# AMD Vishera Packs Quad-Channel DDR3 IMC, G34 En Route Desktop?



## btarunr (Jan 20, 2012)

AMD might be a little sore that its "Zambezi" FX processor family based on its much-hyped "Bulldozer" architecture didn't quite meet the performance expectations of a ground-up new CPU architecture, but it doesn't want to take chances and build hype around the architecture that succeeds it. From various sources, some faintly-reliable, we have been hearing that the next-generation of high-performance desktop processors based on "Piledriver" architecture, codenamed "Vishera", will pack five modules or 10 cores, and will be structured essentially like Zambezi, since Piledriver is basically a refinement of Bulldozer architecture. The latest leak comes from the Software Optimization Guide for AMD 15h family (read here), which was picked up by CPU World while most of us were busy with CES. 

CPU World compiled most of the features of what it suspected to be AMD referring to its future processors based on the Piledriver architecture, that's "Vishera" (desktop high-performance), "Terramar" (high-density server), and "Sepang" (small-medium business server) parts. The three are not the first chips to be based on Piledriver, AMD has a new mainstream desktop and notebook APU in the works codenamed "Trinity", which is en route for a little later this year. Trinity basically has an identical CPUID instruction-set as Vishera, Terramar, and Sepang, confirming their common lineage compared to today's "Bulldozer" architecture. The most catchy detail is of Vishera featuring 4 DDR3 channels.






The plot thickens where "HyperTransport Assist feature" is listed as being supported on Vishera. HT Assist is a feature found on AMD's enterprise socket G34 processors, which facilitates better inter-die communication between the two dies of a typical socket G34 Opteron processor. The G34 (LGA1972) package is a multi-chip module of two quad-core, six-core, or four-module dies, which combined have four DDR3 memory channels, and a number of HyperTransport links to communicate with neighbouring sockets and the system's chipset. Could this be the first indication that AMD wants to take on Intel LGA2011 HEDT (high-end desktop) using Vishera chips in the G34 package? It will be a while before we find out. 

Apart from using common silicon between client and enterprise platforms, AMD does have a history of colliding the two.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Hustler (Jan 20, 2012)

Well unless Vishera's IPC increases by about 50% over Bulldozer, they may as well not bother, no matter how many cores they shove into it to try and disguise it's shortcomings.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 20, 2012)

So does this mean AMD will change their sockets finally?


----------



## repman244 (Jan 20, 2012)

Hustler said:


> Well unless Vishera's IPC increases by about 50% over Bulldozer, they may as well not bother, no matter how many cores they shove into it to try and disguise it's shortcomings.



50% ? I doubt it, more like 15-20%, but that's just my guess.


----------



## meirb111 (Jan 20, 2012)

instead of adding more cores they must improve preformance per clock or this is all going
to be another amd joke , a deadly joke to the future of amd's cpu market


----------



## Hustler (Jan 20, 2012)

repman244 said:


> 50% ? I doubt it, more like 15-20%, but that's just my guess.



Given that Bulldozer's IPC is between 5-10% slower than the Phenom II, increasing Vishera's IPC by 15-20% will only make it about 10% faster than Phenom II (on average)...clock for clock.

Like i said, unless you approach an IPC increase of 50% or so, it's going to be seen as a failure, and even with a 50% increase, that will still only bring it up to par with a 2500k (perhaps a little faster).


----------



## suraswami (Jan 20, 2012)

so like 939 days we can see Optys for desktop too?


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 20, 2012)

I disagree. Bulldozer's issues are boil down to single thread/single core performance and issues with code using older instruction sets. Those are a result of less than optimal core design due to their switch to an automated layout system.

They need to increase L2 cache speed, improve memory throughput more, and bring up low thread count/single core performance by at least 35%. The latter being the most important. Bulldozer is a great chip when all cores are being utilized and scales well. When you through tasks at it that only use 1 thread, or half the available threads with older instruction sets, it chokes.

I have no issues gaming on my Bulldozer except for the whole Deus Ex HR BSOD my rig due to BIOS issues. That is GIGABYTE's fault mostly. What is AMD's fault is when it was working on the older BIOS versions, my FX-8150 came in well behind my 1100T cause the game (for me) ran on 1 thread/core. Insert BF3 (runs at least 4 threads) and the FX-8150 will go toe to toe with a i7 2600. Its that strange behavior and wild swings in performance due to thread count that need to be addressed, not bring quad-channeled memory to desktop space.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 20, 2012)

im bored of hearing how AMD need to trounce intel with their next cpu, what rubbish, it needs to be good enough to play games and surf plus a bit of transcodeing ,now and again for me and hence BD as it is would do so PD/vishera weva dosnt require 50%(daydreaming improvement),ive given up playing most of the games that run shit on it anyway (single threaded's so last decade), 

all these people winging about BD better be folding or cryunching 24/7 as if your pc sits doing nowt while you workin then is only on to game and surf and your still moaning about BD your not right in the head, its like a cyclist moaning about car insurance going up wtf is the point 

do these moaners have a CRAY in their bedroom NO, just an intel 2600K ,no doubt wasted on em


----------



## Steevo (Jan 20, 2012)

TheLaughingMan said:


> I disagree. Bulldozer's issues are boil down to single thread/single core performance and issues with code using older instruction sets. Those are a result of less than optimal core design due to their switch to an automated layout system.
> 
> They need to increase L2 cache speed, improve memory throughput more, and bring up low thread count/single core performance by at least 35%. The latter being the most important. Bulldozer is a great chip when all cores are being utilized and scales well. When you through tasks at it that only use 1 thread, or half the available threads with older instruction sets, it chokes.
> 
> I have no issues gaming on my Bulldozer except for the whole Deus Ex HR BSOD my rig due to BIOS issues. That is GIGABYTE's fault mostly. What is AMD's fault is when it was working on the older BIOS versions, my FX-8150 came in well behind my 1100T cause the game (for me) ran on 1 thread/core. Insert BF3 (runs at least 4 threads) and the FX-8150 will go toe to toe with a i7 2600. Its that strange behavior and wild swings in performance due to thread count that need to be addressed, not bring quad-channeled memory to desktop space.



BIOS BSOD on a game? ORLY......


The BD architecture is completely memory dependent, thats why the tests with higher speed memory fared better than those with memory speeds equaling the Intel systems. Intel has at least 50% of their lead due to much better branch prediction and internal data management, the easiest way to make up for this is more cache at faster speed, and more memory bandwidth as it cuts down the number of idle cycles in soft fault.


----------



## badtaylorx (Jan 20, 2012)

is this saying that vashira is going to be 4-4170 bulldozers on a single chip using hyper transport to aid it???


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 20, 2012)

Steevo said:


> BIOS BSOD on a game? ORLY......
> 
> The BD architecture is completely memory dependent, thats why the tests with higher speed memory fared better than those with memory speeds equaling the Intel systems. Intel has at least 50% of their lead due to much better branch prediction and internal data management, the easiest way to make up for this is more cache at faster speed, and more memory bandwidth as it cuts down the number of idle cycles in soft fault.



In short for those that don't want to read. I want AMD to not take the easy way out and refine their new architecture, not hide behind tricks to drive competition. They need to turn Bulldozer/Piledriver into something software developers want to utilize to optimize software due to its design. If they could say because are chip is built this way, you could do this and that to reduce instruction fetches or executions or whatever to make your software run faster.

Good enough, fine for what i use it for, I am a gamer and it doesn't matter should not be statements we use to defend the purchase of AMD. They need to first refine the architecture to remove weaknesses and level out its performance across the board. Why? Because not every piece of software is going to follow the more threads the better trend. Some stuff don't need more than 1 or 2 threads and Bulldozer should run those just as well as a program that uses 6 or 8 threads. 

Once they have done that they need something, anything they can market as, "With AMD you can do this task much faster" I don't even thing it matters what that one thing is at this point as long as they have a benefit to pick them over Intel to market. Intel has Quick Sync on top of being the big dog. AMD needs to be able to say, "Our chip is more than good enough. It is just as good across the board as Intel and with AMD Super Awesome all single thread applications run 35% faster thanks to blah blah blah."

In short, then need to stop trying to build a faster sports car and concentrate on improving/innovations on their entire vehicle line up from the cheapest compact to the most task specific 3.25 ton truck.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jan 20, 2012)

Wonder if microsoft has already begun working on a patch....


----------



## DigitalUK (Jan 20, 2012)

meirb111 said:


> instead of adding more cores they must improve preformance per clock or this is all going
> to be another amd joke , a deadly joke to the future of amd's cpu market



AMD bulldozer is no joke when it comes to serious multi thread and gets even better as you push it, only problem is single thread stuff and whos buying an 8 core cpu for single thread these days.


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 20, 2012)

meirb111 said:


> instead of adding more cores they must improve preformance per clock or this is all going
> to be another amd joke , a deadly joke to the future of amd's cpu market



Increasing performance per clock is ideal, but considering adding two extra cores will still compensate and bring performance more inline to Intel. The multi threaded performance will be off the chain. And remember Piledriver is going to be upto 30% faster ontop of this. 

As far as I'm concerend this is a good thing, if the price is right.

Why should AMD dumb down their architecture, when the problem is obviously the sofware developers, more specifically the games developers.


Edit:

I'm curious to find out whether quad channel memory will improve performance. Many have said AMD in general lacks memory bandwidth. We shall see. Does that mean we have to move away from AM3+ to enjoy quad channel?




DigitalUK said:


> piledriver better be on am3+ as its the reason i picked up a 990fx board, i was about to get a 8150p for myself but was holding off as there was rumours of another BD Revision coming and PD is very soon.



Piledriver is definitely on AM3+, its on the old roadmap.

But will the quad channel Piledriver be on AM3+ or is that on the new socket?


----------



## DigitalUK (Jan 20, 2012)

piledriver better be on am3+ as its the reason i picked up a 990fx board, i was about to get a 8150p for myself but was holding off as there was rumours of another BD Revision coming and PD is very soon.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jan 20, 2012)

All you need to know about bulldozer is SSE4.1, AVX and FMA.

Intel has always had ICC make AMD use SSE2 (along with unoptimized libraries), now it's more important than ever.

Read up how bulldozer performs when using those instructions


----------



## Steevo (Jan 20, 2012)

Wow, it doesn't matter if it can make you look like superman with those instructions if no one uses them for anything that matters.



Adding two more cores and the energy consumption will raise by that factor, and there is only so much heat it can stand before electromigration destroys it, before the power supply pins start to detach as the solder softens, before the cooling solution no longer provides the thermal dissipation needed to cool the package.


----------



## faramir (Jan 20, 2012)

repman244 said:


> 50% ? I doubt it, more like 15-20%, but that's just my guess.



With refinement of 32 nm manufacturing process at Global Foundries and AMD's better understanding of operation of Bulldozer at 4+ GHz (it is their first chip clocked that fast aftrerall) they are more likely going to be able to reach the targeted clockspeeds so some IPC gains and some clockrate gains could translate into significant gain.

Granted, AMD needs to improve IPC rate of their new architecture in order to be able to keep up with Intel but the architecture itself was devised to be a "speed demon" so it makes sense to expect higher clock rates.


----------



## meirb111 (Jan 20, 2012)

DigitalUK said:


> AMD bulldozer is no joke when it comes to serious multi thread and gets even better as you push it, only problem is single thread stuff and whos buying an 8 core cpu for single thread these days.



The reason why bulldozer is  a joke is  because on the same clock with the same number of cores it has worse preformance than  a phenom ii not better how can a new 32nm cpu with the same number of cores be worse than 45nm cpu, amd had to be really stupid to do something like this.


----------



## DigitalUK (Jan 20, 2012)

rubbish im on a 1090t @4ghz 3ghz Nb htt 2600 and i built a system for a customer the other day 8120p on cheaper 970 chipset overclocked to 4ghz on stock volts no other tweaks and the BD smoked mine , the main tests were 3dMark11 abit of memory testing etc. no single thread tests tho.


----------



## meirb111 (Jan 20, 2012)

digitaluk said:


> rubbish im on a 1090t @4ghz 3ghz nb htt 2600 and i built a system for a customer the other day 8120p on cheaper 970 chipset overclocked to 4ghz on stock volts no other tweaks and the bd smoked mine , the main tests were 3dmark11 abit of memory testing etc. No single thread tests tho.



use only 6 cores vs 6 cores to compare like fx-6100 vs 1090


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jan 20, 2012)

I want to know what IOMMU is.

Anyone?


----------



## DigitalUK (Jan 20, 2012)

its for VMWare etc to access graphics i believe?


----------



## xaira (Jan 20, 2012)

how exactly do they plan to fit a g34 socket and 4 channels of memory on a single atx board?


----------



## Horrux (Jan 20, 2012)

As we move further and further away from single-threaded applications, single-threaded performance becomes a moot point. It is not entirely moot yet, but give it a year or two. Sure, there will still be legacy code written for single-core CPUs and those won't run faster, but they'll run fast ENOUGH.

At some point, architecture-wise, you have to start looking at either multicore technology or single-core technology. I thought it was well established that single core solutions were well and truly done with? There are no new CPUs in the PC space that are single core since a few years already, even in the bargain basement entry-level space.

I think it's clear: multithreading is the future, and mostly, the present too. As software development gets more and more multithreaded, AMD's solutions will begin to shine more and more. 3 years from now you might be amazed that the new huge games run super well on an 8150, whereas now you might be disappointed at how your 3 year-old game runs on this chip currently. But such is the nature of this technology juncture. 

Sure, Intel is claiming both the single-threaded and multithreaded crowns, but no one ever said that AMD had to claim a crown. It only needs to be competitive in terms of price/performance. And it has been doing that, serving us good chips at great prices. Some people live for their epeen and they need benchmark records to their name. Fine. The rest of us are happy to pay less for our machines and enjoy our gaming very well, thanks.


----------



## meirb111 (Jan 20, 2012)

Horrux said:


> As we move further and further away from single-threaded applications, single-threaded performance becomes a moot point. It is not entirely moot yet, but give it a year or two. Sure, there will still be legacy code written for single-core CPUs and those won't run faster, but they'll run fast ENOUGH.
> 
> At some point, architecture-wise, you have to start looking at either multicore technology or single-core technology. I thought it was well established that single core solutions were well and truly done with? There are no new CPUs in the PC space that are single core since a few years already, even in the bargain basement entry-level space.
> 
> ...




thats gambling or guesswork, it may or may not happen most games dont use more than 2 core even new games since quad cores are 5 years old or so and still we are moving so slow 3 years is a lot of time by than you may upgrade a gain so what you buy now isnt that good for the future


----------



## Steevo (Jan 20, 2012)

Horrux said:


> As we move further and further away from single-threaded applications, single-threaded performance becomes a moot point. It is not entirely moot yet, but give it a year or two. Sure, there will still be legacy code written for single-core CPUs and those won't run faster, but they'll run fast ENOUGH.
> 
> At some point, architecture-wise, you have to start looking at either multicore technology or single-core technology. I thought it was well established that single core solutions were well and truly done with? There are no new CPUs in the PC space that are single core since a few years already, even in the bargain basement entry-level space.
> 
> I think it's clear: multithreading is the future, and mostly, the present too. As software development gets more and more multithreaded, AMD's solutions will begin to shine more and more. 3 years from now you might be amazed that the new huge games run super well on an 8150, whereas now you might be disappointed at how your 3 year-old game runs on this chip currently. But such is the nature of this technology juncture.



Nov 2008

Intel Core i7 940

BD FAIL. You are trying to spin this as some sort of a win in three years when everyone will still know BD is a FAIL. It can't compete with a three year old product.


----------



## Horrux (Jan 21, 2012)

Steevo said:


> Nov 2008
> 
> Intel Core i7 940
> 
> BD FAIL. You are trying to spin this as some sort of a win in three years when everyone will still know BD is a FAIL. It can't compete with a three year old product.



You know what's funny about all this? I'm putting the AMD products in their best light and I'm running Intel. You're putting AMD products in their worst light and you are running AMD.


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 21, 2012)

Horrux said:


> You know what's funny about all this? I'm putting the AMD products in their best light and I'm running Intel. You're putting AMD products in their worst light and you are running AMD.



+1, Steevo got pwn'd


Lets get back to the positive AMD talk. I'm happy for this quad channel move.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 21, 2012)

Im not dillusional about products. I guess I dont count that as "getting pwned", but since pwned is beaing beaten by a 13 year old cheater in a online game it cant really be that bad. So if it makes you feel better and your mom is OK with it, you both pwned me.

I run AMD as bang for the buck when I bought my board and everything it cost significantly less than the same Intel setup and its just lasted this long. 

Once the next intel generation is out I will be choosing my next ground up build, keeping the water cooling of course.


----------



## Horrux (Jan 21, 2012)

Steevo said:


> Im not dillusional about products. I guess I dont count that as "getting pwned", but since pwned is beaing beaten by a 13 year old cheater in a online game it cant really be that bad. So if it makes you feel better and your mom is OK with it, you both pwned me.
> 
> I run AMD as bang for the buck when I bought my board and everything it cost significantly less than the same Intel setup and its just lasted this long.
> 
> Once the next intel generation is out I will be choosing my next ground up build, keeping the water cooling of course.



Like me then, I was running an AMD but the SLI issues drove me nuts enough to get an Intel 2600k. I was going to get a bulldozer, but when I saw how that turned out, there was no way I was sidegrading and probably keeping the SLI problems... The P2 X6 1100t was plenty good, but the SLI got me frothing at the mouth...

Sure the 2600k is a bit faster, not that I notice, the 1100t was fast enough.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 21, 2012)

Steevo said:


> Nov 2008
> 
> Intel Core i7 940
> 
> BD FAIL. You are trying to spin this as some sort of a win in three years when everyone will still know BD is a FAIL. It can't compete with a three year old product.



But it can and it does. What are you smoking and can I have some?


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 21, 2012)

Aside from Erocker as far as I know everyone on this forum has been pretty happy with their FX purchase.

So they can't be all that bad eh : ]


----------



## seronx (Jan 21, 2012)

My speculation is Vishera/Komodo isn't going to be on AM3+

G2012
C2012
FM2

All have integrated Northbridges with an HT Link connection to the Southbridge

If all Viperfish dies are pretty much the same minus MCM in Terramar then there is going to be a problem since there is PCI-E Links instead of HT-Links
(Trinity isn't Viperfish but has an Intergrated Northbridge like Llano)

This is also probably why Cray you know that HPC company I keep talking about is going to implement a PCI-E version of it's Gemini interconnect because AMD is dropping Hypertransport


----------



## erocker (Jan 21, 2012)

pantherx12 said:


> Aside from Erocker as far as I know everyone on this forum has been pretty happy with their FX purchase.
> 
> So they can't be all that bad eh : ]



I was "happy" with my 8150... I'm just happier with my 2500K and didn't need the 8150.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 21, 2012)

I believe AMD will stop at 10 cores, work hard to refine the design (Piledriver), gain approx: 50 or more % performance improvement over today's Bulldozer. Only them will AMD move beyond 10 cores IMO. 

AMD needs to tighten up this CPU design for better performance.


----------



## seronx (Jan 21, 2012)

Super XP said:


> I believe AMD will stop at 10 cores, work hard to refine the design (Piledriver), gain approx: 50 or more % performance improvement over today's Bulldozer. Only them will AMD move beyond 10 cores IMO.
> 
> AMD needs to tighten up this CPU design for better performance.








Yep, they are staying 10 cores with 28nm

but 50% performance you won't see...till applications start using AVX+FMA

Also, I hope that 28nm process is

Twenty Eight Nanometer Fully Depleted Silicon on Insulator with Ultra Thin Buried Oxide with Low-k Dielectrics and High-k Metal Gates with Embedded Silicon Germanium used with Dual strain liners with Raised Source and Drain....
*BREATHES* (It's 28nm ET-SOI for short or not)

Or, I'll be 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




My Christmas list for 2013

but seriously say that out loud it will suck out all the breath you have....


----------



## Super XP (Jan 21, 2012)

Steevo said:


> Nov 2008
> 
> Intel Core i7 940
> 
> BD FAIL. You are trying to spin this as some sort of a win in three years when everyone will still know BD is a FAIL. It can't compete with a three year old product.


Lol, Umm yes it can, it competes quite well and does well against the newer Intel CPU's in Gaming. AMD wins 4 - Intel wins 4. You do the math. 








seronx said:


> http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5329/b073b49boverclock.png
> 
> Yep, they are staying 10 cores with 28nm
> 
> ...


25% performance improvement via x86 and 50% in combined graphics with Piledriver CPU's. Anything can change by the time we hit Q3 2012 the schedules Piledriver desktop release.
LINK:
http://fudzilla.com/processors/item/25628-amd-increases-performance-of-trinity-cores


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 21, 2012)

WOW. 

I can't believe how badly the i7 990x got demolished, the FX 8150 performed twice as fast in Civalization V - is that game multi threaded or something?


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jan 21, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Lol, Umm yes it can, it competes quite well and does well against the newer Intel CPU's in Gaming. AMD wins 4 - Intel wins 4. You do the math.
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/120121/AMD-4 Intel-4.jpg
> 
> ...



