• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

AMD Bulldozer Eng. Sample leaked, benched

  • Thread starter Thread starter twilyth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

It's a weekend teaser so you might get benchmarks lol

I am watching like a hawk no worries

Mature%20Male%20Harris%27%20Hawk.jpg


So, if he/OBR does any benchmarks I am watching and I'll post or if someone else gets to post it before me...

We at least have clocks

The whole 3.8 stock clock was false
 
Last edited:
Its depends on if BD uses the same IMC. Which NO ONE knows but AMD.

AMD has stated that BD has vastly better memory throughput then phenom and currently available architectures. I have also seen mention of a new design memory controller as well, it would be needed given the way the chip is designed.
 
Last edited:
Nope man, we're screwed. Gigabyte isn't updating the Bios, they want us to pay for a black socket revision. I e-mailed them about the situation when Asus announced that they were going to do Bios updates and they told me that they weren't because AMD wasn't supporting it.
That was my driving force for looking at anyone other than Gigabyte for my next board.

That's assuming that you are using the board in your system specs, which is the same as mine.



That's the e-mail if you were interested, awesome grammar included.

I just checked the Gigabyte site,they now have a beta version of a AM3+ support BIOS for my board (890GX),but that doesn't mean the BIOS is stable or even works with a final release Bulldozer CPU.
I'm surprised,no BIOS update for their 890FX series?
 
I just checked the Gigabyte site,they now have a beta version of a AM3+ support BIOS for my board,but that doesn't mean the BIOS is stable or even works with a final release Bulldozer CPU.
I'm surprised,no BIOS update for their 890FX series?

I could have sworn i read over at the ORG blog that the Asus 990FX Crosshair V worked perfectly with BD
 
I could have sworn i read over at the ORG blog that the Asus 990FX Crosshair V worked perfectly with BD

The 990FX is the new chipset made to work with BD,older 8xx series require a BIOS update.
 
I thought 990FX was pretty much 890FX just with a new name :laugh:

Nope

:banghead:

There are some differences...

But since the Northbridge is in the CPU...
 
Nope

:banghead:

There are some differences...

But since the Northbridge is in the CPU...
Since the Northbridge is the CPU,there isn't alot to be changed.
But I'm sure there are optimizations for BD in the 990FX chipset,990FX also has SLI support.
 
well the sockets supposedly changed in minor ways as well, which would be the key difference.
 
well the sockets supposedly changed in minor ways as well, which would be the key difference.

Well...for the better...I haven't seen anyone look at this before

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

It's a interesting read

and when looking up a guy gave a pretty interesting summary

http://www.commodore-amiga.org/en/f...bulldozer-optimizations-pdf-pretty-impressive
deadtime said:
OK it took me a few days but here go's

If we take a look at a single Bulldozer core, you see a design optimized for throughput AMD will not introduce its own version of Hyper-Threading, but rather focus on physically increasing the number of instructions per clock [IPC] through wider internal units. A good example will be the newly designed 128-bit FPUs [Floating-Point Units]. Currently, 128-bit instructions are carried out by using 32-bit / 64-bit FPU at a reduced efficiency [more cycles needed to process a single instruction]. According to our sources, GPR [General Purpose Registers] were increased to 128-bit. Once that we learned of this alleged GPR depth, we asked does that mean we can, theoretically, call Bulldozer a "128-bit CPU" and is "x86-128" on the way? I will openly admit that I asked such a question without giving it a second thought.

Most people are using X86 64 bit processors, the bulldozer is really the first 128 bit X86 cpu.

I believe the focus of AMD's design was to increase the number of instructions processed on-the-fly, meaning that most instructions should use registers in a 64+64-bit or 32+32+32+32-bit fashion, significantly raising the IPC when compared to current K10.5 architecture. So, no "x86-128". For now.

