Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD FX-4100 Bulldozer

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    your thinking is wrong i know this ALL but you don't understand my argument my argument is about the practice.
    there is no difference for the software if there is a longer pipeline splits up by hyper-threating compared to 2 shorter pipelines.
    the Core- I3 act like a quatcore but it isn't a quatcore and the FX4000 act like a Quatcore but it isn't a quatcore.
    an actor isn't a real one.
    it doesn't matter if a Actor use the technique SMT or the Actor used the technique SMP
    the I3 is a dualcore Actor imitate a 4core cpu with SMT
    the FX4000 is a dualcore Actor imitate a 4core cpu with SMP.
    for the consumer there is no difference for multi-core applications.
    No you clearly dont know what your talking about. You REALLY SHOULD read the articles I posted.

    No SMT does -NOT- make the I3 that was used into a 4 core... It -IS- 2 cores.

    Now I agree that AMD marketed BD incorrectly, but it has -NOTHING- to do with SMT. Instead it has -EVERYTHING- to do with funtionality... And int pipeline doesnt do any decoding... An int pipeline doesnt process fp instructions... It takes a module to be a functional device, therefore a module is a core.
    Last edited by duby229; 10-19-2011, 09:24 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by duby229 View Post
      No you clearly dont know what your talking about. No SMT does -NOT- make the I3 that was used into a 4 core... It -IS- 2 cores.
      Now I agree that AMD marketed BD incorrectly, but it has -NOTHING- to do with SMT. Instead it has -EVERYTHING- to do with funtionality... And int pipeline doesnt do any decoding... An int pipeline doesnt process fp instructions... It takes a module to be a functional device, therefore a module is a core.
      i think you are blinkered because of your technical skills.
      open our eyes if a intel dualcore beats an FX4000 quatcore or it brings the same result then you are wrong in practice.
      you are only right in an theoretical point of view in the practice you are wrong.
      the I3 and FX4000 are Actors and they play the act "Quatcore" and the result is nearly the same.

      Comment


      • #48
        No it isnt nearly the same. AMD's architecture has 2 int pipelines and 1 floating point pipeline per module. It is not the same. Software will -NOT- behave the same.

        You REALLY SHOULD read the articles I posted.
        Last edited by duby229; 10-19-2011, 09:37 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by duby229 View Post
          No it isnt nearly the same. AMD's architecture has 2 int pipelines and 1 floating point pipeline per module. It is not the same. Software will -NOT- behave the same.
          You REALLY SHOULD read the articles I posted.
          if you have the double long pipe line software emulated(hyper-threating) splits into 2 pieces )intel i3( its the same compared to 2 half long pipe lines.
          because of this the benchmarks nearly the same.
          Intel wins if more single threated performance is needed and amd wins if more multi-task performance is needed.
          and i don't have to read your posts again because your posts chance nothing about my argumentation.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
            if you have the double long pipe line software emulated(hyper-threating) splits into 2 pieces )intel i3( its the same compared to 2 half long pipe lines.
            because of this the benchmarks nearly the same.
            Intel wins if more single threated performance is needed and amd wins if more multi-task performance is needed.
            and i don't have to read your posts again because your posts chance nothing about my argumentation.
            This is a strange form of logic. What does benchmarking have to do with anything? We don't call Sandy Bridge a 25 core chip just because it performs 25 times faster than a 486DX. (Just a random number there, I'm not sure what the actual comparison would be). We look at the actual hardware and what it provides, not benchmarks.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
              This is a strange form of logic. What does benchmarking have to do with anything? We don't call Sandy Bridge a 25 core chip just because it performs 25 times faster than a 486DX. (Just a random number there, I'm not sure what the actual comparison would be). We look at the actual hardware and what it provides, not benchmarks.
              Probably closer to a thousand...

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                if you have the double long pipe line software emulated(hyper-threating) splits into 2 pieces )intel i3( its the same compared to 2 half long pipe lines.
                because of this the benchmarks nearly the same.
                Intel wins if more single threated performance is needed and amd wins if more multi-task performance is needed.
                and i don't have to read your posts again because your posts chance nothing about my argumentation.
                You really have no idea what your talking about.

                Both architectures are superscaler. But in all reality the full pipe including frontend and FP is probably longer on BD than it is on SB. BD almost certainly has more stages in its pipeline than SB has... Its longer and narrower.

                You need to google what a superscaler pipeline is.

                here are links to wikipedia...
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superscalar
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_pipeline
                Last edited by duby229; 10-19-2011, 10:33 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                  Probably closer to a thousand...
                  Well runs about 110x "faster", the number of executions it can do at that clock frequency however is an entirely different matter. ;D

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                    This is a strange form of logic. What does benchmarking have to do with anything? We don't call Sandy Bridge a 25 core chip just because it performs 25 times faster than a 486DX. (Just a random number there, I'm not sure what the actual comparison would be). We look at the actual hardware and what it provides, not benchmarks.
                    it was just an analogy. but an single core from the intel i3 isn't a single calculation unit there are many calculation units in this core this many units just emulate a single-core.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                      You really have no idea what your talking about.

                      Both architectures are superscaler. But in all reality the full pipe including frontend and FP is probably longer on BD than it is on SB. BD almost certainly has more stages in its pipeline than SB has... Its longer and narrower.

                      You need to google what a superscaler pipeline is.

                      here are links to wikipedia...
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superscalar
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_pipeline
                      i already know this. its a multiple group of calculation units which emulate a single core.

                      because of this you are wrong because the intel core i3 do have more internal calculation units per real "core"

                      amd FX4000 there are 2 modules a module so have 2 cores and every core do have 2 internal calculation units=8 calculation units
                      and on Intel side 4 internal units emulate 1 core and there are 2 of them=8calculation units.

                      if you calculate it both of them the i3 and fx4000 do have 8 internal calculation units.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Let's first make a good definition for "core" before continuing to argue this way.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          But the argument is about what constitutes a "core". If they agree on that then there won't be anything to argue about

                          The problem is that we're really arguing about rounding artifacts here. A hyperthreading core has some dedicated resources for each thread but sufficiently few that most people round it down to "one core". A CMT module has relatively more dedicated resources for each thread, enough that most people round it up to "two cores". Both simplifications are imperfect, and you really need to go down at least one more level of detail (to the individual execution units after the decoder) before everyone can agree on the terms.

                          The good news is that the thread is heading in that direction, but so far it's only talking about integer ALU execution units and not the other execution units (load/store etc..).

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Yes, but a CPU of today is a very complicated thing. At least it is compared to the single-core Athlon XP in my desktop, which has already a lot of transistors.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Yep, although one could argue that the big jump in complexity happened a few years before your Athlon XP came out.

                              My rule of thumb is that whenever you talk about "instructions per clock" rather than "clocks per instruction" you're talking about seriously complex designs

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Please dont tell me that AMD is trying to move towards a "clocks per instruction" model.... That would be bad....

                                De-emphasizing ILP was bad enough.

                                I dont really like the term IPC, I think ILP is a more adequate term to use for what we are talking about.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X