Yes..... we all know if bd was out several years ago it would define awesome......but it wasnt.  compare modern to modern....sandy in other words


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 21, 2012)

ensabrenoir said:


> Yes..... we all know if bd was out several years ago it would define awesome......but it wasnt.  compare modern to modern....sandy in other words




The concept of multithreading is modern, so lets compare Bulldozer to Sandybridge in multi threaded applications


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jan 21, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> The concept of multithreading is modern, so lets compare Bulldozer to the i5/i7 series in multi threaded applications



meant intel latest....u know that slice of awesome pie called sandy bridge not last years model.  Bd bigest problem........besides those missing transistors... was that it arrived way too late.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 21, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Lol, Umm yes it can, it competes quite well and does well against the newer Intel CPU's in Gaming. AMD wins 4 - Intel wins 4. You do the math.
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/120121/AMD-4 Intel-4.jpg
> 
> ...



Any reason you didnt use W1zzards test? Other than it shows BD failing in the same games? 
http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scaling/7.html


----------



## Horrux (Jan 21, 2012)

ensabrenoir said:


> meant intel latest....u know that slice of awesome pie called sandy bridge not last years model.  Bd bigest problem........besides those missing transistors... was that it arrived way too late.



Nope. It's EARLY. If AMD had revised the Phenom II core to a Phenom III model, and tweaked the BD silicon a bit more for release in a year or two when multithreading will be even more prevalent, AMD would look better and the chip would have shone upon release, due to stellar multithreaded performance (including all the windoze coding that might be necessary, which WILL BE - notice the future tense again - included into windows 8 anyway).


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 21, 2012)

Steevo said:


> Any reason you didnt use W1zzards test? Other than it shows BD failing in the same games?
> http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scaling/7.html



Good question. Maybe it was because at the time of W1zzards review of the 7970 there wasnt any proper drivers. It would be unfair to base a CPUs performance based on a video card that is bearly available and has know software support.




ensabrenoir said:


> ... was that it arrived way too late.



Bulldozer is too early and too late.


Too late: Had they released it 3 years ago it would of been on par with The Nehalem in single threaded applications and much better in multithreaded, hence a success.

Too early: Had they delayed the Bulldozer a couple of years, multi threaded games would be in greater abundance and hence Bulldozer would be an attractive purchase for gamers.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jan 21, 2012)

Bulldozer......its too early and too late... Bd is an enigma wrapped in a riddle and surrounded by confusion.....amd what did u really create.  Wow so gonna get one ...after a few price drops... Just for kicks and to add to my almost great stuff collection(mini disc, hdd,laserdic player etc)


----------



## Steevo (Jan 21, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Good question. Maybe it was because at the time of W1zzards review of the 7970 there wasnt any proper drivers. It would be unfair to base a CPUs performance based on a video card that is bearly available and has know software support.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Or perhaps they ran a card that artificially limited the framerate.


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 21, 2012)

Steevo said:


> Or perhaps they ran a card that artificially limited the framerate.



So you think the Civilization V reviewed with a the ATI 7970 with the unofficial drivers and no support from W1zzard is more valid than the Civilization V bechmarked from Anandtech with official and mature drivers??

or are you insinuating that Anantech's review is fake?


----------



## Horrux (Jan 21, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> So you think the Civilization V reviewed with a the ATI 7970 with the unofficial drivers and no support from W1zzard is more valid than the Civilization V bechmarked from Anandtech with official and mature drivers??
> 
> or are you insinuating that Anantech's review is fake?



Anandtech was never reknown for its kindness to AMD*.


----------



## OneCool (Jan 21, 2012)

btarunr said:


> HT Assist is a feature found on AMD's enterprise socket G34 processors, which facilitates better inter-die communication between the two dies of a typical socket G34 Opteron processor.



Hmm,that sounds very poor to me.Latency killer 

Whats the point of HT if it has to go through some kind of buffer to sort shit out first?

"HT assist" = Not So Hyper Transport or "Sluggish Transport"


----------



## Super XP (Jan 21, 2012)

Steevo said:


> Any reason you didnt use W1zzards test? Other than it shows BD failing in the same games?
> http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scaling/7.html


My point was different setups gain you different results. Both Anandtech & TPU are legit in there own right. There are several website reviews that show BD doing great in gaming. Though I do fully agree AMD has a lot of work in trying to crack open this performance riddle, and hopefully they come close with upcoming Piledriver.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 21, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> So you think the Civilization V reviewed with a the ATI 7970 with the unofficial drivers and no support from W1zzard is more valid than the Civilization V bechmarked from Anandtech with official and mature drivers??
> 
> or are you insinuating that Anantech's review is fake?



I'm just saying when a independant review with a card that is more than powerful enough to remove any GPU limitations is reviewed by an indeoendant site that has a hell of a Admin running most of its tests shows results that entirely disagree with one test by one site. Plus most of the BD users who also run Intel know and agree that it doesnt even meet performance of 3 year old Intel offerings in software availabe now, I would put my trust in all if their reviews and actual real life experiances. That was the exact reason I bought ny 1100T.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 21, 2012)

Well I fully agree real life is where it's at. Real life gaming is the upmost important for me anyway.
Like I said before, gaming benchmarks all depend on your setup. And I fully agree, Bulldozer was not what we all expected, but it still does fine for everyday gaming. And for me personally it was a performance boost to go with a new AMD FX-8120 platform vs. my late PII x4 940 platform. The price was right and that was important for me. There was no way I would go back to Phenom II and I was itching for a upgrade.

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg10/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-deus-ex-human-revolution.html


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 21, 2012)

Steevo said:


> I'm just saying when a independant review with a card that is more than powerful enough to remove any GPU limitations is reviewed by an independant site that has a hell of a Admin running most of its tests shows results that entirely disagree with one test by one site.



Had the W1zzards review been done a couple of months from now I would have agreed with you, because the official driver would have been ready. But the validity of any review is based on its scrutiny, and if there isn't drivers available whom is to say the GPU was removing the CPU limitations as effectively as it should/could have.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 21, 2012)

Great Point.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jan 21, 2012)

WhiteLotus said:


> I want to know what IOMMU is.
> 
> Anyone?





DigitalUK said:


> its for VMWare etc to access graphics i believe?



No idea. I guess everyone here is to busy trying to bash each other to tell us.


----------



## Suhidu (Jan 21, 2012)

WhiteLotus said:


> I want to know what IOMMU is.
> 
> Anyone?



IOMMU(now called AMD-Vi) is a feature of the Northbridge (Supported by 890FX/990X/990FX). What it can do is allow you to access actual PCI(e) devices directly from a virtual machine, instead of only via the host OS (in which case the hypervisor(e.g., Virtualbox) would have to implement a virtualized version of the actual device, connect that to the VM, and then redirect all I/O of the actual device to/from the virtual device).

Here are some links about it, but most of what I know about IOMMU/AMD-Vi came from Googling and getting back mostly links to Wikipedia, tech news sites, AMD docs(though AMD doesn't release as many docs as Intel does), and forum discussions. (Also, motherboard BIOS manuals are available.)

(I don't know if I read these particular documents back when I looked it up.)

AMD Virtualization Technology (AMD.com)
Wikipedia - x86 Virtualization (Wikipedia.org) - Section I/O MMU virtualization (AMD-Vi and VT-d)
Optimal Virtualization with AMD Opteron™ 6000 Series Platform (AMD.com) - Some PDF that mentions AMD-Vi, search for it.)


Intel's counterpart is called VT-d. Intel makes this feature unavailable on most consumer CPUs/Motherboards(depending on where the northbridge is located). To contrast with AMD, all AM3(+) Athlon II, Phenom II, and FX CPUs support AMD-Vi when paired with an 890FX/990X/990FX board that supports it in BIOS (You can download+read the mobo bios manuals, and search the web for actual user experience).
(Opterons/Xeons (as well as most server boards) also support these features, however, these are less relevant to this discussion.)


----------



## Super XP (Jan 22, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> So does this mean AMD will change their sockets finally?


From what I've read, Socket AM3+ based Piledriver Cores will have Max 8-Core CPU's. But now with all this new info coming out of AMD, things have changed and now they are pushing 10-Core CPU's with Quad-Channel DDR3-1866 (Finally).

Why would AMD want to change it's socket? How would say Socket FM2 benefit over Socket AM3+? especially when AM3+ is serving it's purpose quite well.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 22, 2012)

Super XP said:


> From what I've read, Socket AM3+ based Piledriver Cores will have Max 8-Core CPU's. But now with all this new info coming out of AMD, things have changed and now they are pushing 10-Core CPU's with Quad-Channel DDR3-1866 (Finally).
> 
> Why would AMD want to change it's socket? How would say Socket FM2 benefit over Socket AM3+? especially when AM3+ is serving it's purpose quite well.



Its went to become a Platform war, Technically AMD could cut manufacturing costs by going with a Single Socket and Provide a slew of CPUs.

Llano (Hudson 75 Chipset) Supports 1866 so that means that chipset is a lil stronger than AM3 for ram support.


----------



## seronx (Jan 22, 2012)

FM2 has an integrated Northbridge and PCI-E 3.0(1x16 that can be done to 4x4 which is basically the speed of 4 x 8 PCI-E 2.0) support supposedly


----------



## spixel (Jan 22, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Had the W1zzards review been done a couple of months from now I would have agreed with you, because the official driver would have been ready. But the validity of any review is based on its scrutiny, and if there isn't drivers available whom is to say the GPU was removing the CPU limitations as effectively as it should/could have.


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 22, 2012)

spixel said:


> http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/13182343781D3JFR9LiH_4_2_l.gif



Whats your point. I can't read your mind you have to add some text to communicate your point.


----------



## spixel (Jan 22, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Whats your point. I can't read your mind you have to add some text to communicate your point.



You are doubting the results of wizzards review because of possible driver issues. This confirms wizzards review is correct and anandtechs is wrong.

Looking at the anandtech screenshot it looks like it might be an error as they have posted the results twice with the same resolution.


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 22, 2012)

spixel said:


> You are doubting the results of wizzards review because of possible driver issues. This confirms wizzards review is correct and anandtechs is wrong.



It's not that I doubt W1zzards review, I'm just saying beta drivers or unofficial drivers could have distorted 7970s true performance regardless of which CPU its running on. 

For all we know in W1zzards review Sandybridge might have been held back slightly due to lack of a proper driver.




spixel said:


> Looking at the anandtech screenshot it looks like it might be an error as they have posted the results twice with the same resolution



Maybe.

My feeling is with Anantech's review they used a Gulftown 6-core 990x  with 12 threads. Maybe the software  (Civilizations) wasnt coded to handle it, so the results were poor? But it is a strange result, personally I think its a glitch and the test should of been redone.


----------



## spixel (Jan 22, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> It's not that I doubt W1zzards review, I'm just saying beta drivers or unofficial drivers could have distorted 7970s true performance regardless of which CPU its running on.
> 
> For all we know in W1zzards review Sandybridge might have been held back slightly due to lack of a proper driver.
> 
> ...



Your a very skeptical person... 

In response to your edit... neither of that relates to the Bulldozers performance though, there is no way it should have reached 95 fps average so yes, its definitely an error in their benchmarks, hopefully not deliberately lol. Civilization is a very cpu demanding game but it seems having more cores does not help much, I saw in another review the i3 2120 having very similar fps to the i5 2500k however overclocking the cpu gives a large increase in fps.


----------



## alexsubri (Jan 22, 2012)

The data cache L1 should increase from 16 Kb to 32 Kb per core in the Piledriver. This would increase single thread performance. The prefetch has to be bigger otherwise the CPU is like a beast with very tiny claws. If there was a way to partner the cores in pairs so that one of them 'turns off' and boosts the other by allocating it's 64 Kb (not 32 Kb), this would result in 128 Kb (64/64 data instruction) and have new Turbo technology on top of that with reduced latency and quad Ram support with options to downgrade to dual channel via bios would make the Piledriver a winner. Let's hope AMD listens to consumer feedback because I am ready to jump ship.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 22, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> WOW.
> 
> I can't believe how badly the i7 990x got demolished, the FX 8150 performed twice as fast in Civalization V - is that game multi threaded or something?


I am bringing this up again, it depends on the hardware used. Both TPU and Anatech used different setups and updates, bioses, mobo's etc.

Bulldozer is a great gaming CPU, may not be the best but it still stands firmly with the rest.  I have high hopes for this Quad-Channel Piledriver CPU.


----------



## Patriot (Jan 22, 2012)

xaira said:


> how exactly do they plan to fit a g34 socket and 4 channels of memory on a single atx board?



I don't know...wait they have and it came out years ago... 
 Seriously google is not that hard to use...

SUPERMICRO MBD-H8SGL-F-O ATX Server Motherboard So...


G34 actually has quite a bit of headroom...almost a shame they didn't go that route...
I have some ES chips that if they were only octos could probably be clocked much higher than the 3ghz they are now... (magnycours)...



Super XP said:


> From what I've read, Socket AM3+ based Piledriver Cores will have Max 8-Core CPU's. But now with all this new info coming out of AMD, things have changed and now they are pushing 10-Core CPU's with Quad-Channel DDR3-1866 (Finally).


No....just no... lol
Server != Desktop
Server has 8 and 16 cores now and will have 10 and 20 cores then...
Server Already has quad channel... and I think desktop could use it...

There are 2 server sockets.... 
C32 which is a 2p almost copy of desktop with dual channel ram...  
It has 4 and 8 cores now....
G34 is 2 of the c32 dies on one package hence 8 and 16...

From the looks of it there will be 2 new server sockets next round.
Which means AM3+ may or may not get 10 cores...

Its time for an LGA desktop socket with quad channel ram...

I honestly think they should combine C32s replacement with desktop for next gen.



Super XP said:


> Why would AMD want to change it's socket? How would say Socket FM2 benefit over Socket AM3+? especially when AM3+ is serving it's purpose quite well.


Because its old and doesnt have enough bandwidth....
Fm2 is different  vastly and is meant for APUs ... a cheaper socket.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 23, 2012)

Another example where the FX-8150 stands its ground in gaming. Once again for Price/Performance, they make good CPU's.


----------



## seronx (Jan 23, 2012)

G2012 -> Octo-channel vs G34 -> Quad-channel
C2012 -> Quad-channel vs C32 -> Dual-Channel
FM2 -> Dual-channel vs No Change

Vishera AM3+
Komodo/Trinity FM2
Sepang C2012
Terramar G2012


----------



## Patriot (Jan 23, 2012)

seronx said:


> G2012 -> Octo-channel vs G34 -> Quad-channel
> C2012 -> Quad-channel vs C32 -> Dual-Channel
> FM2 -> Dual-channel vs No Change
> 
> ...




Sounds like the relationship between the sockets will stay... 
G34 is 2 dies of C32 2x dual channel = quad
G2012 being 2 dies of C2012 

Hmmm... looks like Vishera gets stuck with dual channel


----------



## Super XP (Jan 23, 2012)

Haven't you guys read the 1st post?  
Vishera gets Quad-Channel, which is one of the reasons for this thread.


----------



## seronx (Jan 23, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Haven't you guys read the 1st post?
> Vishera gets Quad-Channel, which is one of the reasons for this thread.
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/img/12-01-20/186a.jpg



Vishera won't be getting Quad Channel 

G34 is EOL once G2012 comes


----------



## Patriot (Jan 23, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Haven't you guys read the 1st post?
> Vishera gets Quad-Channel, which is one of the reasons for this thread.
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/img/12-01-20/186a.jpg



Yes and there are errors in it....and it clashes with the server roadmaps...


per first column IL has 4 channels not 2
per third column Terramar has 8 channels not 4

I don't think is accurate in the least...


----------



## Super XP (Jan 23, 2012)

AMD is making changes. I would take any roadmap with a grain of salt at this moment. 
I can easily see Quad-Channel memory for Piledriver Desktop CPU's. Bulldozer was suppose to be Quad, but AMD made last minute changes.

In order for AMD to further better compete, Piledriver may be fully based on there server CPU's but with AM3+ and/or FM2.


----------



## Patriot (Jan 23, 2012)

Super XP said:


> AMD is making changes. I would take any roadmap with a grain of salt at this moment.
> I can easily see Quad-Channel memory for Piledriver Desktop CPU's. Bulldozer was suppose to be Quad, but AMD made last minute changes.
> 
> In order for AMD to further better compete, Piledriver may be fully based on there server CPU's but with AM3+ and/or FM2.



you didn't read...

IL was never going to be dual and isn't dual.
That roadmap says it is...

IL IS bulldozer...
its a family

That slide is all sorts of mixed up.
I still don't think you understand current sockets or families of cpus.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 23, 2012)

I do understand, I get what you are saying now


----------



## seronx (Jan 23, 2012)

FX(Bulldozer) was fully based on the Server CPUs(Interlagos/Valencia) but was on AM3+

FX(Piledriver) will be based on the Server CPUs(Terramar/Sepang) but will be on *AM3+*/*FM2*/C2012(to satisfy certain somebodies)


----------



## OOZMAN (Jan 23, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> im bored of hearing how AMD need to trounce intel with their next cpu, what rubbish, it needs to be good enough to play games and surf plus a bit of transcodeing ,now and again for me and hence BD as it is would do so PD/vishera weva dosnt require 50%(daydreaming improvement),ive given up playing most of the games that run shit on it anyway (single threaded's so last decade),
> 
> all these people winging about BD better be folding or cryunching 24/7 as if your pc sits doing nowt while you workin then is only on to game and surf and your still moaning about BD your not right in the head, its like a cyclist moaning about car insurance going up wtf is the point
> 
> do these moaners have a CRAY in their bedroom NO, just an intel 2600K ,no doubt wasted on em



What on earth did you just say? 

"all these people winging about BD better be folding or cryunching 24/7 as if your pc sits doing nowt while you workin then is only on to game and surf and your still moaning about BD your not right in the head"

Still figuring that one out...



DigitalUK said:


> rubbish im on a 1090t @4ghz 3ghz Nb htt 2600 and i built a system for a customer the other day 8120p on cheaper 970 chipset overclocked to 4ghz on stock volts no other tweaks and the BD smoked mine , the main tests were 3dMark11 abit of memory testing etc. *no single thread tests tho.*



*facepalm*



Super XP said:


> Lol, Umm yes it can, it competes quite well and does well against the newer Intel CPU's in Gaming. AMD wins 4 - Intel wins 4. You do the math.
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/120121/AMD-4 Intel-4.jpg



You cut the productivity results out. 








Super XP said:


> Another example where the FX-8150 stands its ground in gaming. Once again for Price/Performance, they make good CPU's.
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/120122/Total War - Shogun 2.jpg



Ah yes, the old 'Look at this one screenshot of a random game from a random site that's not consistent with any other site's results of BD competing with Sandy, making it an overall equally good gaming CPU.'

Seen that one a few times...


----------



## Super XP (Jan 23, 2012)

OOZMAN said:


> What on earth did you just say?
> 
> "all these people winging about BD better be folding or cryunching 24/7 as if your pc sits doing nowt while you workin then is only on to game and surf and your still moaning about BD your not right in the head"
> 
> ...


I was comparing gaming benchmarks. Also find me other benchmarks from different sites with the same games Hardwareheaven used, and you will see results are similar.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 23, 2012)

To be fair, gaming (unless it really is a CPU hog like a strategy game with crazy unit amounts) shouldn't be how to determine if a CPU is good or not.


----------



## xenocide (Jan 23, 2012)

Super XP said:


> I was comparing gaming benchmarks. Also find me other benchmarks from different sites with the same games Hardwareheaven used, and you will see results are similar.



In the image posted comparing the 990x and BD CPU, you used the same Civ V result twice since it was one BD one, the listing clearly stacked up on Benchmarks that favoured BD.  Not to mention it was being compared to an older less efficient and powerful architecture.  Lets see what happens when we use the same source and compare CPU's that are in the same Price\Performance region;

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288

The i5-2500k beats it in every single game, and costs less.



pantherx12 said:


> To be fair, gaming (unless it really is a CPU hog like a strategy game with crazy unit amounts) shouldn't be how to determine if a CPU is good or not.



A good number of Computer Enthusiasts are gamers, so they walk hand in hand quite often.  For general purposes just about any CPU these days would work xD


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 23, 2012)

Lets not turn this into another vs thread shall we?



xenocide said:


> In the image posted comparing the 990x and BD CPU, you used the same Civ V result twice since it was one BD one, the listing clearly stacked up on Benchmarks that favoured BD.  Not to mention it was being compared to an older less efficient and powerful architecture.  Lets see what happens when we use the same source and compare CPU's that are in the same Price\Performance region;
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288
> 
> ...


----------



## xenocide (Jan 24, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> Lets not turn this into another vs thread shall we?



I'm not, just pointing out why his post was misleading.  I'm interested in seeing how well AMD can improve BD, which I think was very underwhelming.  Vishera should be interesting.


----------



## seronx (Jan 24, 2012)

xenocide said:


> I'm not, just pointing out why his post was misleading.  I'm interested in seeing how well AMD can improve BD, which I think was very underwhelming.  Vishera should be interesting.