This new internal architecture enabled AMD to design its first Streaming SIMD Extension set, 128-bit SSE5. Again, this was also the reason why Intel went into a denial frenzy over a possible implementation of the SSE5 instruction set. They cannot do it [SSE5] until they really change their architecture, "But we will blow them out of the water"… were the words from one of the e-mails I have with a friend and CPU designer from AMD when SSE5 development took place [thus, pre-AVX].
While it is currently true that 128-bit SSE instructions were executed slower due to reliance on 32 and 64-bit registers for FPUs, we have to wait and see who will have better a FPU unit: 512-bits Vector unit inside Larrabee or 128-bit Bulldozer ones.

One part that is bound to bring confusion is the memory controller. To be perfectly honest, both K10 [Phenom] and K10.5 [Phenom II] did a pretty lame job with asynchronous clock between the CPU cores and a "Northbridge" block consisting out of memory controller, I/O protocols and L3 cache. The fact that L3 cache worked at a lower clock significantly reduced its usability - you can get a higher performance boost if you overclock the "Northbridge", than raising CPU cores until they crash.

Bulldozer brings even more complexity into the frame - M-SPACE enables GPU-like clock gating, and processors based upon Bulldozer core should offer power efficiency one step ahead of most efficient notebook processors. The memory controller is continuing to be independently clocked, and L3 cache is now a default part of the architecture for both sides in CPU arena.

If we talk about the width, here comes the interesting part: AMD's memory controller can be 144-bit, 288-bit or even 576-bit [on MCM processors], but we doubt that we will ever see a 576-bit interface. MCM modules will feature a unison of two dies and a merger of cores and L3 cache from one unit with another, bypassing the external memory addressing - thus remaining 288-bit wide even with two physical 288-bit interfaces embedded in silicon.

With Virtualization or AMD-V continuing to be one of key architectural accents, the memory controller features a lot of technologies that will ease life to numerous virtual hosting providers. Every core can address a single channel or use one channel for redundancy, yet another feature from Alpha 21364 architecture.

Since AMD is pairing Bulldozer with the JEDEC-certified DDR3-1600 memory spec, you can expect to see memory bandwidth ranging from 25.6-51.2 GB/s. This part is heavily influenced with the underground overclocking department inside AMD. Those guys will expose a *lot* of advanced memory options exposed in the CPU design, so Orochi which is the desktop bulldozer should have no problems running DDR3-2000 or DDR3-2133 without overclocking the CPU itself.

I tried to break it down into English I hope this helps.

This software optimization looks to be aimed towards the server market

There is some changes with the north bridge

144bit->288bit could be why there is an extra pin
^Mem controller(There will be a Bulldozer/FX cpu that will not be supported in AM3, eventually)

I was looking up changes in Northbridge in Bulldozer and it basically every link popped up this pdf
 
Last edited:
You info is full of fail. AMD's own site says 1866 memory support. If that obvious thing is wrong, more than likely the rest is too. Oh well.:laugh:
 
You info is full of fail. AMD's own site says 1866 memory support. If that obvious thing is wrong, more than likely the rest is too. Oh well.:laugh:

Quoting posts from other forums as information doesn't make any sense to me either.
 
You info is full of fail. AMD's own site says 1866 memory support. If that obvious thing is wrong, more than likely the rest is too. Oh well.:laugh:

Quad Channel DDR3 Integrated Memory Controller (support for PC-12800 (DDR3-1600) and Registered DDR3) for Server/Workstation (New Opteron Valencia and Interlagos)

It's aimed for Servers the software optimization guide

Valencia is basically(basically, not EXACTLY like) the server version of Zambezi

There are differences going from NB A -> NB B

From K10.5 AM3 -> K15 AM3+
 
...AND.....FAIL?:laugh:

Jeff Fruehe says 1866, and he can ONLY comment on server parts.


End story.

:roll:


I won't provide links, just check his blog on the AMD website. Get your facts from the horse's mouth.
 
...AND.....FAIL?:laugh:

Jeff Fruehe says 1866, and he can ONLY comment on server parts.


End story.

:roll:


I won't provide links, just check his blog on the AMD website. Get your facts from the horse's mouth.

Only 1600MHz and he didn't comment on clocks on his blog

He only said high bandwidth/low latency DDR3

End of story..

