# Intel/AMD - Multi-threading



## PatoRodrigues (Mar 4, 2013)

Well, here's the thing. Today, at a normal hardware discussion on school, some friends of mine went full retard and simply said that AMD FX chips are useless. I tried to explain them that FX chips are great for multi-threaded applications, and they came back with the argument that hyperthreading is superior since ever...

I actually tried to explain them, but i'm not 100% sure on what i read out there. I said that AMD FX chips have a architecture that works with modules (not that fake cores BS) and when multi-threading, the extra hardware on AMD FX chips work as well as hyperthreading. Those morons (i always call my friends morons when they talk such crap) asked me why AMD FX chips (specifically Piledriver) does so bad in CPU-bound games, and i said that FX chips do not have good IPC.... And when i said that HT uses unused resources and divides processing power to do more calculations, i was simply ignored. 

The point is: I wondered if you guys could tell me more about this topic. It's proven that AMD chips are actually great value for multi-threading, but i'm not sure that my information is reliable. I could be (probably, actually :shadedshu) talking A LOT of crap. So, if you guys could teach me about this subject, i would be REALLY grateful.

And if moderators think this topic will generate a discussion between AMD/Intel fanboys that is unnecessary, then just delete it and send me to another topic (or even a PM, that would be nice too.)


----------



## Fourstaff (Mar 4, 2013)

A good point to start will be to take a look at how the Bulldozer/Piledriver architecture works: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3863/amd-discloses-bobcat-bulldozer-architectures-at-hot-chips-2010/4

You should more or less know how hyperthreading works, if not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading

Unless you present your arguments clearly and stop calling people retard (or at least don't point it out) then they would (in theory) listen to you. Unless of course they are pretty stubborn.


----------



## erocker (Mar 4, 2013)

Well.. AMD's approach uses modules with two weaker(ish) cores. In the end though it works almost as well as Intel's approach.

So it seems as if your classmates are overblowing things and your argument of AMD being a great value for multi-threading is accurate.

Thing is multi-threading is used but not as much as it "should" be. Intel's cores are stronger and they work better in most current traditional tasks.


----------



## PatoRodrigues (Mar 4, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> A good point to start will be to take a look at how the Bulldozer/Piledriver architecture works: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3863/amd-discloses-bobcat-bulldozer-architectures-at-hot-chips-2010/4
> 
> You should more or less know how hyperthreading works, if not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading
> 
> Unless you present your arguments clearly and stop calling people retard (or at least don't point it out) then they would (in theory) listen to you. Unless of course they are pretty stubborn.



Trust me, they are pretty much ignorant Intel fanboys. REALLY stubborn hahahaha. 

Thanks for the tips!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 4, 2013)

PatoRodrigues said:


> Trust me, they are pretty much ignorant Intel fanboys. REALLY stubborn hahahaha.
> 
> Thanks for the tips!



Do they know how to read benchmarks? If so point them to any TPU reviews on Piledriver.


----------



## xvi (Mar 4, 2013)

AMD's problem with most of their FX chips is that while they ARE two cores, they starve each other of resources. Don't quote me on this, but I think they've also trimmed down a few instruction sets so that there's only one per module (two "cores"). Things that they've determined you need, just you don't need to run quickly.

I remember way back in the Pentium 4 days that Hyper-Threading was good for about a 30% boost in multi-threaded applications. I think that's about the same boost you get running two cores on each module over one. For example, if running a task on cores 1, 3, 5, 7 nets you 100% performance, running on all 8 cores only returns 30-50% more (versus 100% more if they weren't starved). In my opinion, AMD would have a very good product if they can provide more bandwidth to the modules so that the cores aren't waiting for work.

You are correct. Instruction per clock (efficiency) is down on AMD even compared to the Phenom II line. 

AMD has managed to inexpensively produce 8 cores on one package which is rather impressive, it's just that they need refinement. Quite a lot of it, actually. They're *FAR* from useless, but they don't really shine unless you're comparing them to similarly priced Intel processors (i5, no HT) AND only talking about multi-threaded applications. If money is no object, Intel will be better. For the other 99% of the world, AMD makes a processor with decently good value and shouldn't be looked down on.


----------



## PatoRodrigues (Mar 4, 2013)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Do they know how to read benchmarks? If so point them to any TPU reviews on Piledriver.



I'll point it out. But you know, most ignorant people do not take anything against their beliefs seriously.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 4, 2013)

PatoRodrigues said:


> I'll point it out. But you know, most ignorant people do not take anything against their beliefs seriously.