They are not going to improve it the way you like it 

FMA is here to stay...


----------



## Super XP (Jan 24, 2012)

seronx said:


> They are not going to improve it the way you like it
> 
> FMA is here to stay...


In your Opinion. 

Piledriver is doing great, better than expected.
AMD increases performance of Trinity cores
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25628-amd-increases-performance-of-trinity-cores


----------



## nt300 (Jan 25, 2012)

Good to see AMD doing better with Piledriver


----------



## Super XP (Jan 30, 2012)

xenocide said:


> In the image posted comparing the 990x and BD CPU, you used the same Civ V result twice since it was one BD one, the listing clearly stacked up on Benchmarks that favoured BD.  Not to mention it was being compared to an older less efficient and powerful architecture.  Lets see what happens when we use the same source and compare CPU's that are in the same Price\Performance region;
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288
> 
> The i5-2500k beats it in every single game, and costs less.


Except 2 of them. And yes I fully agree when it comes down to Price/Performance the FX-8150 fails, but the FX-8120 does not due to the fact you can easily OC the sucker. Though overall platform cost Intel is approx" $100 to $200 more, though considering all the upgrades people do, that is not a lot of extra cash.


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 2, 2012)

Memory and cache latencies are too high and and the length of bulldozer's pipeline is just simply too long, which is why BD's IPC is horrible. The best way to do branch prediction is not having to do it in the first place, which a long pipeline doesn't help. Intel is perfectly happy with their (13 stage?) pipeline as everyone can see and they've perfected their branch predictor. Bulldozer has a long way to go if it ever wants to compete with SB and beyond.


----------



## sergionography (Feb 19, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Memory and cache latencies are too high and and the length of bulldozer's pipeline is just simply too long, which is why BD's IPC is horrible. The best way to do branch prediction is not having to do it in the first place, which a long pipeline doesn't help. Intel is perfectly happy with their (13 stage?) pipeline as everyone can see and they've perfected their branch predictor. Bulldozer has a long way to go if it ever wants to compete with SB and beyond.



having a long pipeline has nothing to do with olipc and doesn't mean it will have low ipc, its just that long pipelines allow for good scaling at high frequency, and that approach is usually taken to make smaller cores with lower resources, this approach is done when companies have manufacturing restrains or when wafers are limited and what not, in amds case its a bit of both and its cheaper because the die ends up smaller than making a full 8 core CPU with all big cores
Also its because amd is redefining cores while the shared resources in the modules are subject to be replaced with other solution, like the fpu unit to do floating point operations will be the job of the integrated gpu in the future, that explains why amd is focusing mainly on integer performance while on the gpu they are heading towards gpgph and x86 capability.

As for piledriver I have to note that it's said trinity core are already 25% faster than llano, when the highest trinity is clocked at 3.8 and highest lano being 3.0 that suggests the frequency brings most of that improvement + like 5-7% ipc assuming these numbers are accurate piledrivef is already 15%-20% faster than bulldozers ipc, and add to that it's ability to clock higher hopefully then there u got something


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 20, 2012)

sergionography said:


> having a long pipeline has nothing to do with olipc and doesn't mean it will have low ipc, its just that long pipelines allow for good scaling at high frequency, and that approach is usually taken to make smaller cores with lower resources, this approach is done when companies have manufacturing restrains or when wafers are limited and what not, in amds case its a bit of both and its cheaper because the die ends up smaller than making a full 8 core CPU with all big cores
> Also its because amd is redefining cores while the shared resources in the modules are subject to be replaced with other solution, like the fpu unit to do floating point operations will be the job of the integrated gpu in the future, that explains why amd is focusing mainly on integer performance while on the gpu they are heading towards gpgph and x86 capability.
> 
> As for piledriver I have to note that it's said trinity core are already 25% faster than llano, when the highest trinity is clocked at 3.8 and highest lano being 3.0 that suggests the frequency brings most of that improvement + like 5-7% ipc assuming these numbers are accurate piledrivef is already 15%-20% faster than bulldozers ipc, and add to that it's ability to clock higher hopefully then there u got something



Yes, but branch prediction on a longer pipeline is harder to make and harder to correctly predict. Lets say you miss-predict an instruction, now you have to dump EVERYTHING in the pipeline and start where you're supposed to be, so every extra stage you have you will have a performance hit. Intel has a small pipeline and have had this design since the Core/Core 2 series, 14 stages. All it takes is 1 miss-prediction on the branch predictor to make a large-pipeline system have garbage for performance. On top of that AMD's L2 and L3 are too big. If you read up, Intel's L3 is actually multiple L3s connected using a ring bus. So smaller segments to access have lower latency.

Also check out Intel's changes to their CPUs. Faster cache, improved branch prediction, power reductions. What is AMD doing? Focus on heterogeneous computing. The CPU market isn't quite ready for that.

Edit: Unless you're running a server. As a system admin I would *love* to get my hands on an Interlagos-based server.


----------



## sergionography (Feb 21, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Yes, but branch prediction on a longer pipeline is harder to make and harder to correctly predict. Lets say you miss-predict an instruction, now you have to dump EVERYTHING in the pipeline and start where you're supposed to be, so every extra stage you have you will have a performance hit. Intel has a small pipeline and have had this design since the Core/Core 2 series, 14 stages. All it takes is 1 miss-prediction on the branch predictor to make a large-pipeline system have garbage for performance. On top of that AMD's L2 and L3 are too big. If you read up, Intel's L3 is actually multiple L3s connected using a ring bus. So smaller segments to access have lower latency.
> 
> Also check out Intel's changes to their CPUs. Faster cache, improved branch prediction, power reductions. What is AMD doing? Focus on heterogeneous computing. The CPU market isn't quite ready for that.
> 
> Edit: Unless you're running a server. As a system admin I would *love* to get my hands on an Interlagos-based server.



well that is true but phenom for example was in order execution and had a shorter pipeline aswell just like intel but now bulldozer has out of order execution so that helps a bit, but over all your right, all these things need some good fine tuning which have huge impacts hence what we are hearing about trinity along with its improvements, not to mention amds years of R&D investing into bulldozer(if there wasnt something realy brilliant about it they wont even bother), bulldozer is a great architecture over all its just that amd failed at the execution mainly because i think they rushed it or were forced to do so(i have a believe that if you think rather small or realistic and succeed its better than thinking big and planning big then end up failing or doing a half job, which is what amd did), i think what they shouldve done is take the sharing thing slowly with less sharing on their first iteration untill bulldozer overall becomes familiar and that way they wont do such a dramatic change all at once because that has its downsides and with amd being in a really tough spot that makes it worse, but what do you expect from a company that didnt have proper management at the time, but owell i guess it is what it is, as for heterogeneous computing that is for 2014 and on, by then it should be doing good, not to mention amd is slowly moving there which. doing this will allow more potential out of hardware (now adays hardware is way ahead of software, as most software cant even utilize an old core2quad or phenom x4 properly with its full potential) just look at game consoles, they still come up with new titles that run on over 6-7 year old hardware while still being fairly good overall, while on computer you cant even run those games even on low res with hardware that old because most computer games are ported from console so they run less efficiently on it, heterogeneous computing in a way is a new standard presented by amd to software designers which helps utilize for the hardware.


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 22, 2012)

sergionography said:


> well that is true but phenom for example was in order execution and had a shorter pipeline aswell just like intel but now bulldozer has out of order execution so that helps a bit, but over all your right, all these things need some good fine tuning which have huge impacts hence what we are hearing about trinity along with its improvements, not to mention amds years of R&D investing into bulldozer(if there wasnt something realy brilliant about it they wont even bother), bulldozer is a great architecture over all its just that amd failed at the execution mainly because i think they rushed it or were forced to do so(i have a believe that if you think rather small or realistic and succeed its better than thinking big and planning big then end up failing or doing a half job, which is what amd did), i think what they shouldve done is take the sharing thing slowly with less sharing on their first iteration untill bulldozer overall becomes familiar and that way they wont do such a dramatic change all at once because that has its downsides and with amd being in a really tough spot that makes it worse, but what do you expect from a company that didnt have proper management at the time, but owell i guess it is what it is, as for heterogeneous computing that is for 2014 and on, by then it should be doing good, not to mention amd is slowly moving there which. doing this will allow more potential out of hardware (now adays hardware is way ahead of software, as most software cant even utilize an old core2quad or phenom x4 properly with its full potential) just look at game consoles, they still come up with new titles that run on over 6-7 year old hardware while still being fairly good overall, while on computer you cant even run those games even on low res with hardware that old because most computer games are ported from console so they run less efficiently on it, heterogeneous computing in a way is a new standard presented by amd to software designers which helps utilize for the hardware.



The Phenom series had a better IPC, however things need to be put into perspective. Bulldozer's "cores" aren't as efficient (IPC wise,) however you have more cores. This prevails in heavily multi-threaded tasks such as video encoding and benchmarks show the FX-8150 to be strong in these areas. The problem you run into is when you have an application (games are great examples of this being the primary issue for bulldozer) that only utilizes a handful of threads, you have the i7 prevailing because of the IPC.

Bulldozer didn't fail, it's just geared towards servers more than anything, because in server applications Valencia and Interlagos run without skipping a beat because you need to handle multiple clients (multi-process by design in most cases,) but for newer games on video cards as fast as the 7970, you will see (like on Crysis 2,) that the CPU benefit between the i7 2600k against the FX-8150 is minimal because it can harness the power bulldozer has.

Now to wrap up everything with one last piece of brain-food, if you have a Bulldozer CPU, watch your CPU utilization on applications that run relatively poorly (not to say it is running poorly, but relative to the 2(5/6)00k I'm willing to bet that the Bulldozer has more CPU time available in the background than Intel's chips do, which allows you to do things like video encoding while you play a video game. That is AMD's focus, and with Bulldozer looking strangely like a GPU design, I would guess that this is the first step towards a heterogeneous computing platform where separation of GPU and CPU (even at the die level,) doesn't exist, but that is incredibly far down the road, even now with bulldozer being a "flop."

As a system administrator, on a workstation I would rather have an FX-8150 because of the benefits 8-cores bring to a developer or admin. If I were gaming, I would rather have an i5 25(5/0)0k even though the i7 has more power, there are some cases where the i5 is faster than the i7 and I'm willing to bet that has to do with the size of the L3 cache (smaller tends to have lower latency), and if the machine did both, I would want an i7.

Edit: Out of order execution has been around for a long time and it really depends on the CPU implementation weather it needs to have it or not (with x86 it's practically a given.)

Edit 2: Once again I will re-iterate that the FX-8150 is adequate (but only adequate) for single tasks, but when you throw multi-tasking and multi-threading at it, that price point looks much better and much more reasonable. Also I will once again quote Guru3d's Hilbert Hagedoorn, "If anything, this little article proofs once again that investing money in a faster graphics card will gain you better game performance compared to investing in a faster CPU. The performance difference in-between a 1000 USD Core i7 3960X compared to a 320 USD Core i7 2600K processor is extremely small, something you'd never notice unless measured. So we say, stick to a modern mainstream quad-core processor and the differences really aren't that big in the overall framerate, especially at 1920x1080/1200. Yes we know it's that weird penumbra, the higher you go in resolutions, the slower your processor may be. Remember, once you pass 1920x1080/1200 the GPU is almost always the bottleneck, not your processor." Feel free to check out the CPU scaling review with the 7970 here: http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-cpu-scaling-performance-review/1


----------



## sergionography (Feb 22, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> The Phenom series had a better IPC, however things need to be put into perspective. Bulldozer's "cores" aren't as efficient (IPC wise,) however you have more cores. This prevails in heavily multi-threaded tasks such as video encoding and benchmarks show the FX-8150 to be strong in these areas. The problem you run into is when you have an application (games are great examples of this being the primary issue for bulldozer) that only utilizes a handful of threads, you have the i7 prevailing because of the IPC.
> 
> Bulldozer didn't fail, it's just geared towards servers more than anything, because in server applications Valencia and Interlagos run without skipping a beat because you need to handle multiple clients (multi-process by design in most cases,) but for newer games on video cards as fast as the 7970, you will see (like on Crysis 2,) that the CPU benefit between the i7 2600k against the FX-8150 is minimal because it can harness the power bulldozer has.
> 
> ...



well I mentioned bulldozer was a fail because it didnt meet amd's expectations, a bulldozer module is much buffer than a phenom II core in certain areas, and when it isnt sharing resources the idea was to get the benefits of a full core(bigger than that of phenom) 
however bulldozer is somewhat more efficient aswell considering some benchmarks where phenomII had more hardware for the required tasks yet bulldozer performed the same(im not sure if it was the alu's or something)
but overall i would say it just wasnt fine tuned enough
but i agree with you that bulldozer at its current state is good at servers and multitasking, but amd had more in mind, high frequency was one way to achieve good single thread, but amd had more in mind.

ive seen many reviews with people running bulldozer with every other core disabled(running each module as if its a core) and performance gains in ipc where impressive if you ask me, however amd didnt advertise that much because they expected higher frequencies with turbo, to were running 2 threads on a module allowing turbo to kick in will gain more performance than running the threads on 2 different modules, so instead of having 20%higher ipc amd will simply increace the frequency by 20% or more(however that goal was not achieved well as using turbo with one module or no turbo on 2 modules gave the same results)

also another note about the long pipeline and high latency is to allow the sharing, meaning while one integer core is idle waiting for the next cycle the other one would be receiving data from the shared resources in the module, this is how bulldozer achieves that 80% performance of a real core(or 80% the performance of the module) but like you said mispredictions and timing does cripple things a bit so amd should work on getting the perfect harmony between the hardware
once amd get things right with this architecture then you will get the perfect blend of multithread and single thread performance because if you ask me bulldozer is a very interesting architecture, if its done right non of the cpu parts would be running and wasting energy between the integer core cycles without doing any productive work


----------



## Super XP (Feb 23, 2012)

Holly Reading lol, both of you make great points.

Bulldozer is not a fail, it's just geared more for servers. AMD made an error with this, though I can see Piledriver fixing this and performing much better with even better thermals.


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 24, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Holly Reading lol, both of you make great points.
> 
> Bulldozer is not a fail, it's just geared more for servers. AMD made an error with this, though I can see Piledriver fixing this and performing much better with even better thermals.



Thank you.  I don't think piledriver's IPC will improve enough to catch up with IVB, however the more they optimize a module, the more cores they can shove on the same area. Multi-threading is the future.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 24, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Thank you.  I don't think piledriver's IPC will improve enough to catch up with IVB, however the more they optimize a module, the more cores they can shove on the same area. Multi-threading is the future.



We dont know anything at this point till its launched, n who knows Piledriver mayhave been in the works since bulldozer was launched n AMD market dept had no choice but to unveil Bulldozer.


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 24, 2012)

Piledriver isn't introducing major architectual changes, so it isn't possible for the IPC to me improved by that much unless the branch predictor and cache latencies really were worse than we previously thought.



eidairaman1 said:


> We dont know anything at this point till its launched,


True, but this is just another revision of the BD architecture so we can make some guesses.



eidairaman1 said:


> n who knows Piledriver mayhave been in the works since bulldozer was launched


It was, just like how Bulldozer has been in the works for the last 5 years or so, it takes a lot of time to develop a CPU.



eidairaman1 said:


> n AMD market dept had no choice but to unveil Bulldozer


Because SB came out? Maybe, but this was a huge project that was going to take multiple cpu iterations to work out the kinks. Saying that AMD has no choice is completely correct. Why would you develop a new CPU architecture and not release it? I'm not convinced you know what you're talking about. I would do some more research if I were you.

Honestly, if you learn what is actually going on in a BD module, you will see that each core simply doesn't do as many instructions per clock because of the hardware inside each module. The Phenom II was capable of 4 ops per clock per core, where BD only does 3 ops per clock per core. Now overall, the theoretical performance of 4 ops per clock on 4 or 6 cores is lesser or similar to 8 cores with 3 ops per clock, but this is only one of the many changes that alters how a CPU reacts under certain conditions and for single-threaded applications performance suffers. However if you look at all modern applications designed in anno 2011/2012 you will see that threading is becoming more and more prevalent and CPUs with more cores will validate where BD shines.

Once again, I've done a ton of research on Bulldozer, and it isn't a bad platform, it's just not designed for games, and certainly not games from a few years ago. However you will see games like Crysis 2 which can utilize 8 threads and you will see next to no improvement at resolutions of 1600x1200 and higher.

Reading benchmarks doesn't make you knowledgable of a platform, once again, do some research about what BD actually is, how it works, and why it suffers under certain workloads.

I will wrap this up by saying that AMD's total assets are just shy of 5 billion USD with approximately 11 thousand employees in 2010. Intel's total assets (as of 2010,) were over 71 billion dollars with just over 100 thousand employees. So tell me, who has more resources to develop a faster CPU? All things considered, I think AMD is doing damn well.

Cheers.


----------



## sergionography (Feb 25, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> True, but this is just another revision of the BD architecture so we can make some guesses.
> 
> 
> It was, just like how Bulldozer has been in the works for the last 5 years or so, it takes a lot of time to develop a CPU.
> ...



yes but amd was in such a bad shape financialy so 5 years for them wasnt even enough r&d




Aquinus said:


> Piledriver isn't introducing major architectual changes, so it isn't possible for the IPC to me improved by that much unless the branch predictor and cache latencies really were worse than we previously thought.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers.



in my opinion piledriver will actualy be what amd expected of bulldozer (a sandy bridge killer) it was only when amd got the real silicon that they realized this wasnt possible, thats y it was too late for the PR to go back, but my point is the engineers expected alot from bulldozer and im sure they did for a reason and im not only talking about multithreading performance.
however since ivy bridge is only a die shrink from sandy bridge maybe that will give amd some room to breath



Aquinus said:


> Because SB came out? Maybe, but this was a huge project that was going to take multiple cpu iterations to work out the kinks. Saying that AMD has no choice is completely correct. Why would you develop a new CPU architecture and not release it? I'm not convinced you know what you're talking about. I would do some more research if I were you.
> 
> Honestly, if you learn what is actually going on in a BD module, you will see that each core simply doesn't do as many instructions per clock because of the hardware inside each module. The Phenom II was capable of 4 ops per clock per core, where BD only does 3 ops per clock per core. Now overall, the theoretical performance of 4 ops per clock on 4 or 6 cores is lesser or similar to 8 cores with 3 ops per clock, but this is only one of the many changes that alters how a CPU reacts under certain conditions and for single-threaded applications performance suffers. However if you look at all modern applications designed in anno 2011/2012 you will see that threading is becoming more and more prevalent and CPUs with more cores will validate where BD shines.
> 
> ...



i encourage you to read these details again, it is phenom II that does 3 instructions per cycle while bulldozer does 4, however those 4 are shared between 2 integer cores, so in theory a bulldozer module is 25% faster than a phenom II core, and with the ability to reach higher frequencies, sandy bridge on the other hand does 5 instructions per cycle
thats in theory, however in reality both phenom II and sandy bridge are done so well that in practice they almost perform just like in theory, bulldozer on the other hand doesnt. however the fact that each integer core in practice performs better than a 2 instruction per cycle core in theory(considering 4ipc divided between 2 cores makes 2ipc per core) and closer to a 3 instruction per cycle core(10% slower than phenom II ipc) tells you that they are using less hardware for more performance which is a good start
but if they get the architecture closer to theory and the sharing becomes almost perfect in timing and whatnot, then you will get 4ipc per core with like 60% less hardware because this hardware in typical cpu's stays idle consuming enegry waiting for the next cycle on the integer core.
if that ever happens then clocking bulldozer 20% higher will match it with sandy bridge, but with less hardware meaning the ability to pack more cores in the die(that in reality this advantage will only even things out as intel almost always has the advantage in the manufacturing process)


----------



## xenocide (Feb 25, 2012)

Even if Piledriver is a "Sandy Bridge Killer", the problem will be in the fact that it took them almost 2 years to get it out.  Keep in mind, Sandy Bridge has been out for a year at this point, and Piledriver won't be out until the middle/end of this year.  Intel is in a great position to counter anything AMD throws at them.

I also don't understand why it keeps being speculated whether or not Zambezi was intended to be a "Server CPU" or "Server-Oriented", when they still marketed it as an Enthusiast CPU.  You don't compare an FX-8150 to a 990X unless you're trying to say it can compete in that segment, just like you wouldn't compare a Motorcycle to a Car.


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 25, 2012)

xenocide said:


> Even if Piledriver is a "Sandy Bridge Killer", the problem will be in the fact that it took them almost 2 years to get it out.  Keep in mind, Sandy Bridge has been out for a year at this point, and Piledriver won't be out until the middle/end of this year.  Intel is in a great position to counter anything AMD throws at them.



Unfortunately I have to agree with you, once again Intel has the resources to do this. AMD's resources are spread pretty thin, and unless AMD can pull a rabbit out of their hat, it's going to be very hard to dethrone Intel.



xenocide said:


> I also don't understand why it keeps being speculated whether or not Zambezi was intended to be a "Server CPU" or "Server-Oriented", when they still marketed it as an Enthusiast CPU.  You don't compare an FX-8150 to a 990X unless you're trying to say it can compete in that segment, just like you wouldn't compare a Motorcycle to a Car.



