AMD bulldozer

Libertas Computers said:
I don't follow the whole Bulldozer setup as closely, but from what I read it was below par, also regarding the threading between cores and modules, but there was a fix for it and now it seems to be doing quite well...
Click to expand...


http://www.techenclave.com/cpu-mobo-corner/amd-fx-bulldozer-registry-fix-40-a-201077.html

Found this, looks like the software really is the big problem... Lets hope that if this is the case, and bulldozer comes out swinging, Intel will drop prices too :p
 
scotty777 said:
http://www.techenclave.com/cpu-mobo-corner/amd-fx-bulldozer-registry-fix-40-a-201077.html

Found this, looks like the software really is the big problem... Lets hope that if this is the case, and bulldozer comes out swinging, Intel will drop prices too :p
Click to expand...

there can't be a fixed hardware is designed as 8 integer cores (ALUs) and 4 flex floating point cores (FPUs).
Amd decided to go after multithreaded application performance then halfway thru they decided to throw on a huge amount of cache to improve uni threaded application performance. With multithreaded apps huge amounts of cache is useless.

My point basically is don't compare Bulldozer core to core measure it thread vs thread because those are 8 threads. How does it perform against the 2600k with multithreaded applications. It still gets beat. Does the margin it gets beat by equal the price difference?
Comparing it against the 2500k in gaming is comparing Core to core. Amd shot themselves in the foot with the stupid naming system. It they called it like it really is then people won't call it such a huge failure like they do now.
 
shovenose said:
there can't be a fixed hardware is designed as 8 integer cores (ALUs) and 4 flex floating point cores (FPUs).
Amd decided to go after multithreaded application performance then halfway thru they decided to throw on a huge amount of cache to improve uni threaded application performance. With multithreaded apps huge amounts of cache is useless.

My point basically is don't compare Bulldozer core to core measure it thread vs thread because those are 8 threads. How does it perform against the 2600k with multithreaded applications. It still gets beat. Does the margin it gets beat by equal the price difference?
Comparing it against the 2500k in gaming is comparing Core to core. Amd shot themselves in the foot with the stupid naming system. It they called it like it really is then people won't call it such a huge failure like they do now.
Click to expand...

I understand your point. Yes, BD disappointed, however, i really think the architecture is incredibly immature at this point. Look at intel's first stint with hyperthreading, it was horrendous... Actually, it's symptoms where similar to AMD's BD...

I like the direction AMD went, and it has potential, it's just too new atm... No one knows how to code for it, nor does windows even know wtf it is looking at. It just sees 8 threads, and sends things to it accordingly.

I would not throw away AMD's choice in threading just yet, I think they might be still some fight in the architecture, and it might need some decent stepping improvements, but also a few tweaks to the actual architecture, and we might see a really decent processor.
 
scotty777 said:
I understand your point. Yes, BD disappointed, however, i really think the architecture is incredibly immature at this point. Look at intel's first stint with hyperthreading, it was horrendous... Actually, it's symptoms where similar to AMD's BD...

I like the direction AMD went, and it has potential, it's just too new atm... No one knows how to code for it, nor does windows even know wtf it is looking at. It just sees 8 threads, and sends things to it accordingly.

I would not throw away AMD's choice in threading just yet, I think they might be still some fight in the architecture, and it might need some decent stepping improvements, but also a few tweaks to the actual architecture, and we might see a really decent processor.
Click to expand...

it is decent thread to thread performance although it still get beat but they shot themselves in the foot by go calling it a 4 module/8 core.
Now they get pitted against the Intels cores on unithreaded apps. if they just named it like it really is then the benchmarks against the 2600k with multithreaded apps everyone wouldve looked at..
But that design have a sort of gpu design look on it with the Alus. They do the same things on their Gpus calling 800 stream processors cores which is actually only about 10 cores
 
Apparently all roads regarding the Windows fixes and hectic improvements in performance leads to that article and no further, nobody else except the unknown website has details about it and I don't have a link, but apparently the author is a fraud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X