relevant comparison block diagram for you
Whether 2 cores share cache or or a FPU is irrelevant, the cores are still independent processors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_processor
I know it's wikipedia but you might learn something from it. Else go to a university library and look at their books on processor architecture.
Also one of my chipping in posts, but I'm with ponder on this one...
I haven't reviewed and looked at all the data like most people, but from what I can tell the confusing bit seems to come due to the shared L2 Cache? In the picture posted by shovenose it has 2 cores sharing one L2 cache and that bit is then put in a square making it look like 4 squares or modules as he referred to it..
As far as I know it still is 8 cores, with the 8 cores sharing 4x L2 cashes...?
In any case, I read earlier today (Can't remember the link, but will try and find it - it's similar to this link and imaged attached) that there apparently is a fix for the use of the turbo on Linux, because the Linux and Windows threads across inactive cores which makes logical sense, although the turbo has an extra boost if 4 cores are inactive, but Windows 7 does not allocate threads like that. (See below image)
This should have a slight (I think they said 5%) increase in performance as well as a reduction in power usage..
I'm still hoping on a Windows 7 patch for this, but it might be to big an update, but I know they are working on it for Windows 8.
I'm still in two minds on this and maybe their tech was a bit too new for Windows 7...
I haven't reviewed and looked at all the data like most people, but from what I can tell the confusing bit seems to come due to the shared L2 Cache? In the picture posted by shovenose it has 2 cores sharing one L2 cache and that bit is then put in a square making it look like 4 squares or modules as he referred to it..
As far as I know it still is 8 cores, with the 8 cores sharing 4x L2 cashes...?
In any case, I read earlier today (Can't remember the link, but will try and find it - it's similar to this link and imaged attached) that there apparently is a fix for the use of the turbo on Linux, because the Linux and Windows threads across inactive cores which makes logical sense, although the turbo has an extra boost if 4 cores are inactive, but Windows 7 does not allocate threads like that. (See below image)
This should have a slight (I think they said 5%) increase in performance as well as a reduction in power usage..
I'm still hoping on a Windows 7 patch for this, but it might be to big an update, but I know they are working on it for Windows 8.
I'm still in two minds on this and maybe their tech was a bit too new for Windows 7...
shovenose
Senior Member
A multi-core processor is a single computing component with two or more independent actual processors.
Notice the 4 blocks in that pic? That's independent cores.
Those modules share some resources like the front-end engine, the floating-point unit, and the L2 memory cache that means its not independent from each other.
Those are not two complete cpus inside that package.
Notice the 4 blocks in that pic? That's independent cores.
Those modules share some resources like the front-end engine, the floating-point unit, and the L2 memory cache that means its not independent from each other.
Those are not two complete cpus inside that package.
killadoob
Honorary Master
Well if you don't have good hardware for the most used OS on the planet perhaps you should not release it? I don't know many people who plan for an OS that is not even on the market.
So why would we sit with a poor performing cpu now? If it was made for windows 8 they shoot the people responsible for allowing it to be released for windows 7. Perhaps also put a warning stick on them:
Please note this cpu will only run well when windows 8 is released in 12-18 months but don't worry it still sorta works under windows 7
shovenose
Senior Member
Look at its price? I mean that's 2500k 2600k region. It will run nicely on multi threaded applications but will fail miserably on single threaded ones. Does that sound familiar? Gpus anyone. The more threads you give a gpu the better it performs. That design looks like something that came from their graphics department
foozball3000
Executive Member
I use Blender 3D, with Yafaray built in on an i7 laptop. Yafaray uses CPU crunching power, but Lux uses GPU as well.
...and I just discovered that Lux render is for Linux as well. (Awesome News)
Hardware wise the ATIs are a lot better. Two of them outperform an Nvidia in the same price range, and combined the two have a lot more RAM (Crucial for rendering). But the best hardware in the world is useless if the drivers are crappy.
I'm not sure what to do.
cerebus
Honorary Master
The architectural basis for Bulldozer is about 8-years old. It has nothing to do with graphics; AMD weren't in the graphics business at the time. It was purely because they envisioned a future of highly thread-dependent software and were willing to make some radical design decisions based on that. The real problem seems to have been that they were under pressure to release before they were able to get rid of some of the serious bottlenecks, such as the L2 cache issue and so forth - and the chips went through several iterations, and the 32nm fabrication issues are also well documented. It seems like they just couldn't maintain stability at the clock speeds they needed to keep up with Core.
Bollocks to your definition of a cpu and what constitutes a core.
So by your logic if a CPU does not have a FPU, MMU, Cache etc on the same die or share it between cores it's not a true cpu? Wonder why they called these things cpus through the last 30 years or so then.