Zambezi wasn't designed as a server chip, it was designed to handle heavily threaded tasks and be able to still do things at the same time. Have you tried to play a video game and encode video at the same time on BD? Have you checked out how many free CPU resources BD has when you play a game? I bet not, but I agree, you can't compare the 990x and 3960x to the FX-8150. AMD might call it "enthusiast," but you have to understand that the market it is targeting is different. It's like the difference between a Honda Accord and a Dodge Viper SRT-10. It might be faster but you're paying 4 times more for it.

Once again everyone is ignoring what bulldozer is good at, multi-tasking and multi-threading. Maybe some multi-threaded benchmarks where different tasks are performed at the same time would show where BD can flex its muscles.

Now I'm just playing devils advocate, don't rip my head off for defending AMD, because AMD is a good company and they really are trying. Give it time, and don't forget, AMD isn't solely a CPU vendor so they have time to improve the architecture. As threading becomes more prevalent being able to squeeze more cores in the same area will be more useful than a higher IPC, because clocks can only go so high when using Si. Not to say IPC isn't important, but more "cores" can improve performance much more in applications that can utilize it.

Stop looking in the past and look at the future. Multi-core systems are everywhere and software vendors will want to take advantage of that. Also notice the i7 2600k's performance and the 2500k's performance. HyperThreading doesn't give you nearly a full core worth of performance, Bulldozer scales almost *LINEARLY*.

If AMD can work out the branch predictor issues and latency issues on the cache, it will be a very worth while platform for the price.

Edit: ...and Xeno, I'm not disagreeing with you, I completely agree. I'm just tired of people bashing Bulldozer where it really isn't a bad platform, there just isn't enough software to take advantage of it yet. A great example would be video encoding on 8 cores, it will keep up with the 2600k no problem.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 25, 2012)

xenocide said:


> Even if Piledriver is a "Sandy Bridge Killer", the problem will be in the fact that it took them almost 2 years to get it out.  Keep in mind, Sandy Bridge has been out for a year at this point, and Piledriver won't be out until the middle/end of this year.  Intel is in a great position to counter anything AMD throws at them.
> 
> I also don't understand why it keeps being speculated whether or not Zambezi was intended to be a "Server CPU" or "Server-Oriented", when they still marketed it as an Enthusiast CPU.  You don't compare an FX-8150 to a 990X unless you're trying to say it can compete in that segment, just like you wouldn't compare a Motorcycle to a Car.



just remember it took Intel some time after P4 to get anything worth a damn out.


----------



## xenocide (Feb 25, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> just remember it took Intel some time after P4 to get anything worth a damn out.



Then maybe you should also remember that was a company with what appeared to be endless resources, AMD doesn't have that liberty, what makes you think they will be able to quickly recover when Intel couldn't?  P4 still sold, even being a piece of crap, PD will still sell, even if it's a piece of crap.  AMD's livelihood as a CPU manufacturer kind of requires that PD be substantially better than BD, and if it's not, I don't know that they have the resources to keep at it on the scale that Intel does.



Aquinus said:


> Edit: ...and Xeno, I'm not disagreeing with you, I completely agree. I'm just tired of people bashing Bulldozer where it really isn't a bad platform, there just isn't enough software to take advantage of it yet. A great example would be video encoding on 8 cores, it will keep up with the 2600k no problem.



I understand, Bulldozer was designed for heavily threaded applications, but there's one problem--there aren't a lot of those.  What is the point in buying into an AMD platform that only competes with Intel's offerings when there are 8 threads present?  And even then it's only slightly better...maybe.  As I see it the lower end BD offerings are completely worthless.  Toms Hardware showed that the FX6100 bottlenecks ( Source ) graphics cards pretty easily, and the FX4xxx line fails to beat Phenom II in ANYTHING while costing about the same.

The FX-8xxx CPU's can be viable, but with Intel's offerings usually being just as cost-effective and often even more so, BD does seem like a pretty bad platform.  Hopefully they can fix all this with Piledriver, and software will start using more threads, but for the time being, it's just not a great offering.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 25, 2012)

as i speak my pcs got 1170 threads goin on , trust the worlds been multithreaded for a while , what you are getting confused with is 98% of software isnt made to use the features of 90% of peoples hardware but that will change.


by that time tho, well have other tech that isnt used yet, its called evolution, and before you start chatting that its worse then phenom etc etc, man evolved from ape yet comparitively were shit at climbing but i would not call man a FAIL nuff said

and if i was to buy an FXBD it wouldnt be so i can run poorly threaded software well ,it would be to run future and present multi threaded(properly) games like Bf3 etc


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 25, 2012)

xenocide said:


> Then maybe you should also remember that was a company with what appeared to be endless resources, AMD doesn't have that liberty, what makes you think they will be able to quickly recover when Intel couldn't?  P4 still sold, even being a piece of crap, PD will still sell, even if it's a piece of crap.  AMD's livelihood as a CPU manufacturer kind of requires that PD be substantially better than BD, and if it's not, I don't know that they have the resources to keep at it on the scale that Intel does.



A lot of people are buying a Zambezi chip, so that is true of AMD currently as well. BD might not be as good as Intel's chips, but plenty of people are buying it and are happy with it.




xenocide said:


> I understand, Bulldozer was designed for heavily threaded applications, but there's one problem--there aren't a lot of those.  What is the point in buying into an AMD platform that only competes with Intel's offerings when there are 8 threads present?  And even then it's only slightly better...maybe.  As I see it the lower end BD offerings are completely worthless.  Toms Hardware showed that the FX6100 bottlenecks ( Source ) graphics cards pretty easily, and the FX4xxx line fails to beat Phenom II in ANYTHING while costing about the same.



The dual module Zambezi chip is entry level, check out the price tag... but you're right, it's not amazing. Hence why people aren't buying it like they are with the 6xxx and 8xxx.



xenocide said:


> The FX-8xxx CPU's can be viable, but with Intel's offerings usually being just as cost-effective and often even more so, BD does seem like a pretty bad platform.  Hopefully they can fix all this with Piledriver, and software will start using more threads, but for the time being, it's just not a great offering.



Depends on what you're using it for. Each "core" on bulldozer does the same amount of work, where Intel's HyperThreading cores only result in an average of 30% improvement tops which show how sexy Intel's IPC is. However, since Bulldozer scales almost linearly and has advanced virtualization extensions (such as AMD's equivalent of virtualized directed I/O, something the K editions onthe 1155 platform do not have.) This benefits people who do video encoding and run virtual machines.

I play games, I run a lot of VMs, and I love my video and Zambezi (8-core of course,) would suit my purposes very well and should perform similarly to the 2600k for my purposes.

You also mensioned that not many applications use multiple threads, you're very correct... but it will not always stay that way. It is already changing and games like Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3 show little to no difference between CPUs.


----------



## Super XP (Feb 27, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> just remember it took Intel some time after P4 to get anything worth a damn out.


If it wasn't for AMD's Athlon 64 along with pushing innovation to the extreme, Intel would still be mucking around with say a Pentium 5 or 6. It was AMD that pushed Intel into what they have today.


----------



## xenocide (Feb 27, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Each "core" on bulldozer does the same amount of work, where *Intel's HyperThreading cores* only result in an average of 30% improvement tops which show how sexy Intel's IPC is.



And the major difference is that Intel doesn't call the extra threads HTing using individual cores, or claim to offer an 8-Core CPU when it's really a Quad-Core.  The debate over Cores and Modules has been had already so I'll end it there.  HTing is more just a nice boost on top of an already solid Architecture.  Per core performance of SB and Nehalem is substantially better than what BD offers.


----------



## sergionography (Feb 27, 2012)

xenocide said:


> And the major difference is that Intel doesn't call the extra threads HTing using individual cores, or claim to offer an 8-Core CPU when it's really a Quad-Core.  The debate over Cores and Modules has been had already so I'll end it there.  HTing is more just a nice boost on top of an already solid Architecture.  Per core performance of SB and Nehalem is substantially better than what BD offers.



because intel doesnt have dedicated hardware for threading while amd does
and because intel barely scales a maximum of 30% with hyperthreading while amd bulldozer scales 80% compared to the performance of a module running one thread


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 28, 2012)

xenocide said:


> And the major difference is that Intel doesn't call the extra threads HTing using individual cores, or claim to offer an 8-Core CPU when it's really a Quad-Core.  The debate over Cores and Modules has been had already so I'll end it there.  HTing is more just a nice boost on top of an already solid Architecture.  Per core performance of SB and Nehalem is substantially better than what BD offers.



True, the problem with your arguement is that when software does becoming exceedingly multi-threaded, you will have very large cores that don't scale as well. AMD is going to continue optimizing their modules to make them smaller, have different shared components and before you know it it will scale better than it already does and will support twice as many logical threads.

Yes, I said logical threads because you're right, BD doesn't have specific cores, it just has extra hardware to run two threads in tandem. Intel's HyperThreading doesn't even really run two threads in parallel using HT, it is just using unused parts of the CPU when certain instructions are being executed.

AMD created a module knowing that they could run two threads while only using a fraction of the die space of a real full blown core. Now as far as floating point ops are concerned, applications using FMA3 and other new FP extensions will enable BD to do two FP calculations instead of one because of the size of the floating point unit on BD. (2 single-precision ops or 1 double-precision op.)

When push comes to shove, BD is more scalable and Sandy Bridge has a better IPC.

Think for a moment though, AMD has time to improve their IPC now that they have a scalable platform. Intel's cores are huge and on a chip the size of a SB-E imagine how many modules AMD could fit on there.

Note: Intel will find out that once they hit 16nm that making their CPUs smaller will be rather difficult due to quantum tunneling, so they need to find out how to reduce the size of their cores before too long.


----------



## sergionography (Feb 28, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> True, the problem with your arguement is that when software does becoming exceedingly multi-threaded, you will have very large cores that don't scale as well. AMD is going to continue optimizing their modules to make them smaller, have different shared components and before you know it it will scale better than it already does and will support twice as many logical threads.
> 
> Yes, I said logical threads because you're right, BD doesn't have specific cores, it just has extra hardware to run two threads in tandem. Intel's HyperThreading doesn't even really run two threads in parallel using HT, it is just using unused parts of the CPU when certain instructions are being executed.
> 
> ...



exactly
and as amd modules become more optimized and reach better scaling you will end up with hardware that is running with every bit in it doing productive work
as you know its usualy the integer core doing most of the work while other hardware waits on it between its cycles, amd pretty much made a second integer core to receive data from the same hardware while the other integer core is crunching the data, so tuning these cores for the perfect latency to get this going will only mean scaling gets better
and as you said amd has so much room to improve ipc, for all you know they can pretty much create a module the size of 2 sandy bridge cores with 10 decoders and 512fpu or what not but that is exactly wat amd is moving away from.


----------



## xenocide (Feb 28, 2012)

You're basically just using "on paper" logic, and all that matters is real world results.  In all likelihood PD will be a 5-10% improvement which would put it's per thread performance somewhere above Phenom II, meaning AMD could further compete on workloads with 7+ threads.  They would need a huge boost (like 20%) in per thread performance to be on par with Intel offerings.


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 28, 2012)

xenocide said:


> You're basically just using "on paper" logic, and all that matters is real world results.  In all likelihood PD will be a 5-10% improvement which would put it's per thread performance somewhere above Phenom II, meaning AMD could further compete on workloads with 7+ threads.  They would need a huge boost (like 20%) in per thread performance to be on par with Intel offerings.



Since your old single-threaded games running over 60fps is really that important... AMD's chips work with old software and is practical for the future. Stop looking backwards at legacy software running faster than required. Intel and AMD make XOP and FMA3 for new software, not old. I think your argument is invalid for these reasons.

Imagine if ATi (now AMD) and nVidia kept using pixel and vertex pipelines. They had criticism because a shaders were slower than the pipelines, but they were smaller and resulted in overall better performance after a couple of generations. CPUs are no different.


----------



## sergionography (Feb 29, 2012)

xenocide said:


> You're basically just using "on paper" logic, and all that matters is real world results.  In all likelihood PD will be a 5-10% improvement which would put it's per thread performance somewhere above Phenom II, meaning AMD could further compete on workloads with 7+ threads.  They would need a huge boost (like 20%) in per thread performance to be on par with Intel offerings.



well every project starts "on paper" while real world performance is different depending on the margin of error, more enhancements keeps getting it closer to "on paper" and makes the margin of error smaller, bulldozer missed like 10% in ipc, and another 10-20% in clock speed which makes it about 30% slower than it was anticipated.
I would expect much more than 10% out of piledriver, I expect like 20% in ipc(the 10% that bulldozer missed, and the 10% that amd had in mind for pd) and if clockspeed hits the desired numbers then thats another 10-20% performance from higher clockspeed
and as scaling gets better and the architecture gets more optimized then multithreaded apps will perform even better than now

as for bulldozer it already exceeds phenom II except in certain cases using older instruction sets, but it clocks much higher so it still beats phenom II as you reach higher frequencies, comparing clock for clock isnt all practical since they are 2 different architectures


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 29, 2012)

sergionography said:


> well every project starts "on paper" while real world performance is different depending on the margin of error, more enhancements keeps getting it closer to "on paper" and makes the margin of error smaller, bulldozer missed like 10% in ipc, and another 10-20% in clock speed which makes it about 30% slower than it was anticipated.
> I would expect much more than 10% out of piledriver, I expect like 20% in ipc(the 10% that bulldozer missed, and the 10% that amd had in mind for pd) and if clockspeed hits the desired numbers then thats another 10-20% performance from higher clockspeed
> and as scaling gets better and the architecture gets more optimized then multithreaded apps will perform even better than now
> 
> as for bulldozer it already exceeds phenom II except in certain cases using older instruction sets, but it clocks much higher so it still beats phenom II as you reach higher frequencies, comparing clock for clock isnt all practical since they are 2 different architectures



I'm not saying that Bulldozer good, I'm saying the architecture will eventually out-pace Intel if AMD doesn't go bankrupt, which I think is highly unlikely, even more so since AMD is in the realm of video cards ever since the acquisition of ATi. Plus, AMD's APUs are catching on for the mainstream segment. You don't need a ton of CPU power to have a decent mainstream chip.

With all of this said, AMD is suffering in a *single* segment, high-end mainstream and enthusiast level chips which is the smallest portion of the market. Just wait and see what happens.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 1, 2012)

xenocide said:


> Even if Piledriver is a "Sandy Bridge Killer", the problem will be in the fact that it took them almost 2 years to get it out.  Keep in mind, Sandy Bridge has been out for a year at this point, and Piledriver won't be out until the middle/end of this year.  Intel is in a great position to counter anything AMD throws at them.
> 
> I also don't understand why it keeps being speculated whether or not Zambezi was intended to be a "Server CPU" or "Server-Oriented", when they still marketed it as an Enthusiast CPU.  You don't compare an FX-8150 to a 990X unless you're trying to say it can compete in that segment, just like you wouldn't compare a Motorcycle to a Car.


This is not the case. AMD can"t possibility compete with Intel and there massive R&D along with billions of $ in a head to head comparison.

It seems, AMD is building on it's strengths such as they did in the past with the Athlon 64. Capitalize on Intel's weaknesses to succeed.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 1, 2012)

Super XP said:


> This is not the case. AMD can"t possibility compete with Intel and there massive R&D along with billions of $ in a head to head comparison.
> 
> It seems, AMD is building on it's strengths such as they did in the past with the Athlon 64. Capitalize on Intel's weaknesses to succeed.



Partially correct. AMD knows that using their legacy design multi-core design isn't going to work. They're going to get to a point where the CPU can't get smaller. Silicon has limitations as far as circuitry size and design and AMD realizes that. By using shared components you reduce the amount of die space used while increasing the number of parallel computations that can be performed. Right now, single-threaded performance as a whole is leaps and bounds faster than it used to be.

Just because software doesn't use multiple threads doesn't mean that it won't. Applications tend to use hardware that is available, not hardware that *could* be available. As the number of cores increases, more and more software will use multiple threads. AMD took a gamble with a completely new CPU design, and you can't expect the first revision to work perfectly and keep up with an architecture that Intel has been working on for 6 years (yes, Intel's architecture all started with the Core 2 lineup) so Intel has a lead on what they already have.

You have to give AMD time to improve this architecture and you have to give software companies time to optimize their software to take advantage of it.

Finally with all of this said, yes, Bulldozer is slower than Sandy Bridge, but that isn't stopping users from buying it. Also keep in mind Intel had something like 85% of the market, even before Bulldozer came out. Take that number with a grain of salt though, I haven't checked these numbers for a couple years.


----------



## Covert_Death (Mar 1, 2012)

meirb111 said:


> The reason why bulldozer is  a joke is  because on the same clock with the same number of cores it has worse preformance than  a phenom ii not better how can a new 32nm cpu with the same number of cores be worse than 45nm cpu, amd had to be really stupid to do something like this.



clock speed doesn't matter at the end of the day though...

if AMD came out with a 20Ghz 4 core CPU that was SLIGHTLY better than a 2600k but SLIGHTLY cheaper, would you not buy it just because the clock to clock is shit? no, you'd be an idiot... if it runs better at out of box speed vs out of box speed that is what matters. that or Max clock vs Max clock. you can't compare 4ghz to 4ghz on different architectures, it just makes no sense, its completely stupid to do so.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 1, 2012)

Covert_Death said:


> clock speed doesn't matter at the end of the day though...
> 
> if AMD came out with a 20Ghz 4 core CPU that was SLIGHTLY better than a 2600k...



Too bad you're example is fail since silicon has an upper limit of something like 12ghz under extremely ideal circumstances (running a CPU at absolute zero, which is physically unachievable), but you're right, clock speed doesn't matter, but IPC and core count does. Improving each brings different benefits, and adding more cores and fitting it on the same die is the hard part. IPC is just optimization.


----------



## Inceptor (Mar 1, 2012)

sergionography said:


> ... comparing clock for clock isnt all practical since they are 2 different architectures



Now, if only every "enthusiast" understood that... 90% of posts in cpu threads would not have needed to exist.


----------



## Covert_Death (Mar 1, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Too bad you're example is fail since silicon has an upper limit of something like 12ghz under extremely ideal circumstances (running a CPU at absolute zero, which is physically unachievable), but you're right, clock speed doesn't matter, but IPC and core count does. Improving each brings different benefits, and adding more cores and fitting it on the same die is the hard part. IPC is just optimization.



lol yes i know 20Ghz was a little impossible but I believe you understood the message as it was intended


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 1, 2012)

Inceptor said:


> Now, if only every "enthusiast" understood that... 90% of posts in cpu threads would not have needed to exist.



Those aren't enthusiasts, those are people who want a faster computer and think if you have 4 cores at 4 ghz you can add the clocks and get 16ghz. No, these are people who *think* they know what they're talking about.

I'm trying to educate the population. I have a degree in Computer Science and I have a job as a Systems Administrator, what do you all have and do for work? 



> lol yes i know 20Ghz was a little impossible but I believe you understood the message as it was intended


I know, some of the things I read here just annoy me. If people are really interested in this stuff, they should be trying to learn what is really going on instead of trying to show how big their e-peen is... they would be wise to listen.


----------



## Inceptor (Mar 1, 2012)

sergionography said:


> Those aren't enthusiasts, those are people who want a faster computer and think if you have 4 cores at 4 ghz you can add the clocks and get 16ghz. No, these are people who think they know what they're talking about.



That's why I put quotations around the word 'enthusiast'.
Keep it up!  It's refreshing to have someone who actually knows what they're talking about posting on these forums instead of the usual know-next-to-nothing gamers. 
I don't have a degree in computer science, I'm just a dilettante trained in logical argument and analysis, learning, and refining what I learn here, as I go.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 1, 2012)

Inceptor said:


> That's why I put quotations around the word 'enthusiast'.
> Keep it up!  It's refreshing to have someone who actually knows what they're talking about posting on these forums instead of the usual know-next-to-nothing gamers.
> I don't have a degree in computer science, I'm just a dilettante trained in logical argument and analysis, learning, and refining what I learn here, as I go.



I'm more than happy to explain anything that I can. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not the all knowing of computer architecture, I just know how it works, I'm not an electrical engineer so my knowledge stops there, however I will do the best I can and I will admit when I'm not sure about something.

There is no sigma towards wanting to learn more or wanting to know how the stuff works. I just ask the these people ask instead of trying to interpret what it says on their own. There are people here who are willing to give their professional "6-sense".

Granted this thread is starting to run off topic and I think every angle has just about been hit. I would like to ask a moderator to lock this thread if no one has anything extra to add. 

Edit: Inceptor, I like your signature.


----------



## Inceptor (Mar 1, 2012)

It'll be locked eventually, since it's starting to step into well trodden territory on this archtitecture.  But only if some incredibly stupid comments are posted.




Aquinus said:


> Edit: Inceptor, I like your signature.



