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

[xenocide]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Edit: Inceptor, I like your signature.

Thanks