AMD Details Bulldozer Processor Architecture

[cadaveca]

Yes good point, thanks

I think the real point there is that once again, AMD isn't exactly forthcoming with PRECISE information, ever. Or maybe it's those reporting...I am unsure since everyone in those circles is so "buddy-buddy" at this point.

 

[nt300]

So Bulldozer CPUs will not work with old AM3 motherboards but old AM3 cpus will work in new AM3+ motherboards. I hope AMD does not mess up the DDR3 scaling because Dual-channel is not enough to feed 8 bulldozer cores.

Desktop Bulldozer Processors Will Require New Platforms - AMD.
AMD Zambezi to Use AM3+ Platforms
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20100826225852_Desktop_Bulldozer_Processors_Will_Require_New_Platforms_AMD.html

Advanced Micro Devices said that its next-generation desktop processors code-named Zambezi will use socket AM3+ platforms, which will be backwards compatible with the firm's existing AM3 products. While the latter is an advantage for the platform, it may be a disadvantage for eight-core processors based on Bulldozer micro-architecture...............

 

[cadaveca]

I'm not buying any of it. Let's wait for some motherboards to surface before deciding who's got the right story...I think these guys aren't all talking to the same people @ AMD, and the guys they are talking to, aren't exactly up to date on all the pertinent info. Idiots.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

I'm thinking the first round will be like the PhenomII 920 and 940 but after that they will all be AM3r2 only Cpu's

 

[Super XP]

New platform, no problem I am looking forward to buying a new mobo.

 

[Neo4]

So Bulldozer CPUs will not work with old AM3 motherboards but old AM3 cpus will work in new AM3+ motherboards. I hope AMD does not mess up the DDR3 scaling because Dual-channel is not enough to feed 8 bulldozer cores.

Dual channel memory is more than enough and Intel proved it with socket 1366 and triple channel designs being an unnecessary expensive. Why do you think they went back to dual channel? Read the reviews it wasn't just for the expense. (By the way, read the reviews on the real world impact on RAM speed as well.) And how can current AM3 designs support a radical and completely new design never before tried by ANY CPU manufacturer? One that doesn't require a Northbridge chipset because it's built into the CPU itself? If current boards supported "Bulldozer" then it would just be a rehash of "Stars" and little faster than what AMD has now. Despite the die shrink to 32 nm which will certainly allow higher clocks and lower TDP's. It certainly wouldn't have a chance against Intel's current and future processors. Allowing current CPU's to work in the Bulldozer boards to come is far more generous than anybody should expect and far more than the Intel camp would ever allow. AMD, I strongly suspect, has a major new performance boost coming with Bulldozer and it's going to strike with even more impact because they will downplay it right up to the day it's released to the server market next April or so. Remember when AMD shocked everybody by how much faster the 4000 video series was to the 3000 series by keeping a low profile up until the day they went on sale? By next August, regular peeps like us will be able to purchase hardware from NewEgg probably no more expensive than current AMD hardware and all we'll need to upgrade our boxes will be a new board and CPU. Next year at this time TechPowerup, HardOCP, Anandtech and all the other hardware review sites will be gushing their enthusiasm for what AMD will have accomplished. Exciting times my friends when you think that you can just buy a new board that supports Bulldozer, use your current Phenom II and buy a Bulldozer CPU later when you have the cash. That's a pretty painless and inexpensive upgrade path compared to ChipZilla..

 

[JF-AMD]

People seem to be really caught up in how many channels of memory there are, and not necessarily how efficient those channels perform.

What if you had 2 channels that could perform the same as 3? Would you still demand 3 or would you be ok with 2?

It's the same thing with thermals on servers. Intel is at 32nm but their best 2P power score (@ 100% utilization) is 174W. Ours is 126W (on a 45nm process). I have people try to convince me that 32nm is an advantage because you have lower power consumption.

It's not about the technology, it's about the output.

 

[cheezburger]

People seem to be really caught up in how many channels of memory there are, and not necessarily how efficient those channels perform.

What if you had 2 channels that could perform the same as 3? Would you still demand 3 or would you be ok with 2?

It's the same thing with thermals on servers. Intel is at 32nm but their best 2P power score (@ 100% utilization) is 174W. Ours is 126W (on a 45nm process). I have people try to convince me that 32nm is an advantage because you have lower power consumption.