Thanks


----------



## nt300 (Mar 9, 2012)

AMD FX 8350 Vishera CPU production in Q3 
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/26253-amd-fx-8350-vishera-cpu-production-in-q3


> AMD FX8350 should upgrade the performance of AMD top category and Vishera cores are promising some *better performance at the same clock.*


20% IPC improvement clock 4 clock over the Bulldozer is very impressive.  
I am taking 20% based on the upcoming Trinitys base Piledrier CPUs. So the desktop should end up faster.


----------



## xenocide (Mar 9, 2012)

nt300 said:


> AMD FX 8350 Vishera CPU production in Q3
> http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/26253-amd-fx-8350-vishera-cpu-production-in-q3
> 
> 20% IPC improvement clock 4 clock over the Bulldozer is very impressive.
> I am taking 20% based on the upcoming Trinitys base Piledrier CPUs. So the desktop should end up faster.



Nowhere in that article does it say 20%.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 9, 2012)

xenocide said:


> Nowhere in that article does it say 20%.



I'm going to say the same thing I've been saying about everything said about Kepler.
"Got a source?"


----------



## Inceptor (Mar 9, 2012)

nt300 said:


> am taking 20% based on the upcoming Trinitys base Piledrier CPUs.



I think that he was just making a guess based on his own thinking, rather than citing concrete information about Vishera's performance that he read somewhere.
An inference, if you will, from the as yet unconfirmed performance boost that Trinity has over Llano, and then applying some special-opinion sauce to that to speculate on the performance of the Vishera core optimizations.

There, that sounds better.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 9, 2012)

Wow, 20% in a nice rounded number. It does say somewhere Trinity should be about 20% performance via CPU over LIano.


----------



## Bvanofferen (Apr 19, 2012)

*What matters most AMD vs Intel*

So Clock 4 Clock performance is crazy to consider when purchasing a PC.  Cores,  Cache and Ghz for the $ it costs.  If you over clock then watts and voltage, unlocked or locked.  Memory controller speed and channels all count too.  Core architecture performance is almost always quickly optimized by software. Instruction sets get utilized and better drivers get published. Last but not least PLATFORM!  I think the main let down with bulldozer is that AMD fans were expecting Zambezi to thoroughly out perform the 2600k.  AMD showed a couple of tests with the 7970's that gave better frame rates then sandybridge and handbrake is better on FX.  But the 2600k out performs FX quite a bit in soo many areas.  SOOOOO WHAT.  It costs more!!!  And The AM3+ Platform has way more potential then 1155. And 1155 costs more.  Upgradability, price for performance and mufti-threaded architecture way beyond sandybridge. That's why they code named it "BULLDOZER".  FX can park 7 cores. Power consumption???  Is out performing sandybridge with another $1000 chip really the only thing that matters?  For less then 1/10 of 1% of pc's it does.  That's right less then 1/10 of 1% of pc's run more then the 8150 can currently process. We don't need another $1000 chip.  We need $200 chips on a platform that can give us 10 good years of pc power. Spend $2000, or so, on a PC every 3-4 years with intel to stay on top or spend $2000 once and a couple hundred every 3-4 years to stay on top with AMD. 1155 Sandybridge chips will be far behind am3+ chips in two years.  Guess Intel boys will have to use it as a coaster and take out another mortgage to upgrade.  American consumerism is way better off with AMD.  And so is my rig  PS my FX-6100 rig gets 8900 on passmark at 5GHZ with a $20 CAFA70 cooler. I paid $250 for FX-6100 and TA990fxe. I wonder what a 10 core pile driver chip will get in my rig in a few years.  15000 seems reasonable.


----------



## Patriot (Apr 19, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> So Clock 4 Clock performance is crazy to consider when purchasing a PC.  Cores,  Cache and Ghz for the $ it costs.  If you over clock then watts and voltage, unlocked or locked.  Memory controller speed and channels all count too ....
> fanboi drool... unsuported ...  wishful thinking... misguided logic ... combining server and desktop roadmaps ... I paid $250 for FX-6100 and TA990fxe. I wonder what a 10 core pile driver chip will get in my rig in a few years.  15000 seems reasonable.



I think you should consider decaf ...
Either troll or hapless fanboi...

Anyhow, I hope AMD does pull this one out...  FX are not bad chips, just fall pathetically short of the hype.  For many applications you will not notice if your running on them or not.

But the fact is currently a 2500k will beat an fx rig in cost and in performance.
IB doesn't look so promising so AMD may be able to narrow the gap here.

I am seriously wondering why people pull this 10core number out of their ass...
On desktop Piledriver is 8 not 10... on server it stays the same as IL 4,8,12,16 core variants... though who knows they may trim it down a bit.

That said I have an i5 laptop and a 2p MC for my daily drivers and a 4p MC for folding (find me a machine faster than harbringer for folding).
AMD has work to do, but they will survive.  SB-E is not that great power/perf and IB is looking to be a poor oc...


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 19, 2012)

OOOKay sooo my main issues here are the following:
1. The spec's listed are Pre-Vishera, the 10 core was a "komodo" FM2 socket designation, before AMD's new CEO got his position, and canceled Komodo in favor of an 8 core AM3+ socket compatible design.  And hence dual-channel RAM.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5491/amds-2012-2013-client-cpugpuapu-roadmap-revealed
2. Phenom II IPC is only 20% behind sandy Bridge.  As Trinity appears to have the same IPC as Phenom II, despite lacking L3 cache, it can be probable to assume that Piledriver will perform to near sandy bridge IPC, while clocking much higher.
3. This says nothing of the Resonant clock mesh AMD has already stated will be present on Piledriver, increasing power efficiency/clock.
4. Outdated information is outdated.


----------



## Melvis (Apr 19, 2012)

All i want is a (i dont care how many cores it has) AMD CPU to perform around the same as a 2600K (like Bulldozer was meant to) then id be very happy, that to much to ask for?


----------



## xenocide (Apr 19, 2012)

Vulpesveritas said:


> 2. Phenom II IPC is only 20% behind sandy Bridge.  As Trinity appears to have the same IPC as Phenom II, despite lacking L3 cache, it can be probable to assume that Piledriver will perform to near sandy bridge IPC, while clocking much higher.



The IPC won't be the same, it will still be pretty far behind Sandy Bridge.  In this topic it is revealed Piledriver will have about the same Int\GHz as Stars.  This might put it closer to SB, but definitely won't be at the same level.  According to that chart SB's FP/GHz is 25% higher and Int/GHz is also 25%+ higher than PD-based Trinity.  This is just like Pentium 4, AMD can't make the architecture a ton better, so they are cranking the clock rates as high as they can go.



Vulpesveritas said:


> 3. This says nothing of the Resonant clock mesh AMD has already stated will be present on Piledriver, increasing power efficiency/clock.



According to most articles on the subject RCM will only really allow for higher clocks with a lower power draw, it doesn't increase performance by itself, just performance per watt.  It's part of the reason PD is going to be clocked so high.


----------



## Bvanofferen (Apr 19, 2012)

You still can't rule out a 10 core piledriver/steamroller am3+ or am4 (quad channel) chip that works on am3+. So outdated is jumping the gun, most likely delayed to keep am3+ the performance platform rather than FM2.  An FX-8120 vs i5-2500k is proof of price performance in AMD favor.  Anyone care to comment on the upgradable platform advantage AMD has over Intel? Or are we going to talk about coffee. Bulldozer wasn't meant to outperform the 2600k in every app.  New architecture rarely outperforms high end current architecture. But in sub $200 chips FX has a big advantage over Intel. And the 8150 runs right where it should between 2500k and 2600k unless you do video conversion then FX has the advantage.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 19, 2012)

xenocide said:


> The IPC won't be the same, it will still be pretty far behind Sandy Bridge.  In this topic it is revealed Piledriver will have about the same Int\GHz as Stars.  This might put it closer to SB, but definitely won't be at the same level.  According to that chart SB's FP/GHz is 25% higher and Int/GHz is also 25%+ higher than PD-based Trinity.  This is just like Pentium 4, AMD can't make the architecture a ton better, so they are cranking the clock rates as high as they can go.
> 
> 
> 
> According to most articles on the subject RCM will only really allow for higher clocks with a lower power draw, it doesn't increase performance by itself, just performance per watt.  It's part of the reason PD is going to be clocked so high.


Okay well, 1. Integer performance is, at least to my knowledge,  what matters most of the time in a CPU.  With integer performance being the same as STARS without L3, then it may be 10-20% faster clock for clock when it is added( note- i said as fast or almost,  i.e. slightly slower clock for clock but not much) , and with stock clocks being 20-30% higher at stock vs SB/IB, it should compete nicely. 
And yes that RCM makes it clock higher/watt.  It may mean it becomes a high end OC chip, if it can clock into the upper 5ghz range on water, and will give AMD an overall fully competitive mainstream chip.  Also, if I remember correctly part of the turn to BD architecture was because PII couldn't be improved much more, and they wanted better power efficiency. 
1st gen failed at that, though I'm hoping Piledriver gives them a competitive edge, and means we can recommend AMD again, and the fanboy war debates with no good answer one way or the other can commence.


----------



## xenocide (Apr 19, 2012)

Vulpesveritas said:


> Okay well, 1. Integer performance is, at least to my knowledge,  what matters most of the time in a CPU.  With integer performance being the same as STARS without L3, then it may be 10-20% faster clock for clock when it is added( note- i said as fast or almost,  i.e. slightly slower clock for clock but not much) , and with stock clocks being 20-30% higher at stock vs SB/IB, it should compete nicely.
> And yes that RCM makes it clock higher/watt.  It may mean it becomes a high end OC chip, if it can clock into the upper 5ghz range on water, and will give AMD an overall fully competitive mainstream chip.  Also, if I remember correctly part of the turn to BD architecture was because PII couldn't be improved much more, and they wanted better power efficiency.
> 1st gen failed at that, though I'm hoping Piledriver gives them a competitive edge, and means we can recommend AMD again, and the fanboy war debates with no good answer one way or the other can commence.



Stars didn't have L3 Cache either I believe.  The addition of said Cache will only give a modest 3-5% performance boost anyway, definitely NOT 10-20%.  I think Clock for Clock SB will still be better.  Piledriver--and Vishera by extension--is basically shaping up to have the performance of Phenom II (when it comes to per Core\per thread) but a much better IMC and  hopefully better power consumption this time around.

I have no doubt they will reach 5GHz on Water, probably be able to do that on Air if the stock clocks are so high.  I just don't see Piledriver shaping up to be better than or even on par for Sandy Bridge, let alone Ivy Bridge (which is something like 8% faster in most applications while overclocking a little less and generating slightly more heat).  The big issue is AMD really needs to figure out how to get their "Tock's" on the shelves correctly.  It seems like the first version of the last couple CPU's AMD has made (Phenom I, Bulldozer) have been riddled with problems, but they usually have a decent second round.  If they want to be competative their first go has to work as well as Intel (Sandy Bridge etc.).


----------



## Bvanofferen (Apr 24, 2012)

A thought I have, that comments would be much appreciated on, is latency in FX Cache being looser then Phenom and sandybridge.  Is this causing the low IPC and clock per clock performance ratio?  The way I understand latency is that to achieve the best throughput on ram looser latency can achieve much higher Clock speeds and achieve better overall results but the clock per clock results go down.  This idea occurred to me because the results I'm having with my fx-6100 is 6000-6400 Physics score @ 4.6-5.0ghz with corsair CAFA70 on 3dmark11 with a single 6870.  This is better overall result then Thurban and the 2500k would need a much better cooler (water) to substantially out perform my results. I'm pretty sure the 2500k would only hit 4.2-4.4 with the same cooler. So if I'm right FX IPC is less yet better because of the higher overall results when overclocking on air.  Comments?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 24, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> A thought I have, that comments would be much appreciated on, is latency in FX Cache being looser then Phenom and sandybridge.  Is this causing the low IPC and clock per clock performance ratio?  The way I understand latency is that to achieve the best throughput on ram looser latency can achieve much higher Clock speeds and achieve better overall results but the clock per clock results go down.  This idea occurred to me because the results I'm having with my fx-6100 is 6000-6400 Physics score @ 4.6-5.0ghz with corsair CAFA70 on 3dmark11 with a single 6870.  This is better overall result then Thurban and the 2500k would need a much better cooler (water) to substantially out perform my results. I'm pretty sure the 2500k would only hit 4.2-4.4 with the same cooler. So if I'm right FX IPC is less yet better because of the higher overall results when overclocking on air.  Comments?



FX requires such a high clock speed to achieve what a Core i or Phenom II can with lower clocks, because Single Thread IPC is higher on the phenom II and core i. Only time a FX will pull ahead is in heavily threaded tasks but thats primarily in servers


----------



## Bvanofferen (Apr 24, 2012)

Is having an FX chip that can overclock to higher levels with low ipc, just as good or even better when the clock level outweighs the low ipc? It seems that the FX can pull ahead on air unless your only using 4 threads at all times.  When i game (dragon age II) All six cores light up.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 24, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> Is having an FX chip that can overclock to higher levels with low ipc, just as good or even better when the clock level outweighs the low ipc? It seems that the FX can pull ahead on air unless your only using 4 threads at all times.  When i game (dragon age II) All six cores light up.



not if they get hotter than the other chips, this chip is pretty much like what Prescott was to Intel, it Clocked High but was hot.

IPC rules over clock speed


----------



## xenocide (Apr 24, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> not if they get hotter than the other chips, this chip is pretty much like what Prescott was to Intel, it Clocked High but was hot.
> 
> IPC rules over clock speed



As well as causes massive power consumption which puts a lot more strain on the system.  I think you shouldn't need to overclock the crap out of a CPU for it to be competative personally.


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 24, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> because Single Thread IPC is higher



IPC = Instructions per clock, if Bulldozer is slower at the same clock speed then the IPC would be *lower* not higher.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 24, 2012)

xenocide said:


> As well as causes massive power consumption which puts a lot more strain on the system.  I think you shouldn't need to overclock the crap out of a CPU for it to be competative personally.



i was trying to explain that to the other guy.

Both Phenom 2 and Core i architectures are superior than the bulldozer arch, Overclocking is only a plaything. 



Aquinus said:


> IPC = Instructions per clock, if Bulldozer is slower at the same clock speed then the IPC would be *lower* not higher.



I did say IPC on the Phenom II and Core i are higher than bulldozer hence the abysmal performance numbers tested even here.

Re-read the post.


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 24, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> Re-read the post.



Read that out of order, my bad.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 24, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Read that out of order, my bad.



Ok thanks, and for the poster that was askin about bulldozer and anyone else who wants to know

Intel CPUs:

Clock Speed Based (include 1st Gen Netburst) (Low IPC)

8086
8088
286-486DX
Pentium 1
Pentium 4 (P4 Based Xeon, Celeron)
Pentium D

P6 Based (Include Core) (High IPC)
Pentium Pro
Pentium 2 (Celeron)
Pentium 3 (P3 Based Xeon, Celeron)
Core
Core 2
Core i (P6 with 2nd Gen Netburst)

unknown Intel Part
Ivy Bridge-E


AMD CPUs:

Clock Speed Based

8080
D8086
Am286-Am486 (Slighty higher IPC than Intel parts)
K10 Phenom 1 (Including Phenom 1 Based Opterons, Athlon, Sempron)
Bulldozer (Including Bulldozer based Opterons)

High IPC Parts

Am586
K6-K6III
K7 (Geode, Duron, Sempron, Athlon, Athlon XP)
K8 (Athlon 64, Athlon 64 FX, Athlon 64 X2, Opteron, Sempron)
K10.5 (Phenom II, Opteron, Athlon II, Sempron)

Unknown AMD Parts
Piledriver
Opteron 3200


----------



## Bvanofferen (Apr 25, 2012)

Thanks for the feedback everybody.  Being able to overclock the crap out of a chip shouldn't be it's main feature and performance competitive edge.  Which is also what I've found with my fx-6100.  It seems this is what AMD is doing though i.e.  Pairing a 8150 at normal speed with a h100 style water cooler.  It's like a billboard saying "I need to be blue screened until every last mhz is found!"


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 25, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> Thanks for the feedback everybody.  Being able to overclock the crap out of a chip shouldn't be it's main feature and performance competitive edge.  Which is also what I've found with my fx-6100.  It seems this is what AMD is doing though i.e.  Pairing a 8150 at normal speed with a h100 style water cooler.  It's like a billboard saying "I need to be blue screened until every last mhz is found!"



thats what marketing touted it as. It runs for what it does. I mean honestly are you happy with it?


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 25, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> I mean honestly are you happy with it?


I would be happy with it in a server, it also won't break the bank if you get it for a server too, in comparison to 1,300+ USD for an 8-core Xeon chip.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 25, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> I would be happy with it in a server, it also won't break the bank if you get it for a server too, in comparison to 1,300 USD+ 8-core Xeon chips.



thats what they were derived from of course


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 25, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> thats what they were derived from of course



The architecture was built with multi-threading in mind, yeah, but actually Interlagos is two 4-module BD dies put on the same silicon. It's basically 2x8150 clocked lower with a lower turbo, but think of the server power of just two of these 16-core chips. 32-cores for the price of 16 xeon threads. I have a feeling that Intel's cheapest 8-core offering won't keep up two decent Interlagos chips for server or heavily multithreaded workloads. At least AMD is doing something right.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 25, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> The architecture was built with multi-threading in mind, yeah, but actually Interlagos is two 4-module BD dies put on the same silicon. It's basically 2x8150 clocked lower with a lower turbo, but think of the server power of just two of these 16-core chips. 32-cores for the price of 16 xeon threads. I have a feeling that Intel's cheapest 8-core offering won't keep up two decent Interlagos chips for server or heavily multithreaded workloads. At least AMD is doing something right.



just didnt translate to the desktop market, now Piledriver should fix somethings. The next one after Piledriver should be what Bulldozer should have truly been


----------



## Bvanofferen (Apr 25, 2012)

I am very pleased with the fx-6100.  I am speaking as an avid overclocker.  I purchased the chip that would give me the most performance potential for video editing/converting and gaming on air along with longevity on the platform ie keep the same mobo and upgrade ram/hdd/gpu/cpu/pws individually as tech improves.  I really considered the 81xx yet I believe that the 6100 overclocks higher thus making the per thread performance better and overall performance marginal.  Plus the price was right.  Water cooling gains didn't impress me over a good air heat-sink considering the cost and durability.  I do plan to upgrade the 6100 when AMD puts out a CPU with 2x the power for $200ish.  I couldn't rationalize spending about $1500, when this rig was $850, for intel to get the i7-3820, which to me was the next reasonable performance improvement along with an upgradable platform.  If there was a good chance 1155 was going to see twice the performance as the 2500k (for $200ish) and was say $50 bucks less I would have went with Intel.  This all sounds really good in my head, comments?


----------



## Inceptor (Apr 25, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> I am very pleased with the fx-6100.  I am speaking as an avid overclocker.  I purchased the chip that would give me the most performance potential for video editing/converting and gaming on air along with longevity on the platform ie keep the same mobo and upgrade ram/hdd/gpu/cpu/pws individually as tech improves.  I really considered the 81xx yet I believe that the 6100 overclocks higher thus making the per thread performance better and overall performance marginal.  Plus the price was right.  Water cooling gains didn't impress me over a good air heat-sink considering the cost and durability.  I do plan to upgrade the 6100 when AMD puts out a CPU with 2x the power for $200ish.  I couldn't rationalize spending about $1500, when this rig was $850, for intel to get the i7-3820, which to me was the next reasonable performance improvement along with an upgradable platform.  If there was a good chance 1155 was going to see twice the performance as the 2500k (for $200ish) and was say $50 bucks less I would have went with Intel.  This all sounds really good in my head, comments?



1)By the time AMD has a cpu core design that doubles Bulldozer/Phenom II performance, your motherboard will be obsolete and useless.

2)The i7-3820 is socket 2011, not 1155; it is comparable to the i7-2600K\2700K  (LGA 1155) in performance.  If you wanted to wait for much better performance, in an upgrade, you were better off spending some more money and buying a LGA 2011 board and an i7-3820, then waiting for Ivy Bridge Extreme chips to be released 10-11 months from now.

3)As of now, Piledriver is the best you can hope for on AM3+, and it will not be a massive performance improvement, maybe +25% at equivalent power consumption (at most).  There is no guarantee that Steamroller will be released as a discrete non-igpu cpu for AM3+, AMD has not released its roadmap for the future beyond Piledriver on AM3+.  Piledriver may be the last discrete consumer cpu manufactured by AMD --- after that it might only be APUs, and I think it'll be a while before the process node is small enough to fit 3 cpu modules onto an APU, so it'll be quad core --- unless the fusion thing gives a huge overall performance boost.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Apr 25, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> I am very pleased with the fx-6100.  I am speaking as an avid overclocker.  I purchased the chip that would give me the most performance potential for video editing/converting and gaming on air along with longevity on the platform ie keep the same mobo and upgrade ram/hdd/gpu/cpu/pws individually as tech improves.  I really considered the 81xx yet I believe that the 6100 overclocks higher thus making the per thread performance better and overall performance marginal.  Plus the price was right.  Water cooling gains didn't impress me over a good air heat-sink considering the cost and durability.  I do plan to upgrade the 6100 when AMD puts out a CPU with 2x the power for $200ish.  I couldn't rationalize spending about $1500, when this rig was $850, for intel to get the i7-3820, which to me was the next reasonable performance improvement along with an upgradable platform.  If there was a good chance 1155 was going to see twice the performance as the 2500k (for $200ish) and was say $50 bucks less I would have went with Intel.  This all sounds really good in my head, comments?






