Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD FX-4100 Bulldozer

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

  • #61
    ???

    No, I was saying that the big jumps in CPU complexity happened well before Athlon XP, ie out-of-order execution and superscalar design (which is what allowed everyone to talk about instructions-per-clock rather than clocks-per-instruction).

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by bridgman View Post
      (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..).
      the thread only heading in that direction because I DO HEADING IT INTO that direction!

      because i know the True about the FACE CORE architecture there are many tiny cores inside the "CORE" and the many cores inside the core do the job and emulate a "Core"

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by duby229 View Post
        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.
        amd go back from 3 interne cores per CORE to an 2 internal core per CORE model,

        and intel is on 4 internal cores per CORE.

        a Core I3 intel cpu do have 8internal cores and a fx4000 do have 8 internal cores.

        amd makes 4 cores out of it and intel 2 cores but intel virtualy split it up with hyperthreating.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by bridgman View Post
          ???

          No, I was saying that the big jumps in CPU complexity happened well before Athlon XP, ie out-of-order execution and superscalar design (which is what allowed everyone to talk about instructions-per-clock rather than clocks-per-instruction).
          in my point of view modern complex designs only matters because of bad software.

          if you build a true-in-order 8core used with good multicore-software it will beat a core i3 and Fx4000 in speed per WATT usage.

          and hell yes the I3 and FX4000 are 8core cpus (but they face a 2 core and 4 core cpu)

          Comment


          • #65
            Let's call it a mix of a 4-core and an 8-core CPU. That way we have found a correct term for a lot of CPU's released in the last 5 years.

            Comment


            • #66
              I dont mind calling them modules. I just dont like the idea of calling an integer pipe a core. What about the FP pipe then? If an integer pipe is a core, shouldnt the FP pipe be considered a core too?

              I think a core should be considered a complete functional unit, which is what a module is.

              Comment


              • #67
                A Core is a single CPU. Period. If the design is so interwoven and shared that it can't be split up without evening out all modules; it's a single core.

                So this AMD is a dual-core CPU.

                Instructions might take more clock cycles to complete the logic operation, but it might be more efficient in that it can do more instructions per clock on avarage.

                What we're discussing is nothing but two identical CPU's that have dual integer modules (I still have to read up about that, will do).

                Given that most desktop stuff doesn't require insane amounts of floats per integers (less than 0.5); it's great and cheap. It's also great and cheap for home servers. Gaming not that much (if you buy the latest GPU's).

                I personally don't like this path, because float is already slower than integer. AMD now cut down the difference even further. This sucks balls. Short term decisions.

                Comment


                • #68
                  By that definition, then a core on BD is not the same thing as a core on every other x86 architecture being used. On BD a so called core doesnt have a front end, or a FP unit, or a retirement stage, or a cache heirarchy.... No it just does not make any sense.

                  A module is a dual processor core. A module is not a dual core processor.. It may seem like semantics to some, but I think it is a very important differentiation.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Floating point is freaking part of the CPU. Given that there are two, it's dual core. Unless you have four cores and two different ones at that.

                    The term dual-core was invented for essentialy two CPU's being molten together on one die. In this case it's not any different. Unless it's a six core having four integer and two float cores. But they are not exactly entire seperate, so I'll simply calll this dual core.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      While some argue about the semantics, I hope others are optimizing software for the architecture

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by PsynoKhi0 View Post
                        While some argue about the semantics, I hope others are optimizing software for the architecture
                        Now that's a problem.

                        You see the point is that only big ass problems require the entire CPU. The rest is wasting thread start, lock, sync and stop. That's cool and all when you make GUI apps (multithread programming is a bliss there (and also in general)), but you're wasting resources for the enduser, not for yourself.

                        I see my computer as a computer, not a kitchen apparatus. Therefore I want enormous power. Not because I'm a lazy programmer, but I tend to find resource restrictions problems fascinating. Floating point is kind of a requirement for visual and audio problems.

                        This CPU just made floating point operations at least four times more expensive than integer operations. Vincent does not like.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                          Floating point is freaking part of the CPU. Given that there are two, it's dual core. Unless you have four cores and two different ones at that.

                          The term dual-core was invented for essentialy two CPU's being molten together on one die. In this case it's not any different. Unless it's a six core having four integer and two float cores. But they are not exactly entire seperate, so I'll simply calll this dual core.
                          in fact a fx4000 is a 8core cpu.... but only 4 cores can be used directly by the thread scheduler if the workload is Integer and not SIMD and not floating point.
                          the corei3 is a 8core cpu to but only 2 cores can be used directly by the thread scheduler
                          an intel 2600 is a 16core cpu emulating a 4 core.
                          the bulldozer fx8000 is also a 16 core cpu.

                          but the people count the windows system monitor.... and in the system monitor there is only 4 cores for the fx4000 or 8cores for the fx8000


                          Faster single theating speed by out-of-order FAKE singlecore emulation is just bulldshit bingo for the poor mindless people.

                          Intel for example lose up to 60% theoretical speed only because they prefer to fake singlecore speed.
                          if you compare a Intel 2600 to an REAL in-order-16-core-cpu the intel 2600 LOSE! in speed per WATT usage.
                          Thats why the smartphone company prever ARM cpus because ARM cpus are REAL cores means no "fake" and REAL in-Order-cpu architecture and not out-of-order

                          you can only burn power on Desktop-PCs and Servers... on notebook and smartphones its just stupid.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Q, I belive you confuse hyper threading (which seriously must die at once, unless you're using a server, maybe) with assembly order problems, x86 to RISC translation and got it all messed up and backwards.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                              Q, I belive you confuse hyper threading (which seriously must die at once, unless you're using a server, maybe) with assembly order problems, x86 to RISC translation and got it all messed up and backwards.
                              i do not confuse anything. modern out-of-order cpus do have tiny cores in a big core and they emulate a singlecore.

                              an intel 4core cpu are in fact a 16 integer core cpu.

                              but the cpu only show 4 cores to the linux/windows Thread scheduler.
                              Last edited by Qaridarium; 10-22-2011, 04:21 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                may be the bulldozer should have been created with 2 cpu + 1 fpu + 1 cl_gpu
                                with cl_gpu i mean only the elements of gpu that do the opencl and absolutely not a full gpu in the cpu .
                                may be like that this cpu would have been better than that . by the way the gap is not that far between number 1 in results and this one that is the lowest Mhz model

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X