FordGT90ConceptPretty sure he's going to win. I don't think there's any nomenclature to properly describe Bulldozer's design and even if it had existed, AMD wasn't using it.


x264 HD Benchmark runs on GPU and AMD undeniably has a stronger GPU in FX-8150 than Intel has in i7-2600K. The problem stems from floating point operations executed on the CPU. If you heavily load the FPUs in one core, the FPU performance of both cores will effectively half.

the54thvoidYou say potato, I say potato core.

R-T-BNo, this is a potato core:

xChoiceJust in case no one mentioned it, what happens with this 8 core arm processors that some companies are advertising while there are in fact 4 cores + 4 cores gpu, i mean, they are "cores" but hey! they are not the cpu itself.

xChoiceAs for the top of the line fx processor, I thought they were real 8 complete cores, not 4 complete cores + some left overs that were good enough for running something like a hardware HT......

Llano is also the first announced CPU from AMD to use power gating. The power gates are implemented as a footer ring of NFETs around the periphery of a core and L2 cache, using the package plane as a virtual ground. While Bulldozer’s hierarchical and shared microarchitecture improves area efficiency and throughput, it does complicate power gating. Conceptually there are five major circuit regions of each Bulldozer module – the shared front-end, the two integer cores, the floating point cluster and the L2 cache. Unfortunately, if a single core is active all of these regions (perhaps save the other integer core) must be active. The benefit of power gating a lone integer core is not worth the complexity of the implementation problems, especially since the operating system scheduler should be power-aware. As a result, Bulldozer’s granularity of power gating is at the module level. Each Interlagos die incorporates at least 4 power gates, one for each Bulldozer module.

qubitNo, it has 4 siamesed cores who's performance suffers when running two threads on one. I tried to sympathize with you, but you got one hell of a shit attitude. I gave you a reasonable explanation of how I see it, so all you had to do is discuss it in a reasonable manner with me and show some respect. I'm not going anywhere.

Yeah, go on, just get off this thread like you were gonna. :nutkick:

FordGT90ConceptI know that. Displays need some kind of GPU driving them and software can use DirectCompute on them to accelerate computing.

Pill MonsterBullshit buddy. Do you take me for an idiot?

First u gave me an underhanded insult insinuating I was pissed off due to people disagreeing with me, and made out i was the only one arguing the point. . Which is a garbage as you know. I don't mind a good healthy discuission at all. This isn't.

I was pissed off because I was being trolled and right at the time I was over this debate And it's not the first time it's happened either.
So don't act like you're the victim here..

FordGT90ConceptA "core" is a complete computing unit. AMD proves it is not complete in their 6-"core" Bulldozer processors. The two units packaged together are inseparable or they would have sold 7-"core" Bulldozer processors having only gated off the one that was defective.


Because compression is mostly integer-based where Bulldozer performs more like an 8-core processor. Even considering the widely different architectures and Bulldozer having a design ideal for it, it doesn't win by a very large margin. The lawsuit is about the worst case scenario (saturated FPUs) and you're citing the best case scenario (saturated ALUs) where Bulldozer's non-traditional design shines. The latter doesn't forgive the former.

Serpent of DarknessIf you right-click on the graph, left click and highlight "graphs to show >," and select Logical Processors, it might show 16 little graphs of "FordGT90Concept please insert what you want to call it in here because you feel strongly that AMD must burn in a fire for their fraudulent misrepresentation of cores" to further prove your point, Vulkan. If it doesn't show 16 little graphs, then on an ironic side, it would support Ford's point. Maybe? Doubt it.

Now that I think about it, looking at your performance tab, Vulkan, maybe AMD just markets it's CPUs as having X amount of Logical Processors, but they call it "Core Processors. Intel market CPUs based on y-amount of Cores which are really 2 Logical Processors to 1 Core. I think that's one part of where the problem occurs between FordGT90Concept and others having their disagreements.

If we go back to the original Topic of Discussion, the Lawsuit is probably dead on arrival. I don't believe the court is going to award damages. At best, it's a marketing blunder on AMD's end.

Captain_TomHey genius, then why are there no 3-core intel CPU's? By your logic Intel not making some 3-core i5/i7 proves that Intel doesn't have 4 cores in an i7.

FordGT90ConceptGood point. Intel could do that but they don't. They're sold as dual-cores. AMD presumably sells them as six-cores.

Captain_TomWrong - something in Intel's architecture doesn't allow them to do that, because they clearly would.

AquinusNo rebuttle to my point made earlier? People seem to be content spouting off the same thing they've been saying for pages but not following up anything substantive...

www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/amd-dragged-to-court-over-core-count-on-bulldozer.217327/page-6#post-3367789

Captain_TomWrong - something in Intel's architecture doesn't allow them to do that, because they clearly would. Same with AMD's construction archs - how they built it allows them to save TDP, money, and die space by having the cores share some resources.

qubitNo, I don't think that's the case with Intel. In the BIOS I can set the core count to 1,2,3 or 4 with separate HT on/off. I've experimented with that before and the computer worked just fine, therefore, it would be trivial for Intel to fuse off a core if they wanted to. They already do that with two cores to make dual core CPUs.
Why they don't sell tri core CPUs you'd have to ask them.

@FordGT90Concept Dammit, you beat me to it! :p

Captain_TomNo you can set it to 1,2, or 4.

FrickAnd when Ford rebutts something it stays rebutted. Especially when he has qubit backing him up.