Need to see the specs on your head
seriously.....you bought what makes you happy....all that matters


----------



## Bvanofferen (Apr 26, 2012)

AMD's future chips have real potential to double my fx-6100 on the am3+ platform. I know AMD cancelled the 10 core piledriver for release this year, but am3+ is PD's socket.  Say PD's IPC goes up 20% (and doesn't reduce overclock speed), RCM gives 15% more overclock speed and I buy an eight core rather the six. With the added heat and watts of two more cores I lose 10% overclock speed. I'm still looking at a 50% increase available in a few months. Now give them a couple years. It would be a bummer if AMD changed how they advance sockets. I doubt they designed PD for am3+, instead of only FM2, without the plan for AM4  Putting an am4 cpu in my rig some day is partly why I stayed with AMD. FMx for on die graphics and AMx for no graphics?  Send me an fx-8370 or a fx-10370 and we'll know for sure!

Also, for converting my 1080 60i video and bluray authoring, my rig is great. I put the source file on an hdd and output file on an ssd and cpu load runs 60-90%. Minute for minute is the slowest conversion i've seen and 10 to 1 for Hidef to Stdef. I just had a baby girl so lots of videos! She wakes up a lot at night so gaming keeps me awake for the 1st shift of feedings.

I am well aware of the intel sockets..... Think outside the Intel box man.  1155 has little chance to double the 2500k performance (for $200ish cpu) but 2011 performance currently does and will hopefully go far beyond that.  I want to be able to double my performance with a drop in cpu upgrade someday for $200. And basically 2011 is too expensive and 1155 may be maxed out with Ivybridge. So I didn't go with intel.  AMD in 2-3 years, i'm hoping, has a $200ish cpu that will double the fx-6100.  RCM, more cores (I still think 10 core am4 is the direction) and yes I surrender, higher IPC sets the stage.   

As far as heat goes on my fx-6100, prime 95 for 3 min is the only thing, thus far, that puts it above 60 C at 4.7ghz. It runs warm at high clock speeds on air, but not super hot.  I've had it to 74C before crashing with prime 95 @ 5.2.  I can get errors above 4.7 on prime 95 but not overheating until 5.2 or heavy voltage.

my head specs are as follows:
4 lobe graymatter (low IPC)
hyperthreading left/right brain
35 solar passes of memory
turbo caffeine 2x (i like espresso)
opsys: UN of WIS


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 26, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> my head specs are as follows:



Don't lie! Everybody knows that you're really a robot.


----------



## Bvanofferen (Apr 26, 2012)

Beep, Beep, buzz, ERRR, 00000011, 11000001 BSOD?!?!?!


----------



## Super XP (Apr 27, 2012)

I don't think it's about speed anymore, it's all about efficiency and power. Today's Bulldozer has power but slightly lacks in overall efficiency. Tomorrow's Piledriver hopefully will come with both efficiency and power.

For me price/performance matters, which is why I have a FX-8120 OC'ed to 4.40 GHz with a 8-cores. Looking at the numbers I would call that a FX - 8190 or something. 
Don't get me wrong, Bulldozer is a complex piece of work, something AMD's past CEO dreamed about one night after having a few beers 

Good on AMD, because now they've somewhat developed a modular based design that "WILL" only get better and better with time.


----------



## Bvanofferen (Apr 27, 2012)

Right on Super XP, When under full load FX is power hungry, up to 175 watts more when overclocked to 4.6 VS 2600k @ 4.6.  Full System drain.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/power-consumption-fx-8150-v-i5-2500k-v-i7-2600k/

My settings with C1E and core parking on, clock me down from 4.7 to 1.5 and park 5 of 6 cores when they not being used.  Still it's obvious that any cpu usage takes more watts on FX then sandybridge. For me it's not a huge concern, I maybe use like 10-20 cents a week (1-2 KWhours)
On a global scale It counts.  Well, unless you consider all the wasted Intel Mobo's sitting around cause sockets change so much.  They take power and resources to make too. So Intel, I think may save $10-$30 bucks in power depending on how much it's used, But people who have to upgrade their motherboard with CPU, waste as well.  Can't really say what's better for mother earth.

On Servers this is a big deal. The power is takes to maintain server cpu loading is as big of a concern to the IT industry as gasoline prices are to you and I. I'm not all that up on 32nm server cpu power consumption.  Anybody ???

I see the Intel x5690 is rated at 139w while the AMD 6274 is rated at 115w and have similar passmark scores.  A real life test would be best to consider which architecture is more power efficient on servers.

Super XP Read this page on RCM for Piledriver and tell me what you think

http://www.cyclos-semi.com/technology/


----------



## Inceptor (Apr 29, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> Super XP Read this page on RCM for Piledriver and tell me what you think
> 
> http://www.cyclos-semi.com/technology/



Sorry to interpose myself, but as interesting as the Resonant clock mesh is, I think it's likely not going to translate into a huge performance increase; maybe 5-10% more performance at similar power draw.
Don't get me wrong, I hope Piledriver is good, it would save me money on future upgrades if all I had to do was plop a PD into my board.


----------



## Bvanofferen (Apr 30, 2012)

It's difficult to say for sure, as there are lots estimates in the RCM literature.  Stock clockspeeds are being advertized at 4+ GHZ for Piledriver.  About 10%+ more then the current 8150.  The interesting test result of the piledriver based A10-5800k was 30% higher clock speed with 15% less wattage and with a better performing gpu.  RCM seems to have made a huge difference in watt/clockspeed ratio but this test comparison was not equal. It's still really unknown yet.  If Vishera's specs follows the A10-5800k test chip, piledriver will be clocked higher and have less TDP. Which is good news for overclockers like myself.  I'll wager a guess that the gpu in trinity uses LESS power then Llano so the watt/clockspeed improvement won't be as high of a ratio for the FX series.  

http://www.techpowerup.com/162843/AMD-A10-5800K-quot-Trinity-quot-APU-Tested.html

 If FX does see 30% higher clocks with 15% less power like the A10-5800k, It would be HUGE for AMD. The fx-8350 performance would surpass the i7-3770 by 5% or so on passmark but use 25 more watts. Overclocking would be about 5.3 on air and 5.8 on water.

Apparently the piledriver trinity chip with RCM is a milestone in a "Tock" release WOW.  I just wish the OS and memory specs were the same and the testing was more extensive.


----------



## Inceptor (Apr 30, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> It's difficult to say for sure, as there are lots estimates in the RCM literature.  Stock clockspeeds are being advertized at 4+ GHZ for Piledriver.  About 10%+ more then the current 8150.  The interesting test result of the piledriver based A10-5800k was 30% higher clock speed with 15% less wattage and with a better performing gpu.  RCM seems to have made a huge difference in watt/clockspeed ratio but this test comparison was not equal. It's still really unknown yet.  If Vishera's specs follows the A10-5800k test chip, piledriver will be clocked higher and have less TDP. Which is good news for overclockers like myself.  I'll wager a guess that the gpu in trinity uses LESS power then Llano so the watt/clockspeed improvement won't be as high of a ratio for the FX series.
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/162843/AMD-A10-5800K-quot-Trinity-quot-APU-Tested.html
> 
> ...



Well, that's nice, and I'd like to see it, but +5% over the 3770 on passmark is only OK.  Passmark does an adequate job of giving you an idea of how a cpu performs maxed out and multithreaded, but that's not helpful except in some specialized applications.  A overclocked Phenom II x6 scores fairly high on Passmark and compares favourably to many Intel cpus, even though it's not actually comparable in applications that utilize one or two cores.  Passmark is skewed.


----------



## sergionography (Apr 30, 2012)

Melvis said:


> All i want is a (i dont care how many cores it has) AMD CPU to perform around the same as a 2600K (like Bulldozer was meant to) then id be very happy, that to much to ask for?



that wont be happening anytime soon, atleast not in single thread, unless amd can release piledriver with 5ghz+ then maybe






xenocide said:


> The IPC won't be the same, it will still be pretty far behind Sandy Bridge.  In this topic it is revealed Piledriver will have about the same Int\GHz as Stars.  This might put it closer to SB, but definitely won't be at the same level.  According to that chart SB's FP/GHz is 25% higher and Int/GHz is also 25%+ higher than PD-based Trinity.  This is just like Pentium 4, AMD can't make the architecture a ton better, so they are cranking the clock rates as high as they can go.
> 
> 
> 
> According to most articles on the subject RCM will only really allow for higher clocks with a lower power draw, it doesn't increase performance by itself, just performance per watt.  It's part of the reason PD is going to be clocked so high.



idk where you guys are getting the phenom II has 20% lower ipc than SB
as far as i know phenom II has 60-70% the ipc of SB(40%) slower
while BD has 90%ipc of phenom II/stars
this is why in some cases SB would perform  160% the performance of bulldozer when running around the same clock speed




Vulpesveritas said:


> Okay well, 1. Integer performance is, at least to my knowledge,  what matters most of the time in a CPU.  With integer performance being the same as STARS without L3, then it may be 10-20% faster clock for clock when it is added( note- i said as fast or almost,  i.e. slightly slower clock for clock but not much) , and with stock clocks being 20-30% higher at stock vs SB/IB, it should compete nicely.
> And yes that RCM makes it clock higher/watt.  It may mean it becomes a high end OC chip, if it can clock into the upper 5ghz range on water, and will give AMD an overall fully competitive mainstream chip.  Also, if I remember correctly part of the turn to BD architecture was because PII couldn't be improved much more, and they wanted better power efficiency.
> 1st gen failed at that, though I'm hoping Piledriver gives them a competitive edge, and means we can recommend AMD again, and the fanboy war debates with no good answer one way or the other can commence.



now if piledriver truly is 20% faster than stars clock-clock then it should sit at around 80% the ipc of SB which would mean SB would perform 15-25% faster
but amd promised 29% better x86 performance than llano in general and not clock-clock
and that is usualy a best case scenario if you know amd marketing, so knowing they relied on clock speed its hard to compare different skus and efficiency because clockspeed and efficiency dont scale, meaning PD would be much more efficient in lower tdps than at the higher end

however if amd was comparing the fastest trinity with the fastest llanno then it makes alot of sense and its safe to assume that llano and PD have the same IPC, because an a8-3870k has 3.0ghz clockspeed, and the A10-5800k has a higher clock of 4.2ghz, exactly 29% faster clockspeed 



Aquinus said:


> IPC = Instructions per clock, if Bulldozer is slower at the same clock speed then the IPC would be *lower* not higher.



instruction per CYCLE is being too generalized in my opinion as it doesnt tell real world performance, like bulldozer for example if looking at its hardware it should do 4 instructions per cycle vs 3 in phenom as each module has more hardware(ex: 4decoders vs 3in stars), however each cycle is longer than that of stars or SB due to its higher latency
and its designed that way so the shared resources can have enough time to feed data for 2 cores, meaning while one core is crunching on data, the other integer core would be getting fed from the shared resources
the latency was higher than expected tho as i believe, amd pretty much worked around that i believe(or thats what seems to be) by either shortening the cycles or allowing more entries(which is increased according to this chart ive seen, L1data became 64 from 32)


----------



## xenocide (Apr 30, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> It's difficult to say for sure, as there are lots estimates in the RCM literature.  Stock clockspeeds are being advertized at 4+ GHZ for Piledriver.  About 10%+ more then the current 8150.  The interesting test result of the piledriver based A10-5800k was 30% higher clock speed with 15% less wattage and with a better performing gpu.  RCM seems to have made a huge difference in watt/clockspeed ratio but this test comparison was not equal. It's still really unknown yet.  If Vishera's specs follows the A10-5800k test chip, piledriver will be clocked higher and have less TDP. Which is good news for overclockers like myself.  I'll wager a guess that the gpu in trinity uses LESS power then Llano so the watt/clockspeed improvement won't be as high of a ratio for the FX series.



I think a lot of people are misunderstanding RCM.  RCM doesn't just tack performance on the way Level 3 Cache would, the performance is gained by achieving higher clock speeds.  All it does is distribute the power/energy more evenly across the CPU, which in turn causes the CPU to spread out heat that would otherwise be concentrated in one area.  It's basically just streamlining the way power flows through the chip, which has the added benefit of causing lower temperatures at higher clock rates with better Performance/Watt.

This also means just because BD-based CPU's could go from like 3GHz to 5GHz, doesn't mean the PD-based CPU's coming out at 4GHz are going to go to like 6GHz.  The fact that the PD-based CPU's are launching at 4GHz is in fact the performance gained by RCM.  In all likelyhood PD-based CPU's will clock just as high as BD-based CPU's--maybe a tiny bit higher--while using less power.  So it's definitely a win-win, but it's not some magical solution that's going to add 5-10-15-20% real world performance, it just allows for higher clock speeds, which generates additional performance.


----------



## Melvis (Apr 30, 2012)

sergionography said:


> that wont be happening anytime soon, atleast not in single thread, unless amd can release piledriver with 5ghz+ then maybe



Well 8150 can match or beat the 2600k in very few benchmarks, so just increasing the IPC to the same or above the old Phenom II range i think would be enough to match a 2600K in most benchmarks. I hope


----------



## sergionography (Apr 30, 2012)

Melvis said:


> Well 8150 can match or beat the 2600k in very few benchmarks, so just increasing the IPC to the same or above the old Phenom II range i think would be enough to match a 2600K in most benchmarks. I hope



very few benchmarks with newer instruction set support, but even so it barely beats 2600k

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...e_PC_Intel_Platform_Remains_Unchallenged.html

look at the chart, ivy bridge pretty much keeps beating the 8150 with 105%-180% the performance of an 8150(5%-80% faster)
not to mention many of those benchmarks are also multithreaded and thats were the gap is smaller
but in lightly threaded apps that can only use like 3 cores the bulldozer cant even turbo properly, im assuming thats were ivy bridge sees a good 80% performance over bulldozer

so its safe to say a bulldozer has 60% the performance of a SB/IB core in general(excluding the situations were bulldozer excels in new instruction sets and so on) but since it has more cores it ends up close to it in multithread

now here is were i even confuse myself, bulldozer having 60% the performance of SB does NOT mean sb is 40% faster its actualy more, i got confused when i first looked at the graph but it makes sense now
because if 60%(bd)-->100% then 100%(sb) --> X
if you cross multiply you end up with SB having 166.6% the performance of BD (100%) in single thread
so if piledriver is 30%faster than bulldozer in single thread, its still 30% slower than SB/IB
however it will definitely have an edge in multithread against the I7's if thats the case
so its gonna be way more competitive than an 8150 thats for sure


----------



## Bvanofferen (Apr 30, 2012)

There are issues with this review.  The memory set up is not clear.  Is the 8150 setup with 4 dimms?  If so it runs at 1600 MHZ which causes low performance.  The test would have been fair with 16gb of ram With 2 dimms on fx and the 3770k and 4 dimms on lga2011.  Next, using an Nvidia card on FX is going to favor Intel.  As far as I know AMD cards work just as well on Intel as AMD so why not use an AMD card like the 7970 or 6990?  The itunes benchmark has little PC real world application unless you have a recording studio and then I would buy a mac anyway for software functionality.   Next the graph line doesn't match up with the tests so did the graphing software just make the highest peaks on it's own or is it a screwed up image?  I wouldn't spend my money based on this review.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 30, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> There are issues with this review.  The memory set up is not clear.  Is the 8150 setup with 4 dimms?  If so it runs at 1600 MHZ which causes low performance.  The test would have been fair with 16gb of ram With 2 dimms on fx and the 3770k and 4 dimms on lga2011.  Next, using an Nvidia card on FX is going to favor Intel.  As far as I know AMD cards work just as well on Intel as AMD so why not use an AMD card like the 7970 or 6990?  The itunes benchmark has little PC real world application unless you have a recording studio and then I would buy a mac anyway for software functionality.   Next the graph line doesn't match up with the tests so did the graphing software just make the highest peaks on it's own or is it a screwed up image?  I wouldn't spend my money based on this review.



you fail to realize 1600MHz is the sweet spot for any machine nowadays. However Llanos GP performance Increases with 1866MHz Ram


----------



## xenocide (Apr 30, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> There are issues with this review.  The memory set up is not clear.  Is the 8150 setup with 4 dimms?  If so it runs at 1600 MHZ which causes low performance.  The test would have been fair with 16gb of ram With 2 dimms on fx and the 3770k and 4 dimms on lga2011.  Next, using an Nvidia card on FX is going to favor Intel.  As far as I know AMD cards work just as well on Intel as AMD so why not use an AMD card like the 7970 or 6990?  The itunes benchmark has little PC real world application unless you have a recording studio and then I would buy a mac anyway for software functionality.   Next the graph line doesn't match up with the tests so did the graphing software just make the highest peaks on it's own or is it a screwed up image?  I wouldn't spend my money based on this review.



1.  http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-...vestigation--feeding-the-bulldozer/13704.html

In most situations the difference between DDR3-1600 and DDR3-2133 is within the standard deviation.  For that matter, you can see that unlike Llano, going from average memory to higher-end memory doesn't yield sizable performance gains.  If you check the linked review in the article, it actually shows exactly what speed RAM they used, with timings;  http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-3770k-i5-3570k_4.html#sect0

2.  Why on Earth would it matter what GPU they are using if the CPU is what they are testing?  If you look at the gaming tests, they did all largely CPU bound games.  The best take away is Metro 2033, which is incredibly well threaded, and you can see that the low IPC of BD causes it to drop behind Intel, despite it having access to more threads at a time.  I've read a lot of recent trends that indicate unless overclocked, FX Processors are already starting to bottleneck even single GPU solutions...


----------



## bpgt64 (Apr 30, 2012)

I am game on Intell at home, but when spending the least and getting the most comes into play, bring on AMD.  My main Desktop at work is a Phenom X4 955, becuase it's insano cheap at Microcenter.  And my ESXi box is running a Bulldozer 8120.  Mad thread count = Many VMs with plenty of resources.

But like I said, at home, 2600k@4.0ghz till long after 4th Gen Ivy Bridge.  No really reason to upgrade the system, GPU maybee, but not the proc.


----------



## sergionography (Apr 30, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> There are issues with this review.  The memory set up is not clear.  Is the 8150 setup with 4 dimms?  If so it runs at 1600 MHZ which causes low performance.  The test would have been fair with 16gb of ram With 2 dimms on fx and the 3770k and 4 dimms on lga2011.  Next, using an Nvidia card on FX is going to favor Intel.  As far as I know AMD cards work just as well on Intel as AMD so why not use an AMD card like the 7970 or 6990?  The itunes benchmark has little PC real world application unless you have a recording studio and then I would buy a mac anyway for software functionality.   Next the graph line doesn't match up with the tests so did the graphing software just make the highest peaks on it's own or is it a screwed up image?  I wouldn't spend my money based on this review.



I explained that part in my previous post, they set bulldozer at 100% so the performance of ivy bridge is relevant to bulldozer at 100%, whether it's fair or not faster ram and and graphics card won't yield more than 10% performance, so even if we take that into account ivy bridge is still 10-70% faster.
Even and doesn't claim that piledriver will compete with Intel, look at the advertising they are hyping about, its all about graphics with little to no mention about CPU because even if they made pd 40% faster than bulldozer its still a tad bit on par or slower than Intel's i7


----------



## Bvanofferen (Apr 30, 2012)

I read the test bed configuration re read my post It's obvious.  Bulldozer should be bench marked on 2 dimms and the test bed lists ram as 2 x 4gb and 4 x 4gb without stating which one is used on which platform. Memory speed changes benchmark results, since bulldozer clocks 2 dimms at 1866 and 4 at 1600 it matters. Along with my other valid issues.  The 3770k obviously outperforms bulldozer across different apps but this review, to me, doesn't give a precise calculation. 

Also 2 similar GPU's, one Amd and one Nvidia, (preferably 4) should be cross referenced on each platform for gaming benchmarks to get a decent cpu performance comparison. 

Back to the subject of Piledriver With the new instruction sets, HT assist, 10% FPU queue load increase, lower latency on certain instruction sets and several other improvements, Piledriver won't just have an increase in clockspeed and lower TDP, several apps will see a much bigger improvement then the clock cycle and IPC enhancements.  This article from AMD has all the programming improvements for Piledriver and it's huge for a "tock" release.  361 pages huge.

http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/47414_15h_sw_opt_guide.pdf


----------



## Patriot (Apr 30, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> AMD has all the programming improvements for Piledriver and it's huge for a "tock" release.  361 pages huge.
> 
> http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/47414_15h_sw_opt_guide.pdf



Bulldozer is 15h...
Some more fun reading 
http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/42301_15h_Mod_00h-0Fh_BKDG.pdf


----------



## Bvanofferen (Apr 30, 2012)

Yes bulldozer is 15h... This article includes the Piledriver improvements such as Iommu v2


----------



## devguy (May 1, 2012)

Interesting read about Intel compilers and the FMA Instruction Sets.


