All i want is a (i dont care how many cores it has) AMD CPU to perform around the same as a 2600K (like Bulldozer was meant to) then id be very happy, that to much to ask for?
that wont be happening anytime soon, atleast not in single thread, unless amd can release piledriver with 5ghz+ then maybe
The IPC won't be the same, it will still be pretty far behind Sandy Bridge. In
this topic it is revealed Piledriver will have about the same Int\GHz as Stars. This might put it closer to SB, but definitely won't be at the same level. According to that chart SB's FP/GHz is 25% higher and Int/GHz is also 25%+ higher than PD-based Trinity. This is just like Pentium 4, AMD can't make the architecture a ton better, so they are cranking the clock rates as high as they can go.
According to most articles on the subject RCM will only really allow for higher clocks with a lower power draw, it doesn't increase performance by itself, just performance per watt. It's part of the reason PD is going to be clocked so high.
idk where you guys are getting the phenom II has 20% lower ipc than SB
as far as i know phenom II has 60-70% the ipc of SB(40%) slower
while BD has 90%ipc of phenom II/stars
this is why in some cases SB would perform 160% the performance of bulldozer when running around the same clock speed
Okay well, 1. Integer performance is, at least to my knowledge, what matters most of the time in a CPU. With integer performance being the same as STARS without L3, then it may be 10-20% faster clock for clock when it is added( note- i said as fast or almost, i.e. slightly slower clock for clock but not much) , and with stock clocks being 20-30% higher at stock vs SB/IB, it should compete nicely.
And yes that RCM makes it clock higher/watt. It may mean it becomes a high end OC chip, if it can clock into the upper 5ghz range on water, and will give AMD an overall fully competitive mainstream chip. Also, if I remember correctly part of the turn to BD architecture was because PII couldn't be improved much more, and they wanted better power efficiency.
1st gen failed at that, though I'm hoping Piledriver gives them a competitive edge, and means we can recommend AMD again, and the fanboy war debates with no good answer one way or the other can commence.
now if piledriver truly is 20% faster than stars clock-clock then it should sit at around 80% the ipc of SB which would mean SB would perform 15-25% faster
but amd promised 29% better x86 performance than llano in general and not clock-clock
and that is usualy a best case scenario if you know amd marketing, so knowing they relied on clock speed its hard to compare different skus and efficiency because clockspeed and efficiency dont scale, meaning PD would be much more efficient in lower tdps than at the higher end
however if amd was comparing the fastest trinity with the fastest llanno then it makes alot of sense and its safe to assume that llano and PD have the same IPC, because an a8-3870k has 3.0ghz clockspeed, and the A10-5800k has a higher clock of 4.2ghz, exactly 29% faster clockspeed
IPC = Instructions per clock, if Bulldozer is slower at the same clock speed then the IPC would be lower not higher.
instruction per CYCLE is being too generalized in my opinion as it doesnt tell real world performance, like bulldozer for example if looking at its hardware it should do 4 instructions per cycle vs 3 in phenom as each module has more hardware(ex: 4decoders vs 3in stars), however each cycle is longer than that of stars or SB due to its higher latency
and its designed that way so the shared resources can have enough time to feed data for 2 cores, meaning while one core is crunching on data, the other integer core would be getting fed from the shared resources
the latency was higher than expected tho as i believe, amd pretty much worked around that i believe(or thats what seems to be) by either shortening the cycles or allowing more entries(which is increased according to this chart ive seen, L1data became 64 from 32)
