For starters, nobody saw Athlon 64 coming. Everyone figured it would be an improvement, but nothing like what they delivered. Similarily, Core2 was a huge advancement, that few people saw coming. I wouldn't put Phenom II up there since Phenom I was a flop, and PII pretty much just corrected it and properly implemented it. As for SB, I was pretty certain it would be impressive, the thing that makes SB so desirable is the price though, not many saw them pricing a CPU that was on par for their last gen $1000 CPU at $200-300.
I'm sure AMD hopes for a 15% improvement, but they also said Bulldozer would be much better than Phenom II, and for a lot of things it is better, but is it better than if they had reworked the IMC and shrunk down Phenom II's design? Phenom II vs. BD is a lot like P3 vs. P4.
The thing is, what AMD says they are trying to do, and what they actually do, are generally two very different things. I mean, BD was intended to use less power but that clearly didn't happen. As for Resonant Clock Mesh, I see nowhere that is "converts" 10% of heat into clock speed. I've seen that it can reduce power consumption by up to 30% (according to Cyclos, the company that designed it--actual PD CPU's are said to have 24% lower consumption) and increase overall performance by 5-10% because you have access to higher clocks and more power. Something to consider, is that Resonant Clock Mesh is also going to require space on die, because it adds capacitors and inductors to the CPU.
Bulldozer was designed to be scalable, but the issue isn't scalability. They can keep adding modules, and anything that can use those will see a performance gain, but their performance per thread is the issue.
Simple thing is, we won't know till we see it.
On topic with this thread- pertaining to those very same cores, looking at the power consumption, we see 99 watts at it's full clockspeed of 3.8ghz. With an IGP using 30-50ish of those.
So if this is real, then I believe AMD bumped up their game in overclockability. Not to mention the 65w part at 3.6ghz.
As far as why they didn't just shrink PII, I think this guy has it right;
"Bulldozer is performing badly mostly because of:
1) Combination of small L1 caches and slow L2 caches. This problem stays with piledriver.
2) L1 instruction cache aliasing problems and write-through L1 caches causing excessive L2 traffic. This problem stays with piledriver
3) The made couple of small mistakes somewhere and it cannot reach the clock speeds it was supposed to reach/what speeds most of it's pipeline would allow. Piledriver will fix this.
4) To get full floating point performance, you have to use AMD's own FMA4 instructions. No legacy software uses those, and not all new software is going to use them because intel is not going to implement those same instructions. Piledriver is going to support Intel Haswell-compatible FMA3, so new code optimized to intel will give full fpu performance on piledriver, no need for amd-specific optimizations.
12 7 [Posted by: hkultala | Date: 02/22/12 09:30:26 PM]
K10 had reached it's age. Already Nehalem beat it badly, and there was no space for improvement in K10, there was too much legacy burden from K7, like lack of memory disambiguation, too tightly coupled ALU and AGU units, tomasulo style OOE instead of PRF-based OOE etc.
And you cannot change these things in existing architecture, they had already changed everything that can be changed/improved between K7 and K10.
So quite many years ago AMD knew it needs a totally new architecture after these K7-derivates, and they developed bulldozer. It ended up being worse than expected, but most of the problems are with the implementation, not deeply in the architecture.
Now there is a lots of room for improvement by fixing those things that appeared to be bottlenecks in the design.
7 1 [Posted by: hkultala | Date: 02/23/12 05:42:39 PM]"
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...stone_Thanks_to_Resonant_Clock_Mesh_Tech.html
Although I'm hoping AMD will have worked on the cache somewhat.
Simple thing is, we won't know till the end product is released and we all hope for the sake of prices that AMD comes up with a good processor that can compete. And it's not even implausible for them to.