Which makes most arguments, even if your side is right, pointless. That kinda sucks, but as you've just simply stated, that's reality. Oh well.


It's not like the subject matter is really all that important anyway, at least.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 4, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> Which makes most arguments, even if your side is right, pointless. That kinda sucks, but as you've just simply stated, that's reality. Oh well.
> 
> 
> It's not like the subject matter is really all that important anyway, at least.



Not that important, ,, sacrilege...


----------



## boogerlad (Mar 4, 2013)

This page talks about hyper threading at the hardware level. http://www.anandtech.com/show/6533/...essor-motherboard-through-a-scientists-eyes/6 TL;DR, when a thread is doing a memory i/o operation, a delay until the i/o is confirmed allows a second thread to be executed, after saving the state of the first thread. Disadvantage is when the threads don't fit in the cache, causing overflow, or spilling into the next level of storage.


----------



## d1nky (Mar 4, 2013)

if they don't listen and mock AMD, just take em to a corner and ................!!


----------



## Frick (Mar 4, 2013)

d1nky said:


> if they don't listen and mock AMD, just take em to a corner and ................!!



Oh hey look another fanboy.


----------



## PatoRodrigues (Mar 4, 2013)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-3066_2.html#sect1

Found this article to be very helpful too.


----------



## d1nky (Mar 4, 2013)

Frick said:


> Oh hey look another fanboy



yeaa ever since I was a kid and had a Sempron  I even got my theory (conspiracy) to why intel perform better in benchmarks..... they've designed the chips to be optimised in benches and that's it hahha

 apologies if this seems off subject


----------



## Frick (Mar 4, 2013)

d1nky said:


> yeaa ever since I was a kid and had a Sempron  I even got my theory (conspiracy) to why intel perform better in benchmarks..... they've designed the chips to be optimised in benches and that's it hahha
> 
> apologies if this seems off subject



What you should apologize for is your theory and fanboyism.


----------



## natr0n (Mar 4, 2013)

I would've walked up to the chalkboard and say let me show you an example and wrote STFU on there. Then walk back to my seat.


----------



## PatoRodrigues (Mar 4, 2013)

natr0n said:


> I would've walked up to the chalkboard and say let me show you an example and wrote STFU on there. Then walk back to my seat.



  

I'm dying from my laughs here, bro. And your avatar


----------



## Lionheart (Mar 4, 2013)

Frick said:


> What you should apologize for is your theory and fanboyism.



 For real


----------



## blibba (Mar 4, 2013)

erocker said:


> Well.. AMD's approach uses modules with two weaker(ish) cores. In the end though it works almost as well as Intel's approach.



I'd actually say that an extra integer core works better than hyper-threading. It's just that it uses more power in the process, and Intel's non-HT cores are faster than AMD's in the first place.


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 4, 2013)

I've never owned an AMD chip, so I know that Intel is far, far better (LOL).  Actually, I have a 3570k, so no HT for me anyway 

I do know that back in the netburst days, disabling HT would improve performance in certain apps.


----------



## PatoRodrigues (Mar 5, 2013)

After lots of reading, i have to ask:

Do you guys think that Steamroller could fix the remaining issues with Bulldozer and increase significantly the IPC? Not sure if Steamroller will be made on 28 or 22nm process.


----------



## blibba (Mar 5, 2013)

PatoRodrigues said:


> After lots of reading, i have to ask:
> 
> Do you guys think that Steamroller could fix the remaining issues with Bulldozer and increase significantly the IPC? Not sure if Steamroller will be made on 28 or 22nm process.



I think Steamroller will leave AMD with a power consumption disadvantage, but performance-wise, if AMD's claims are true (and that's a big if), it could be a serious contender.

We already know that 4M/8T Piledriver can go head to head with 4C/8T IB in many threaded applications. We also know that neither IB-EP nor Haswell will be any faster _per core_ than IB. So I actually think that the FX-85** could be a competitor for IB-EP. This would leave APUs up against Haswell, with its much improved IGP.


----------



## xvi (Mar 5, 2013)

PatoRodrigues said:


> After lots of reading, i have to ask:
> 
> Do you guys think that Steamroller could fix the remaining issues with Bulldozer and increase significantly the IPC? Not sure if Steamroller will be made on 28 or 22nm process.



Significantly increased IPC? I wouldn't expect so, but I'd expect them to fix multi-threaded performance. If they manage that, they'll have a nice little chip on their hands.


----------