:slap:

riker.gif
 
Last edited:
He posted it on here ...oh wait.:laugh:

amdfa5.png


He said new socket would be needed for best performance. I translated that as 1866, but he was talking it would be because of quad channel.


Fail.:laugh:

Up to 30% more than Opteron 6174 is not that good.
 
Last edited:
Mounting holes are the same as AM3, AM2+, AM2, s939 etc..

939 is not the same. It only had 2 mounting screws for the hsf bracket, remember?

AM2 and up is all the same tho. (4 screws)

Nope man, we're screwed. Gigabyte isn't updating the Bios, they want us to pay for a black socket revision. I e-mailed them about the situation when Asus announced that they were going to do Bios updates and they told me that they weren't because AMD wasn't supporting it.
That was my driving force for looking at anyone other than Gigabyte for my next board.

That's assuming that you are using the board in your system specs, which is the same as mine.



That's the e-mail if you were interested, awesome grammar included.

The Asus/MSI/etc boards have to be specific revisions with the newer sockets as well. GB isn't ripping you off, you just don't have the revision with the needed socket.
 
Who is so sure that 990X & FX @4GHz cannot compete with any SB @4GHz? So, if clocks for FX are high there isn't a problem to compete SB w/o oc. And if this is trully ES then...
 
It's quite simple- Bulldozer HAS to be AT LEAST as fast as Sandy. It already has a(n) (in)significant disadvantage over Sandy- no GPU, though Enhanced Bulldozer ("Komodo") will take care of that next year...WIth the Enthusiast platform from Intel, the Sandy-E, yet to be released, BD faces a rough road ahead ...
 
939 is not the same. It only had 2 mounting screws for the hsf bracket, remember?

AM2 and up is all the same tho. (4 screws)



The Asus/MSI/etc boards have to be specific revisions with the newer sockets as well. GB isn't ripping you off, you just don't have the revision with the needed socket.

Not trying to start an argument, but your wrong.

http://tecinfozone.blogspot.com/2011/03/asus-am3-motherboards-get-beta-bios.html

Here's the info from Asus themselves.

http://event.asus.com/2011/mb/AM3_PLUS_Ready/
 
939 is not the same. It only had 2 mounting screws for the hsf bracket, remember?

AM2 and up is all the same tho. (4 screws)

if your cooler uses the stock clip mechanism, they're still compatible. if you're replacing it completely, then yeah the screw holes are different.
 
It's quite simple- Bulldozer HAS to be AT LEAST as fast as Sandy. It already has a(n) (in)significant disadvantage over Sandy- no GPU, though Enhanced Bulldozer ("Komodo") will take care of that next year...WIth the Enthusiast platform from Intel, the Sandy-E, yet to be released, BD faces a rough road ahead ...

I agree that BD has to equal SB's performance as a total but not core2core. And that's because from C2D to present Intel was 15-20% ahead in c2c performance and with SB it's another 10%. So, even if BD is 10% back in c2c but wins overall in multithreaded programs, it's very nice a product.
 
I agree that BD has to equal SB's performance as a total but not core2core. And that's because from C2D to present Intel was 15-20% ahead in c2c performance and with SB it's another 10%. So, even if BD is 10% back in c2c but wins overall in multithreaded programs, it's very nice a product.

especially when (if, with BD) AMD sells at a lower price.
 
I agree that BD has to equal SB's performance as a total but not core2core. And that's because from C2D to present Intel was 15-20% ahead in c2c performance and with SB it's another 10%. So, even if BD is 10% back in c2c but wins overall in multithreaded programs, it's very nice a product.

I believe the 8 Core will be as fast if not faster then a 2600K in multithreaded apps but in gaming it's going to have its ass handed to it by SB.

Also were 8 months away from this beast...

Source: http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=268383

CPU:
72589812.jpg

85468012.jpg

78542040.jpg


1. 22nm ivy bridge 2. 32nm sandy bridge i5-2300 3. 32nm sandy bridge pentium g620

89540888.jpg


Benchmarks:
ivy1v.gif

ivy2.gif

ivy3.gif

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/5907/ivy4.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top