----------



## Bvanofferen (May 1, 2012)

Wow, AMD pays Intel for instruction sets and then Intel scraps them so software developers won't use them.  I will never buy Intel again.  Even the $5 rummage sale towers.


----------



## xenocide (May 1, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> Wow, AMD pays Intel for instruction sets and then Intel scraps them so software developers won't use them.  I will never buy Intel again.  Even the $5 rummage sale towers.



That's sensationalizing the facts.  AMD released an Instruction Set--SSE5--then Intel released a better more efficient version that does the same thing and then some--AVX--and AMD was basically forced to use that since Intel drives the market.  When AMD finally implemented it Intel had just released a revision of it that was once again more efficient and flexible, and AMD was kind of boned.  This kind of thing happens.  Did you stop buying AMD CPU's when Intel released CPU's with a functional x64 Instruction Set, just to have AMD release CPU's that support x86-64 and forced Intel to adapt?  Yea, I didn't think so.

Intel has only paid for another Instruction Set once, x86-64, and in every other situation has improved on designs developed by other companies.  AMD releases 3DNow, Intel makes a better version called SSE.  Sure it's not an ideal solution, but both companies are in it to make money, and if that requires them to reinvent each others wheels, so be it.


----------



## Bvanofferen (May 1, 2012)

Intel shouldn't be allowed to optimize software from other companies and keep AMD from utilizing the optimization written in the software code.... That is a monopoly! Is there really an AMD anti-trust suit against Intel for this?

Also only four chipsets on 1155 mobo will support Ivy bridge? That is Terrible Intel! Don't ever change AMD! 

Looks like the 3770k will be it for 1155 and that's if you have the right chipset.  If AMD keeps steamroller and/or excavator compatible on AM3+, 990FX rig's will be happy for many years!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 1, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> Also only four chipsets on 1155 mobo will support Ivy bridge? That is Terrible Intel!



to be fair to them their product progressions are made available with more time then ever ie, prior to 1155 we knew how long 1155 was going to last , a tick and a tock, thats it add nausium from here on in id guess


----------



## techtard (May 1, 2012)

Intel has been known to use unfair compiler sabotage of non genuine intel cpus for a while.

Cant' wait to read any news on Piledriver. Won't be buying one though. I just updated to sandy bridge. 
I play several CPU-limited games, and my Phenom II 940 @ 3.6 was struggling. Bulldozer just didn't make sense vs a similarly Intel chip this gen.


----------



## Bvanofferen (May 1, 2012)

Which chip did you opt for?


----------



## xenocide (May 1, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> Intel shouldn't be allowed to optimize software from other companies and keep AMD from utilizing the optimization written in the software code.... That is a monopoly! Is there really an AMD anti-trust suit against Intel for this?
> 
> Also only four chipsets on 1155 mobo will support Ivy bridge? That is Terrible Intel! Don't ever change AMD!
> 
> Looks like the 3770k will be it for 1155 and that's if you have the right chipset.  If AMD keeps steamroller and/or excavator compatible on AM3+, 990FX rig's will be happy for many years!



Intel doesn't prevent AMD from utilizing these Instruction Sets, it just requires AMD to purchase a license for said Instruction Sets and takes advantage of revisions to Instruction Sets more easily than AMD because they release new CPU's more often.  If AMD wanted to take advantage of better Instruction Sets they would have to do better than a new revision every 2 years.  Like I said, all this is a problem with the system, not Intel.  Intel has definitely done some shady stuff (giving discounts to OEM's that purchase Intel CPU's for example) but that happens anywhere there are large corporations.

As for the 1155 Chipset issue, you're omitting massive amounts of information.  Intel said 2 years ago--before SB launched--that all UEFI equipped Motherboards would be able to recieve an updated BIOS\UEFI.  The Chipsets they said would definitely be compatible were P67, Z68, and any of the chipsets released with IB (Z75, Z77, H77, etc.).  The only one that's up in the air is H61 and H67, and some motherboard manufacturers are pushing out updates allowing these chipsets support.  It all comes down to the motherboard companies, Intel gave them all the tools, and certain companies have already pushed out the update, but others are taking their sweet ass time.  It's no worse than AMD swearing AM3 sockets would support FX CPU's then randomly revealing it was _only the black socket _AM3 motherboards that would actually support them.  There was no mystery, Intel made it quite clear from the beginning if you bought a P67 or Z68 motherboard, you would have to get a BIOS update to run IB CPU's.

I'm growing quite weary of people making it sound like with Intel you're forced to buy a new Motherboard and CPU every time one is released.  Lets take 2 situations.  Say you bought a P67 Motherboard and i7-2600K at launch, it would run you like $500 for those two items, but you are at the top of the food chain for quite some time until SB-E comes out etc.  Now say you bought a 990FX Motherboard and a Phenom II X4 at the same time, you spendt about $250, but you're not nearly at the same level of performance.  So a year goes by and you want an upgrade, and go for an FX-8150, so you drop nearly $300 on one, and you're almost at the level of the i7-2600K you could have bought.  Over  the same amount of time, you actually spent $50 more than the i7 setup, for noticably less performance at any given time.  Remind me how that is a smarter buy?


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 1, 2012)

ya in product cycle though 1150 is already going to replace it.



xenocide said:


> Intel doesn't prevent AMD from utilizing these Instruction Sets, it just requires AMD to purchase a license for said Instruction Sets and takes advantage of revisions to Instruction Sets more easily than AMD because they release new CPU's more often.  If AMD wanted to take advantage of better Instruction Sets they would have to do better than a new revision every 2 years.  Like I said, all this is a problem with the system, not Intel.  Intel has definitely done some shady stuff (giving discounts to OEM's that purchase Intel CPU's for example) but that happens anywhere there are large corporations.
> 
> As for the 1155 Chipset issue, you're omitting massive amounts of information.  Intel said 2 years ago--before SB launched--that all UEFI equipped Motherboards would be able to recieve an updated BIOS\UEFI.  The Chipsets they said would definitely be compatible were P67, Z68, and any of the chipsets released with IB (Z75, Z77, H77, etc.).  The only one that's up in the air is H61 and H67, and some motherboard manufacturers are pushing out updates allowing these chipsets support.  It all comes down to the motherboard companies, Intel gave them all the tools, and certain companies have already pushed out the update, but others are taking their sweet ass time.  It's no worse than AMD swearing AM3 sockets would support FX CPU's then randomly revealing it was _only the black socket _AM3 motherboards that would actually support them.  There was no mystery, Intel made it quite clear from the beginning if you bought a P67 or Z68 motherboard, you would have to get a BIOS update to run IB CPU's.
> 
> I'm growing quite weary of people making it sound like with Intel you're forced to buy a new Motherboard and CPU every time one is released.  Lets take 2 situations.  Say you bought a P67 Motherboard and i7-2600K at launch, it would run you like $500 for those two items, but you are at the top of the food chain for quite some time until SB-E comes out etc.  Now say you bought a 990FX Motherboard and a Phenom II X4 at the same time, you spendt about $250, but you're not nearly at the same level of performance.  So a year goes by and you want an upgrade, and go for an FX-8150, so you drop nearly $300 on one, and you're almost at the level of the i7-2600K you could have bought.  Over  the same amount of time, you actually spent $50 more than the i7 setup, for noticably less performance at any given time.  Remind me how that is a smarter buy?


----------



## Bvanofferen (May 1, 2012)

Certainly, If you bought a 2600k your done upgrading that rigs cpu.  Unless you want to spend $300 for 5% stock performance and 0% overclock performance.  If you bought a AM3+ board and a phenom x 4 upgrading now would be premature.  Piledriver looks to be a reasonable upgrade depending on what you use the phenom for and what PD initial price is.  And you won't have to buy a new mobo and software when the phenom upgrade is worth it.  When upgrading just a cpu timing is everything and current am3+ systems should stick with whatever they have sitting in it.  CPU upgrades that are drop in compatible RARELY require new software purchases with it.  Not only windows, but games, video editing software ect USUALLY have to be repurchased when upgrading a motherboard and a cpu together, along with a complete reinstall of all software.  

A 2600k purchase is just that.  It would be better to buy a whole new rig then upgrade a 2600k cpu. If a phenom am3+ rig absolutely needs more performance already, an 8120 is only $189 and at say 4.5ghz gives plenty of upgrade sense over a phenom.  Then we know PD will available and steamroller has a solid chance of working on am3+ as well.   

So my point is that am3+ drop in cpu upgrades 1-2 years from now should outperform sandybridge drastically on the 9xx am3+ mobo and not require any other investment.  This is based on AMD's socket advancement since AM2.  If you need 2600k performance now buy it and leave it stand or get close with the FX-8150 and have the option to upgrade to a much better cpu (Piledriver) and probably steamroller later without any other necessary hardware or software.


----------



## xenocide (May 1, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> So my point is that am3+ drop in cpu upgrades 1-2 years from now should outperform sandybridge drastically on the 9xx am3+ mobo and not require any other investment.  This is based on AMD's socket advancement since AM2.  If you need 2600k performance now buy it and leave it stand or get close with the FX-8150 and have the option to upgrade to a much better cpu (Piledriver) and probably steamroller later without any other necessary hardware or software.



So AMD CPU's should outperform SB in 2 years... and that's the problem.  With Intel you get soilid performance every time you upgrade, and it carries you 2-4 years, with AMD it seems you spend the same amount over a similar cycle, but you go through 2-3 CPU's, and never even have equal performance.  I remember back in the Athlon XP/64/X2 days that wasn't the case.  You're also assuming AMD's CPU's 2 years from now will use the same socket, which I'm starting to highly doubt.  I think after PD AMD is probably going to consolidate their Sockets and get their APU's and CPU's in the same socket (FM3?).


----------



## Bvanofferen (May 1, 2012)

Your stretching things.  The 8150 is competitive on the 2600k and costs less.  Intel is still the way to go for maximum performance but you have to spend more money.  $200 AMD chips are the way to go performance wise.   If you can spend over $300 on a cpu and a few bucks more on a mobo then go with Intel 2011.  The only issue is 2011 high end chips will probably stay expensive like the 1366 990X.  Would anyone out there buy a 990X based PC right now?  Not so much.  They would upgrade to one for the drop in performance but have to still pay $1000 for a $300 performance cpu.

And now you can pick up an fx-8150 for $205!  AMD dropped prices for piledriver Trinity launch

http://www.cpu-world.com//news_2012/2012042701_AMD_cuts_prices_on_A-Series_APUs_and_FX_CPUs.html


----------



## Bvanofferen (May 1, 2012)

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/arti...D-FX-8150-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1537/1

This is a great review.  An equal testbed for all three cpu's.  The only issue is they just used an AMD video card.  If they had swapped in a 570 the review would have confirmed Cpu performance a bit more.

So the 3770 up to 35% gain on a couple cpu benchmarks over FX. BUT the 8150 was right on par or slightly better on gaming tests.  Still want to pay a hundred bucks more for a finished 1155 cpu?


----------



## Neuromancer (May 1, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/arti...D-FX-8150-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1537/1
> 
> This is a great review.  An equal testbed for all three cpu's.  The only issue is they just used an AMD video card.  If they had swapped in a 570 the review would have confirmed Cpu performance a bit more.
> 
> So the 3770 up to 35% gain on a couple cpu benchmarks over FX. BUT the 8150 was right on par or slightly better on gaming tests.  Still want to pay a hundred bucks more for a finished 1155 cpu?



Interesting. Although having used mediaespresso 6.5 telling it not to use AVX/Quicksync, is not the same thing as not using it.  The fact that IB and SB scored identically is a dead giveaway that AVX was in fact being used.


----------



## Aquinus (May 1, 2012)

The 3820 does plenty well for me. at 315 USD, it's placed pretty well considering its performance is somewhere between the 2600k and the 3770k plus you get the offerings of the X79 chipset. It was either SB-E or BD when I was choosing because I wanted the PCI-E lanes and I didn't want a mainstream platform. The 3820 struggles on nothing. The 8150 almost got my money, but I felt that SB-E had more to offer, even if you had to pay more for the platform itself. Also the 3820 does an impressive 4.75ghz on air, which I have no complaints about.


----------



## Bvanofferen (May 1, 2012)

Yeah the 3820 rocks!  Today and tomorrow your rig will have what it take for anything.  Well maybe in 10 years you'll need an upgrade.


----------



## xenocide (May 2, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> Your stretching things.  The 8150 is competitive on the 2600k and costs less.  Intel is still the way to go for maximum performance but you have to spend more money.  $200 AMD chips are the way to go performance wise.   If you can spend over $300 on a cpu and a few bucks more on a mobo then go with Intel 2011.  The only issue is 2011 high end chips will probably stay expensive like the 1366 990X.
> 
> And now you can pick up an fx-8150 for $205!  AMD dropped prices for piledriver Trinity launch
> 
> http://www.cpu-world.com//news_2012/2012042701_AMD_cuts_prices_on_A-Series_APUs_and_FX_CPUs.html



You have a funny definition of "competitive"; http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=287

The FX-8150 falls between the 2500(K) and 2600(K) in terms of performance, but eats tons more power in the process.  The only benchmarks the 8150 seems to be better in are 7ZIP and Sysmark E-Learning.  For gaming, even in heavily threaded and\or CPU-bound games, the i7 (and usually ven the i5's) are substantially better.  I think the FX-8120 is a solid buy if you can get one around $150-175, but I would never suggest an FX-8150, even after the price drop.  As for Socket 2011, the reason the prices are so high is because they are intended for enthusiasts and workstations, in other words, people who make a living with computers, and will see definite benefits in buying a $600-700 CPU over a $300 one.  There's also the fact that they offer unmatched performance, so a premium is to be expected, when AMD had FX series CPU's on socket 939, they went for $1000 each as well.


----------



## Bvanofferen (May 2, 2012)

*AMD vs Intel What really matters*

Again a bad review based on ram.... they paired it with 1600mhz ram and FX needs 1866.  Check your reviews before knocking FX. Look at the review I listed.  The gaming benchmarks are very competitive when the right hardware is plugged in. 

Your missing my point.  The 2600k is a better chip if you need it for say, an eyefinity setup with more then three screens. But people are much better off for the future with am3+ or 2011. If an 8150 for $205 can fulfill your needs, like two 7970's, going 2600k now is sabotoging yourself.  This wasn't the case when the 2600k was released.  People got a good 16 months of top performance from sandybridge.

Because of the reason for this thread...... Piledriver improvements

If you need all that the 2600k has to offer right now... better off with the 3820, same price/performance but upgradeability with 2011.

Or wait a few months and really do yourself a favor..... Check PD's (Vishera) properly configured benchmarks and decide then...  Based on the info in this entire thread the FX-8350 is looking to outperform 1155 all around.  Power usage looks lower on Ivy Bridge. But really when I spend money I want to see real world results and price. Yet the PD info we have screams WAIT UNTIL I'M HERE!!!

Another issue, If your a "core" intel guy ready to upgrade mobo/ cpu /ram the FX platform is now worth it for $200 cpu's or less,  But I would still wait for FX PD chips to hit the egg shelf.


----------



## xenocide (May 2, 2012)

Want to see the difference between DDR3-1333 and DDR-1866?







Which is what I've been saying all along.  The memory--as with any non-Llano setup--is *not* and issue.  I really do hope PD is an improvment, but saying the FX-8150 is already on par for even Sandy Bridge CPU's is spreading misinformation.  Sure, you won't have a massive performance upgrade available on 1155, but you won't _need_ one for 3+ years anyway.  Intel CPU's allow you to retain a single higher cost CPU for substantially longer than AMD CPU's have in recent years.  Buying into 1155 is hardly suicide since both 1155/2011 offer the best performance you can get right now, and will probably still be pretty damn close to the top after PD arrives.

I expect a 5% gain with PD Cores, but it will probably seem like a lot more since Stock Clocks will be noticably higher.  The biggest issue I see is the Power Consumption on BD Chips, getting that under control for PD would be a huge step in the right direction. But better manufacturing and RCM seem to be a good fix for that.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 2, 2012)

this is all speculation, we dont know what to expect from PD cores


----------



## sergionography (May 2, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> this is all speculation, we dont know what to expect from PD cores



yes true, i dont expect more than 30% improvement per core, but thats being too optimistic as it will get it closer to sb in single thread and totaly ahead of it in multi-thread, then people can truly argue whether they wanna go multi-thread biased of single thread, because right now bulldozer multithread is on par with i7 or a bit lower, and single thread is way behind, hopefully in the next gen PD will dominate multithread, but probably will be a bit behind in single thread, but that makes things interesting and more competitive
ivy bridge being just a minor upgrade is the best chance for amd to close some of the gap


----------



## Bvanofferen (May 2, 2012)

xenocide said:


> Want to see the difference between DDR3-1333 and DDR-1866?
> 
> http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/mac/reviews/AMD/Bulldozer/AMD_FX-8150-23.jpg
> 
> ...



Your digging a deeper hole man.  1333 with a 7-7-7 timings is real aggressive while 1866 9-11-9 is standard/loose.  1866 8-9-8 against 1333 8-8-8 would have been more fair.  Show me that test and talk about which benchmarks are more RAM dependent and less.  I know when I change memory speed and timings, I change benchmark scores for 3dmark11 since it uses dedicated ram for video.  It seems your saying everyone should use 1333 or why not 1066 for good cpu performance come on!

I'm also optimistic for Piledrivers overclocking potential. AM3+ overclock mobo's are set with high voltage capability's.  With RCM voltage settings on PD should run cooler compared to bulldozer.   Since transistor charges are used more than once instead of being dissipated as heat, It stands to reason that PD will be capable of higher voltage settings especially on air .  I'm no electrical engineer, so feedback on this idea by someone who knows what they are talking about would be nice.


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 3, 2012)

Pile driver will be quite an improvement for amd however I suspect a 30% over expectation by amd loyalist and 85% of time whipping by intel

If amd had release these chips a couple of years earlier.......
With intel  tick tock  things are hard pressed to change.  Amd should be  quite thank ful that some one over at intel just dont take graphics seriously......yet.  The times are changing and the blue man group have something up their sleave.....just need tweaking.


----------



## Bvanofferen (May 3, 2012)

From Vishera, I'm expecting 15-20% per thread increase from both IPC and clock increases.  Then I'm expecting the new instruction sets to add to that for the apps that can utilize them.  I'm also expecting a TDP reduction.  Price wise FX-8350 about $279. I believe this will out perform 1155.... but use more power then Ivy Bridge. Are they behind?  Considering FX is arguably the biggest architectural over haul since vacuum tubes,  I don't think so. 

Should AMD always have just as powerful of a high end chip as Intel? This seems to be the issue.

Believe it or not I have more Intel chips then AMD....   I am a price/perf guy and like the option to upgrade and interchange.  I like big price reductions as well.  So since lga775 died, AMD all the way.


----------



## Goodman (May 3, 2012)

sergionography said:


> yes true, i dont expect more than 30% improvement per core, but thats being too optimistic as it will get it closer to sb in single thread and totaly ahead of it in multi-thread, then people can truly argue whether they wanna go multi-thread biased of single thread, because right now bulldozer multithread is on par with i7 or a bit lower, and single thread is way behind, hopefully in the next gen PD will dominate multithread, but probably will be a bit behind in single thread, but that makes things interesting and more competitive
> ivy bridge being just a minor upgrade is the best chance for amd to close some of the gap



30% per core , seriously?
That would mean 240% faster then the current FX BD , not going to happen...

I expect 30% total (3.75% per core) & that will only be in a very few benchs but i think in daily use we will most likely see a 10-20% at best

IMO i don't believe AMD PD will do much more than what BD is doing right now they are becoming real morons as far as CPU is concerned 

Sorry! for the little rant , lost all faith in AMD CPU performance 
To damn bad that Intel is still more expensive than AMD (Mobo + CPU) 
I am "stuck" with them but then again i don't really need more "power" but it would be nice to have it...


----------



## Inceptor (May 3, 2012)

Goodman said:


> 30% per core , seriously?
> That would mean 240% faster then the current FX BD , not going to happen...
> 
> I expect 30% total (3.75% per core) & that will only be in a very few benchs but i think in daily use we will most likely see a 10-20% at best



A 30% performance increase per core is definitely optimistic, extremely optimistic.  But you need to reexamine your math, it doesn't mean 8x30% cpu performance increase.  A 30% increase per core means a theoretical maximum of 30% performance increase for the entire cpu, all modules, taken together.

Blah blah blah.

I don't think there will be any _*consumer desktop cpu*_ from AMD after Piledriver.  It'll be APUs.
In 2014, the 4th gen "real" fully 'fused' APUs get released, at which point, I think that'll be all that is available for desktop and laptop processors from AMD.  APUs will also eliminate the x4xx, x5xx, and x6xx GPUs, and it'll be a three tier system of x7xx/x8xx/x9xx performance level discreet GPUs.
'Steamroller' integer cores will be in the 3rd gen 28nm APUs (Kaveri) and Opterons.
'Excavator'?? integer cores will be in the 4th gen and Opterons.


