Bulldozer Core-Count Debate Comes Back to Haunt AMD

[FordGT90Concept]

Thread A can end up on FMAC 1 and/or 2
Thread B can end up on FMAC 1 and/or 2

They are not explicitly assigned; they are thread agnostic. FP scheduler/frontend determines what thread ends up where.

 

[Vya Domus]

FP scheduler/frontend determines what thread ends up where.

On which FPU, sure, of which there are more than one.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I hope the lawsuit wins and no one ever tries this again.

So what you're saying is, effectively, that no one should ever try something new or try to do things a different way for fear of being punished? Very short sighted perspective and is not how we got where we are today.

My conclusion isn't flawed, yours is.

And you've done it again. I stand by what I said.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

On which FPU, sure, of which there are more than one.

Still a shared resource, as the diagram explicitly says.

 

[lexluthermiester]

a core is still a core without the FPU

Correct. That is exactly how early CPU's were made. It wasn't until the 486DX that the FPU was integrated into the CPU die itself. Before then there were separate chips for floating point calculations, if CPU makers made them at all. Single core CPU's without floating point were still called CPU's back then and were considered fully functional. The terminology still applies and is still valid. All AMD has to do is point out these very simple facts, show that each of the 8 Integer Units can execute instructions as designed and that will be that. This lawsuit will fail as long as AMD's legal team are competent, which there is a very good likelihood of.

 

[qubit]

So what you're saying is, effectively, that no one should ever try something new or try to do things a different way for fear of being punished? Very short sighted perspective and is not how we got where we are today.

And you done it again. I stand by what I said.

No I'm not saying that. More straw man arguments. You're going to keep arguing, aren't you?

 

[Vya Domus]

There are multiple FPUs shared by the two threads. Same thing as to how on a GPU CU/SM multiple threads use multiple FPUs but they don't count as just one FPU.

 

[lexluthermiester]

No I'm not saying that.

That is exactly what your statement implied. The perspective expressed is as technically flawed as it is idealistically flawed and is an example of the entitled, greedy and narrow-minded scope that inspired this lawsuit in the first place. This lawsuit should and very likely will fail on the merits alone.

 

[londiste]

Could you please stop about the FPU, please? Pretty please?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

There are multiple FPUs shared by the two threads. Same thing as to how on a GPU CU/SM multiple threads use multiple FPUs but they don't count as just one FPU.

In Zen, Core, Core 2, Core I#, Athlon 64 X2, Athlon X2, etc. Core0 cannot share FPU resources with Core1 because they're completely separate thread contexts. The thread has to be purged from one core and transferred to the other. In Bulldozer, Thread A and Thread B in the same module both use the same floating point cluster.

 

[Vya Domus]

Cluster, exactly , meaning more than one. Saying that there is just one FPU that is shared is simply improper.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Doesn't matter how many FMACs there are, they're shared resources in Bulldozer, Steamroller, and Excavator not dedicated resources like they are in Zen, Thuban, Nehalem, and Conroe. Independent processors don't share resources above the crossbar (or whatever interconnect is used) other than cache.

 

[Aquinus]

I think I'm going to un-sub now, considering we have a lot of "experts" chiming in with some rather interesting opinions on the matter.

Spoiler: Not to mention that this thread is...

 

[Patriot]

More of

Side 1 here are facts signed off by people that are considered leaders and experts in the industry.

Side 2 nope.

Side 1 additional information further proving what was backed up by subject matter experts

Side 2 see previous lack of argument.

Yeah... Seeing lots of this...

 

[Shambles1980]

that diagram started off with "no nothing" Kind of funny to be honest.

 

[F7GOS]

that diagram started off with "no nothing" Kind of funny to be honest.

Maybe said with a hint of tongue in cheek?

 

[AusWolf]

i dont see how that is true..
the case is
"normal members of the public were sold "cores" which weren't the same as a traditional core. But amd says that normal members of the public would have known the difference"

Who better to have than normal members of the public if the argument is the public should know the difference.

IMO normal members of the public wouldn't tell the difference between a Celeron and a Core i7. Both of them run Facebook and Youtube just fine.

 

[Shambles1980]

in the context of this law suit that's not the best argument..
they are arguing that bulldozer "cores" aren't traditional cores and so you cannot count them as 8 cores, and should have called them something else which would have defined them as different so normal people didn't think they were getting 8 full traditional cores.