It's not about the technology, it's about the output.

that's because in computer world everything are accelerate by pure brutal force. not efficiency. if you can do same performance intel that consume 174W while only use 126W. why not increase to 174W and crush intel? i don't understand you logic at all.

 

[bear jesus]

People seem to be really caught up in how many channels of memory there are, and not necessarily how efficient those channels perform.

I think that some people, myself included just assumed that each channel is limited more by the ram than anything else thus assumed that the only way to get more performance is to add more channels.

I'm still interested in the idea of a quad memory channel bulldozer (preferably interlagos) for a home server partly as in a way i assume that with so many core's and with running a multiple virtual machines it would benifit from the extra channels, although really i dont have a clue what would be needed memory bandwith wise or if i would have a need for so many channels.

 

[btarunr]

that's because in computer world everything are accelerate by pure brutal force. not efficiency.

That's exactly what JF is talking about. "Pure brutal force" counts, not what goes into creating that. So If Bulldozer's client SKU uses say dual-channel DDR3-1866 MHz as its memory standard (since 1866 MHz 1.5V bulk DIMMs are a reality), it's making up for memory bandwidth that triple-channel DDR3-1066 MHz (Core i7 official memory standard) has with its third channel. It's the same as 256-bit high-speed GDDR5 vs. 384-bit low-speed GDDR5 AMD vs. NVIDIA point.

And you're wrong, efficiency is God in the server world.

 

[JF-AMD]

Because there are large companies that buy tens of thousands of servers and all they care about is the absolute lowest power possible so that they can have the largest number of threads with the lowest watts per thread. Think of very large cloud companies.

As a matter of fact, these customers routinely underclock their processors because the proportional drop in power is greater than the drop in performance, leading to better performance per watt.

Not every application requires performance. As a matter of fact, because only ~5% of the processors bought are top bin (ours and intel's), you can actually say that 95% of the customers want something other than raw performance (either price/performance or performance/watt.) It is pretty simplistic to think that performance is the only vector that matters. It's akin to asking a hybrid car owner what the 0-60mph time is or asking a sports car owner what the gas mileage is.

There are plenty of different usage models in the market and the "raw performance at all costs" is ~5% of the market. At best.

 

[JF-AMD]

I think that some people, myself included just assumed that each channel is limited more by the ram than anything else thus assumed that the only way to get more performance is to add more channels.

I'm still interested in the idea of a quad memory channel bulldozer (preferably interlagos) for a home server partly as in a way i assume that with so many core's and with running a multiple virtual machines it would benifit from the extra channels, although really i dont have a clue what would be needed memory bandwith wise or if i would have a need for so many channels.

Actually, you find that 3 channels is in reality less efficient. I could get into the long math of it, but let me cut to the chase: Everything in the computer world is based on even numbers. 3 channels of memory is the odd man out and is not handled the same way. Plus you don't get to do some things on the server side like advanced ECC unless you have even numbers of channels.

 

[cadaveca]

And you're wrong, efficiency is God in the server world.

AMD's process uses less current than Intel's, and this is a huge advantage for AMD(not like I haven't said that before). I think they have the efficiency thing down pat already...and hopefully Bulldozer brings that brute force. The two things together = 1 killer chip.

 

[bear jesus]

Actually, you find that 3 channels is in reality less efficient. I could get into the long math of it, but let me cut to the chase: Everything in the computer world is based on even numbers. 3 channels of memory is the odd man out and is not handled the same way. Plus you don't get to do some things on the server side like advanced ECC unless you have even numbers of channels.

Really i'm expecting to have to choose between 2 or 4 channels for the server mainly depending on performace along with either 8 or 16 core's. But it is good to know that a triple channel baised server would not be a good idea for my wants/needs.

 

[DigitalUK]

People seem to be really caught up in how many channels of memory there are, and not necessarily how efficient those channels perform.

What if you had 2 channels that could perform the same as 3? Would you still demand 3 or would you be ok with 2?

i think JF knows something hes not telling us...lol blink twice if its dual channel

 

[bear jesus]

i think JF knows something hes not telling us...lol blink twice if its dual channel

I'm pretty sure he knows a lot that he can't tell us we are just lucky he is doing a good job at kind of telling us things without telling us cirtain things... if that makes any sence lol.