----------



## Bvanofferen (May 3, 2012)

Goodman said:


> 30% per core , seriously?
> That would mean 240% faster then the current FX BD , not going to happen...
> 
> I expect 30% total (3.75% per core) & that will only be in a very few benchs but i think in daily use we will most likely see a 10-20% at best
> ...




Why not upgrade to a Thuban?  By the time you sell the 925 and find a good deal it would only cost you $50 -75.  Then you could crossfire another 6850 and run eyefinity on max settings for dx11 games!  

As far as PD wouldn't you consider the 5800k improvements a good example of what Vishera will be?


----------



## Bvanofferen (May 3, 2012)

It just occurred to me, the trinity super pi results...a Piledriver core producing a 17% single core improvement.  Lets see 26.0s down to 23.8 so 13.0 would be 100% improvement, So 100 div 13 is 7.69 * 2.2 =17% there is you per core PD improvement for trinity on super pi.  I hate math.....


----------



## Goodman (May 3, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> Why not upgrade to a Thuban?  By the time you sell the 925 and find a good deal it would only cost you $50 -75.  Then you could crossfire another 6850 and run eyefinity on max settings for dx11 games!
> 
> As far as PD wouldn't you consider the 5800k improvements a good example of what Vishera will be?



I am not spending any money on my computer until next fall (Autumn) except for maybe another HDD when price get down a little bit more as i got more important things to take care of like a few house repairs & my car later on this summer 



Bvanofferen said:


> It just occurred to me, the trinity super pi results...a Piledriver core producing a 17% single core improvement.  Lets see 26.0s down to 23.8 so 13.0 would be 100% improvement, So 100 div 13 is 7.69 * 2.2 =17% there is you per core PD improvement for trinity on super pi.  I hate math.....



I call the new A10-5800k BAD!  really bad...
A10-5800k clock at 3.8ghz vs A8-3850 clock at 2.9ghz & the A10-5800k gets only 2.264sec better than the A8-3850 in SuperPI with  900mhz advantage i call this a big , big fail :shadedshu

If the A10-5800k did 2.264sec better but was clock at around 2.6-2.9ghz than i would said it is better but no it's WORST!!!
AMD CPU's performance is getting down all the time they should just give up & concentrate on GPU's only


----------



## sergionography (May 3, 2012)

Goodman said:


> 30% per core , seriously?
> That would mean 240% faster then the current FX BD , not going to happen...
> 
> I expect 30% total (3.75% per core) & that will only be in a very few benchs but i think in daily use we will most likely see a 10-20% at best
> ...



lol well I did state that I was being too optimistic, but you definitely fail on the math part there! 30% increase in single thread doesn't mean 240% increase in overall performance. Its 30% all around, and I was only going by what AMD claims in the slides and speculating based on that
You are thinking way too theoretically that 30% per core is 240% improvement overall added to the CPU, and that is true but not insane, let me explain, if one core is 100% then 8cores is 800% right? Add to that 240 u end up with 1040%, 800/1040=0.76, so bulldozer will have 76% the performance of pd in multithread(assuming 30% percore increase) so the 240% overall computational increase that u mentioned sounds crazy because u are comparing it to one core but when compared the whole chip its consistent with the single core increase


----------



## xenocide (May 3, 2012)

sergionography said:


> lol well I did state that I was being too optimistic, but you definitely fail on the math part there! 30% increase in single thread doesn't mean 240% increase in overall performance. Its 30% all around, and I was only going by what AMD claims in the slides and speculating based on that
> You are thinking way too theoretically that 30% per core is 240% improvement overall added to the CPU, and that is true but not insane, let me explain, if one core is 100% then 8cores is 800% right? Add to that 240 u end up with 1040%, 800/1040=0.76, so bulldozer will have 76% the performance of pd in multithread(assuming 30% percore increase) so the 240% overall computational increase that u mentioned sounds crazy because u are comparing it to one core but when compared the whole chip its consistent with the single core increase



You should be on AMD's Marketing team with that goofy logic.  I can see it now;  No, No, it's not a 5% performance gain, it's a 40% gain across the whole chip!


----------



## Bvanofferen (May 3, 2012)

Goodman said:


> I call the new A10-5800k BAD! really bad...
> A10-5800k clock at 3.8ghz vs A8-3850 clock at 2.9ghz & the A10-5800k gets only 2.264sec better than the A8-3850 in SuperPI with 900mhz advantage i call this a big , big fail



WOW, 17% core improvement on super pi doesn't even consider the new instruction sets and the overclock-ability.  Since it uses less power these chips, should hit 5 ghz on a good air cooler and mobo.  Did your Dog die or something?  If so, I'm sorry, don't take it out on AMD  

Clock speed is only one part of thread performance... Memory, cache latency, NB and even HDD can affect per thread performance.  So you can't expect a 1/1 ratio for improvement from CPU clock speed on any CPU.


----------



## Goodman (May 3, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> WOW, 17% core improvement on super pi doesn't even consider the new instruction sets and the overclock-ability.  Since it uses less power these chips, should hit 5 ghz on a good air cooler and mobo.  Did your Dog die or something?  If so, I'm sorry, don't take it out on AMD
> 
> Clock speed is only one part of thread performance... Memory, cache latency, NB and even HDD can affect per thread performance.  So you can't expect a 1/1 ratio for improvement from CPU clock speed on any CPU.



Still not good...
My old PII 925 with an 900mhz overclock get a good 5sec better then original speed on Spi
The A10-500k with 900mhz advantage barely get 2sec better the the A8-3850
If both were at same clock i am pretty sure the A10-5800k will fall behind by a good 3-5sec

We're back in the P4 days except now it's AMD turns...


----------



## devguy (May 3, 2012)

Goodman said:


> Still not good...
> My old PII 925 with an 900mhz overclock get a good 5sec better then original speed on Spi
> The A10-500k with 900mhz advantage barely get 2sec better the the A8-3850
> If both were at same clock i am pretty sure the A10-5800k will fall behind by a good 3-5sec
> ...



Maybe it's just me, but if I were looking at getting an APU laptop (wouldn't be overclocking it any), I wouldn't give a rat's ass about performance / clock (IPC).  Performance / watt would be the only metric I'd look at, and if one chip gives me more performance with the same or less power used than another, I don't care if it needs an extra 10 Ghz to do it.

Granted, on the desktop where I would be wanting to overclock, that information about clock speed does become relevant.  As an example, if processor A beats processor B by 10% when running at stock clocks, but can only overclock 3%, while B can be overclocked 25%, I'd be more inclined to pick processor B.  So basically, if the Piledriver cores are clocked up high, and can't overclock much more, I'd pick the option that had the more headroom for ultimately more performance (Sandy vs Ivy is kind of in this situation right now).  And IMHO on the desktop, performance / watt is not nearly as huge a concern.


----------



## Aquinus (May 3, 2012)

devguy said:


> And IMHO on the desktop, performance / watt is not nearly as huge a concern.



I agree unless your building a silent or home theater PC, or a mini-server that runs your network and has battery backup since that can impact runtime without power from the mains.


----------



## Bvanofferen (May 4, 2012)

devguy said:


> Granted, on the desktop where I would be wanting to overclock, that information about clock speed does become relevant. As an example, if processor A beats processor B by 10% when running at stock clocks, but can only overclock 3%, while B can be overclocked 25%, I'd be more inclined to pick processor B. So basically, if the Piledriver cores are clocked up high, and can't overclock much more, I'd pick the option that had the more headroom for ultimately more performance (Sandy vs Ivy is kind of in this situation right now). And IMHO on the desktop, performance / watt is not nearly as huge a concern.



I am with you 110%!!!

Bulldozer FX chips have huge overclock potential.  I gained 40% on passmark with fx-6100 @4.7ghz stable on cafa70.  But I overclock everything that I can. The less cores, the higher clocks people are getting. The FX-4100 hits 5ghz on $30 coolers regularly.  Intel locks their chips to prevent higher speeds on cheaper cpu's!

Also, Bulldozer chips hit higher clocks then 1155 chips when paired with the same cooler.

There isn't enough info yet to say that trinity's clocks are as a result of lower IPC, Thus misleading....  Remember Memory, NB and HT I think are all the same on Llano and Trinity.   Contrary to what people are posting at 2.2ghz trinity is more efficient but when Trinity hits 4.2 efficiency is the same for FP and Int as Llano.  And since Llano doesn't hit 4.2... It's hard to say for sure.

On the FP and Int tests the 5800k is 12% or so behind the 2500k without the benifit of L3 cache.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-...erformance-Superior-to-Bulldozer-263649.shtml

SO will Vishera's overclock potential be leveled compared to bulldozer???

I doubt it, Llano can't be tested at 4.2, If it could be I'm sure Trinity would have better IPC, since it does at 2.2. I think though, that the PD FX-6300 will have to hit 5.2Ghz stable on my same cooler to not be a dissapointment, compared to my fx-6100, if Vishera's improvment matches Trinity.   My fx-6100 loads windows @ 5.2 but gets errors and overheats fast.  So I'm optimistic with RCM.


----------



## Aquinus (May 4, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> Bulldozer FX chips have huge overclock potential. I gained 40% on passmark with fx-6100 @4.7ghz stable on cafa70. But I overclock everything that I can. The less cores, the higher clocks people are getting. The FX-4100 hits 5ghz on $30 coolers regularly. Intel locks their chips to prevent higher speeds on cheaper cpu's!



My *locked* 3820 hits 4.75Ghz on air and at the time it was only 50 USD more than the 8150. A better IPC and less power consumption and it still performs damn well. Also keep in mind that any benchmark that is multithreaded will make FX shine, it's the single-threaded benches is where it struggles which is the majority of workloads these days.


----------



## Bvanofferen (May 4, 2012)

Yeah the 3820 rocks!!!


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 4, 2012)

Yes it does gonna get one instead of ivy..........what was this thread originally about?


----------



## Bvanofferen (May 5, 2012)

Geez Man,  Piledriver improvments, quad channel memory on Vishera so how will it stack up to the 3820???  You would be the best man to elaborate....  Think Vishera will have what it takes to compete with the base 2011 chip?

I would go 2011 over Ivy for sure, if i needed the power, but even the fx-6100 is too much for me,  for the price I paid I figured I would find something to use it for.  I'm out to post more Hi-def Baby Video's to Facebook then anyone in history....


----------



## Steevo (May 5, 2012)

devguy said:


> Maybe it's just me, but if I were looking at getting an APU laptop (wouldn't be overclocking it any), I wouldn't give a rat's ass about performance / clock (IPC).  Performance / watt would be the only metric I'd look at, and if one chip gives me more performance with the same or less power used than another, I don't care if it needs an extra 10 Ghz to do it.
> 
> Granted, on the desktop where I would be wanting to overclock, that information about clock speed does become relevant.  As an example, if processor A beats processor B by 10% when running at stock clocks, but can only overclock 3%, while B can be overclocked 25%, I'd be more inclined to pick processor B.  So basically, if the Piledriver cores are clocked up high, and can't overclock much more, I'd pick the option that had the more headroom for ultimately more performance (Sandy vs Ivy is kind of in this situation right now).  And IMHO on the desktop, performance / watt is not nearly as huge a concern.



What a absolute horrid idea. Perhaps you should get a Athlon and underclock it to 200Mhz so it lasts a few days. 

IPC is the defacto measurement of performance, and low power consumption without performance to meet expectation is the reason we don't use such low power chips in anything. 

Don't get all butthurt over AMD failing on the CPU aspect, considering Intel spends more per year on R&D and they started as a second source supplier to Intel the fact they are still around and making chips that perform as well as the (some) do is amazing. 


I still like to tweak and play with them, its a hobby, and really unless you are trying to play the benchmark game AMD performs just fine, and no one will tell the difference.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 5, 2012)

Despite AMD pushing the IPC game back in early 2000, People were still looking at clock speeds, thats why AMD had the Model Numbers they did aka 2000-3200, and In fact overall feel of an Athlon XP was superior to a Pentium 4/Pentium D.

 I feel the clock speed is what people still look at today or the higher or lower model numbers and prices. So if People can get an AMD for cheaper than an Intel they will go for it, Average Joe's are the Majority aka almost 99% of the Market the 1 percent is enthusiast, Aslong at it can turn on/off Play audio/video/ run the tasks they do or even play games they dont care about the CPU just its price.



Steevo said:


> What a absolute horrid idea. Perhaps you should get a Athlon and underclock it to 200Mhz so it lasts a few days.
> 
> IPC is the defacto measurement of performance, and low power consumption without performance to meet expectation is the reason we don't use such low power chips in anything.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bvanofferen (May 5, 2012)

The enthusiast is who the responsible novice calls to decide what to buy.  And forums such as this is how we hammer out the facts so make your post count! And it's Okay to get a little butthurt as long as you learn something.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 5, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> The enthusiast is who the responsible novice calls to decide what to buy.  And forums such as this is how we hammer out the facts so make your post count! And it's Okay to get a little butthurt as long as you learn something.



most average joes dont even come to a tech forum either. they look at retailers for their stuff, sad but true


----------



## Bvanofferen (May 5, 2012)

We should sell old rigs in new cases with a lot of big numbers on them.  This is the EXT9980S-hyper core


----------



## Steevo (May 5, 2012)

The 9850 AMD snot slinger. I had one. It was hot and mediocre. However it DID fit this motherboard as did the 940, and now 1100T that resides.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 5, 2012)

Bvanofferen said:


> We should sell old rigs in new cases with a lot of big numbers on them.  This is the EXT9980S-hyper core



and you know people would buy it actually


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 5, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> and you know people would buy it actually



Those who go for the cheapest available........specs dont matter....just give a 1.6 ghz cpu  20gig hdd and 512 ram for $250 please.....all that other crap dont  matter.....dont need that  anti -germ stuff  either....ill just wipe it off with pine sol.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 5, 2012)

ensabrenoir said:


> Those who go for the cheapest available........specs dont matter....just give a 1.6 ghz cpu  20gig hdd and 512 ram for $250 please.....all that other crap dont  matter.....dont need that  anti -germ stuff  either....ill just wipe it off with pine sol.



Thats what Im getting at dude lol


----------



## Bvanofferen (May 5, 2012)

ensabrenoir said:


> Those who go for the cheapest available........specs dont matter....just give a 1.6 ghz cpu  20gig hdd and 512 ram for $250 please.....all that other crap dont  matter.....dont need that  anti -germ stuff  either....ill just wipe it off with pine sol.



And then Vista gets butthurt


----------



## sergionography (May 6, 2012)

xenocide said:


> You should be on AMD's Marketing team with that goofy logic.  I can see it now;  No, No, it's not a 5% performance gain, it's a 40% gain across the whole chip!



idk how you come up to such a conclusion, I'm atualy being as technical as possible to be in any marketing team lol, maybe if you follow up with the math you would understand, also note I'm speculating based on 30% performance gain per core and how it affects multicore performance in theoretical computation, note that i also ignored turbo core which might be part part of that 30% increase but i did so just to avoid confusion  
And I stated this is total speculation and optimism as I hardly expect pd to be this way, mainly because single thread enables turbo core, while multithread will not scale 100%on the cores due to the shared resources


----------



## allnights (Jun 16, 2012)

*Thanks Aquinus and Sergionography*

Well I must say I really did enjoy the posts by you two!! (not sarcasm believe me)

I myself have been around computers for what seems like an eternity and have also acquired a Computing Science Degree.

Now I have always been interested in the architecture of CPUs and GPUs and for a long time read threads regarding this. However and in recent times this has ceased to be both enjoyable and informative. Due to the never ending stone throwing by fanboys defending large and powerfu companies that would not give two hoots about them.

However today I read through this thread and I must say that the posts by Aquinus and Sergionography have been refreshing and a joy to read.

Personally, and I admittedly lean to AMD but not a fanboy, I love the introduction of any new architecture. Sure Bulldozer was not quite what I was hoping it would be but these things happen. These are phenomenally difficult things to design and create and the research into it is mind boggling. What I find amusing though is how many 'experts' come out of the woodwork with their bold claims, obviously they should be placing the majority of their focus into CPU design with intel!

I do agree that the BD design is not as bad as has been reported and made out as it is, to my mind, a prototype and the first iteration on what is to follow.

From what I have read concerning Piledriver is somewhat reassuring and came as a pleasent surprise and against what everyone has predicted.

Now these naysayers are still sticking to the doom and gloom predictions (ridiculous like that of AMD going bust) for the Vishera CPU.

I think that the refinement of the BD core in Trinity is just the beginning now and that with Vishera this will take another small step. Naysayers argue the case against these small steps but are you not getting arguments put across that in many scenarios BD is not that bad?

Secondly there is the case of the clock speeds too, another area of improvement and these are just the ones we can speculate on and in all honesty that is all anyone can do.

As with any upcoming chip all we can do is speculate and whatever the the possibilites are indeed possibilities, apart from the dreamers that speculate a little over the top. In fact in one thread, maybe here, on a previous ocassion soe chap by the name of JF-AMD I kind of reprimanded for something he quoted, cannot remember what it was, in that he could not possibly back his statement up. So not a fanboy as I stated.

Also Ivy Bridge I fully expected to take a giant leap forward making it harder for Piledriver but this has not really happened in the way I expected. 

I have no idea why but these intel fanboys need to stop throwing stones at the house of AMD, they will not make a blind bit of difference so why do it? Also AMD are the reason their 'PRECIOUS' Sanby Bridge Chips as it would likely be 2020 before you saw those (little joke their but you catch my drift).

I like the existence of both companies and I hope it continues, though I long for the day I would see AMD on a level playing field, but then I also long for the day I see England win the World Cup. We can but dream and maybe, just maybe things ay get close to what we want.

Personally I now do believe that that maturing of the BD architecture will continue unabated now the design is out. I would also like to see a die-shrink too as I believe with that along with other 'changes' will make a big difference.

But hell I have been wrong and disappointed before, LOL.

Thank you Sergionography and Aquinus for the discussions you put to this thread. It was a real pleasure to see an intelligent discussion for once.


----------



## lebronjames316 (Jun 17, 2012)

AMD might be a little sore that its "Zambezi" FX processor family based on its much-hyped "Bulldozer" architecture didn't quite meet the performance expectations of a ground-up new CPU architecture, but it doesn't want to take chances and build hype around the architecture that succeeds it. From various sources, some faintly-reliable, we have been hearing that the next-generation of high-performance desktop processors based on "Piledriver" architecture, codenamed "Vishera", will pack five modules or 10 cores, and will be structured essentially like Zambezi, since Piledriver is basically a refinement of Bulldozer architecture. The latest leak comes from the Software Optimization Guide for AMD 15h family (read here), which was picked up by CPU World while most of us were busy with CES.

CPU World compiled most of the features of what it suspected to be AMD referring to its future processors based on the Piledriver architecture, that's "Vishera" (desktop high-performance), "Terramar" (high-density server), and "Sepang" (small-medium business server) parts. The three are not the first chips to be based on Piledriver, AMD has a new mainstream desktop and notebook APU in the works codenamed "Trinity", which is en route for a little later this year. Trinity basically has an identical CPUID instruction-set as Vishera, Terramar, and Sepang, confirming their common lineage compared to today's "Bulldozer" architecture. The most catchy detail is of Vishera featuring 4 DDR3 channels.


----------



## Inceptor (Jun 18, 2012)

lebronjames316 said:


> http://www.uuom.com/cs/images/signature_Amz.jpg
> 
> AMD might be a little sore that its "Zambezi" FX processor family based on its much-hyped "Bulldozer" architecture didn't quite meet the performance expectations of a ground-up new CPU architecture, but it doesn't want to take chances and build hype around the architecture that succeeds it. From various sources, some faintly-reliable, we have been hearing that the next-generation of high-performance desktop processors based on "Piledriver" architecture, codenamed "Vishera", will pack five modules or 10 cores, and will be structured essentially like Zambezi, since Piledriver is basically a refinement of Bulldozer architecture. The latest leak comes from the Software Optimization Guide for AMD 15h family (read here), which was picked up by CPU World while most of us were busy with CES.
> 
> CPU World compiled most of the features of what it suspected to be AMD referring to its future processors based on the Piledriver architecture, that's "Vishera" (desktop high-performance), "Terramar" (high-density server), and "Sepang" (small-medium business server) parts. The three are not the first chips to be based on Piledriver, AMD has a new mainstream desktop and notebook APU in the works codenamed "Trinity", which is en route for a little later this year. Trinity basically has an identical CPUID instruction-set as Vishera, Terramar, and Sepang, confirming their common lineage compared to today's "Bulldozer" architecture. The most catchy detail is of Vishera featuring 4 DDR3 channels.



I think that's a bit old.  Five modules, or Ten cores, is what they were originally planning; they've scaled it back to four modules, as far as I know.
If Trinity is really showing a 15% improvement over Zambezi, then they would have to go to quad memory controllers to increase that bandwidth and give them a few more percentage points in increases in benchmarks, in addition to more 'aggressive' stock clock speeds.  I think it's looking to be in the 20-30% total performance increase zone.  Which seems to be where they wanted to be, one year ago.


----------