 

[AusWolf]

in the context of this law suit that's not the best argument..
they are arguing that bulldozer "cores" aren't traditional cores and so you cannot count them as 8 cores, and should have called them something else which would have defined them as different so normal people didn't think they were getting 8 full traditional cores.

We cannot argue about cores with people who have absolutely no idea what a processor core is. What they think is irrelevant if they lack the knowledge necessary to even join the argument.

My point is: you need some knowledge before you can form an opinion about something.

 

[Vya Domus]

I find this logic hilarious.

This relies on the presumption that "normal" people were idiots and they didn't know that this CPU didn't have 8 cores but somehow if AMD would have called it something else suddenly now they know how to make the distinction between that and "traditional cores", all this while they still don't have a clue what a core actually is.

All this is happens in the context where a "normal" consumer can't even properly define what a CPU is and most refer to it as "the brain of the computer".

 

[AusWolf]

I find this logic hilarious.

This relies on the presumption that "normal" people were idiots and they didn't know that this CPU didn't have 8 cores but somehow if AMD would have called it something else suddenly now they know how to make the distinction between that and "traditional cores", all this while they still don't have a clue what a core is. All this is happens in the context where a "normal" consumer can't even properly define what a CPU is.

I know quite many people who really have never seen a CPU, and have no idea what is inside one. This doesn't make them idiots. They only have different interests. But I still think that they have no right to join the argument, because they don't even know what the argument is about. Just like I would never argue about the latest fashion trends, for example, because I'm a total alien to the topic.

 

[Shambles1980]

I find this logic hilarious.

This relies on the presumption that "normal" people were idiots and they didn't know that this CPU didn't have 8 cores but somehow if AMD would have called it something else suddenly now they know how to make the distinction between that and "traditional cores", all this while they still don't have a clue what a core actually is.

All this is happens in the context where a "normal" consumer can't even properly define what a CPU is and most refer to it as "the brain of the computer".

does not matter if they know the difference provided amd made the effort..
we had the samething over how hard drive space was advertized.. wd settled in that case..

 

[FordGT90Concept]

wd settled in that case..

Seagate was class action sued and lost. That's why all hard drives and optical media now have the 1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes descriptor on the packaging.

If AMD still produced Excavator processors, they'll probably have to add 1 core = 1 integer core on the box.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

486DX is the equivalent of 20 lifetimes old in terms of technology. It's not relevant to processors that debuted in 2011. Complaining that the FPUs were in a coprocessor is like complaining that power windows in vehicles shouldn't be a standard feature today. FPUs are integral to personal computer design for decades. Hell, the text you're looking at right now is processed by FPUs through TrueType fonts. Back when FPUs were separate, fonts were just copied from indexed tables (especially ASCII) because they simply didn't have the resources to render flexible fonts. Today, TrueType fonts are trivial and backpedaling on the hardware that makes it possible is poor design.

Not that it matters. Bulldozer, Steamroller, and Excavator modules share more than just their ability to process floating point decimals--they share control logic. A human losing half of their brain changes who they are. This is also true of AMD modules. The complete unit (a core) includes one of some things and two of others. Nothing wrong with that but what is wrong is AMD advertising it as having two of everything. The judge agreed the arguments need to be heard before a jury.

 

[lexluthermiester]

486DX is the equivalent of 20 lifetimes old in terms of technology. It's not relevant to processors that debuted in 2011.

Absolutely it is as everything currently in use today owes it's heritage to that generation of CPU's, just like all modern ARM based RISC CPU's owe their existence to the early Acorn CPU's. Just because CPU design's have improved and evolved does not make the older iterations irrelevant.

FPUs are integral to personal computer design for decades.

However, are not required. An Integer Unit can do floating point the long way, which is the way floating point was done before FPU's were designed. A CPU is still a CPU with or without an FPU. Likewise a CPU core is still an individual core whether it has it's own FPU or shares one with another core.

Not that it matters. Bulldozer, Steamroller, and Excavator modules share more than just their ability to process floating point decimals--they share control logic.

By that logic, the Core2Quads and any other CPU that has two or more dies bridged together, and shares resources, do not qualify as a single CPU. They are dual CPU packages. So should we all sue Intel and AMD for that deception?

but what is wrong is AMD advertising it as having two of everything.

AMD never said that. They called it an 8 core CPU, which by technical definition, it is.