 

[CDdude55]

i think JF knows something hes not telling us...lol blink twice if its dual channel

lol, there's a lot he probably can't tell us, even if he's only the server guy.

I think if they can make it efficient and get near or more memory bandwidth while only using two channels, then im all fine with that. As said, i think of the server side of things efficiency is very important, but i think client wise, triple channel is more then enough even if it's not as efficient.

 

[DigitalUK]

yea ive complete faith in amd to deliver the goods thats why im saving now., its just JL as hinted at least 3 times or more that 2 channels could be less efficient. his blog is also Very interesting, memory noted there as well.
AMD hit man knocking my door soon.

 

[mastrdrver]

People seem to be really caught up in how many channels of memory there are, and not necessarily how efficient those channels perform.

What if you had 2 channels that could perform the same as 3? Would you still demand 3 or would you be ok with 2?

It's the same thing with thermals on servers. Intel is at 32nm but their best 2P power score (@ 100% utilization) is 174W. Ours is 126W (on a 45nm process). I have people try to convince me that 32nm is an advantage because you have lower power consumption.

It's not about the technology, it's about the output.

You sir are crazy! Everyone knows that 3 channels pwns all and 4 is teh win!

j/k

I'm glad we could get some clarity on this straight from the horses mount (per say).

 

[Wile E]

All I care about is how much overclocked performance it can achieve within the heat output my cooling setup is able to manage. I don't care how it's achieved, only that it is.

I just want to know how it performs and how it overclocks.

If it's better than Intel, my next rig is AMD. If not, I stick with Intel. That's that.

 

[bear jesus]

All I care about is how much performance it can achieve within the heat output my cooling setup is able to manage. I don't care how it's achieved, only that it is.

I just want to know how it performs and how it overclocks.


If it's better than Intel, my next rig is AMD. If not, I stick with Intel. That's that.

I have to agree, i really want to go with some water cooling with my next cpu upgrade so i am really hoping that bulldozer will oc well under water.

 

[Super XP]

Dual channel memory is more than enough and Intel proved it with socket 1366 and triple channel designs being an unnecessary expensive. Why do you think they went back to dual channel? Read the reviews it wasn't just for the expense. (By the way, read the reviews on the real world impact on RAM speed as well.) And how can current AM3 designs support a radical and completely new design never before tried by ANY CPU manufacturer? One that doesn't require a Northbridge chipset because it's built into the CPU itself? If current boards supported "Bulldozer" then it would just be a rehash of "Stars" and little faster than what AMD has now. Despite the die shrink to 32 nm which will certainly allow higher clocks and lower TDP's. It certainly wouldn't have a chance against Intel's current and future processors. Allowing current CPU's to work in the Bulldozer boards to come is far more generous than anybody should expect and far more than the Intel camp would ever allow. AMD, I strongly suspect, has a major new performance boost coming with Bulldozer and it's going to strike with even more impact because they will downplay it right up to the day it's released to the server market next April or so. Remember when AMD shocked everybody by how much faster the 4000 video series was to the 3000 series by keeping a low profile up until the day they went on sale? By next August, regular peeps like us will be able to purchase hardware from NewEgg probably no more expensive than current AMD hardware and all we'll need to upgrade our boxes will be a new board and CPU. Next year at this time TechPowerup, HardOCP, Anandtech and all the other hardware review sites will be gushing their enthusiasm for what AMD will have accomplished. Exciting times my friends when you think that you can just buy a new board that supports Bulldozer, use your current Phenom II and buy a Bulldozer CPU later when you have the cash. That's a pretty painless and inexpensive upgrade path compared to ChipZilla..

Is that a shared NB?

 

[JF-AMD]

Is that a shared NB?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/2009-11/amd_bulldozer_scheme.jpg

Shared at the die level, just like the L3

 

[Super XP]

The NB is still integrated into Bulldozer was what I was trying to point out. Just like the IMC.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I think the real point there is that once again, AMD isn't exactly forthcoming with PRECISE information, ever. Or maybe it's those reporting...I am unsure since everyone in those circles is so "buddy-buddy" at this point.

I think thats the case with any major company. You never show all the goods. It can give you an edge or hide your flaw.