Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Open-Source AMD HSA Should Come To Fruition This Year

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by werfu View Post
    I wonder how HSA will change program executions. To me it looks like it could be just another ISA, a bit like when the FP co-processor got integrated. But as x86 code and HSAIL don't share a common pipeline, it complicate quite a lot of stuff.
    A bunch of the big names in ARM SoCs are also on board with AMD to bring it there as well. Take a look http://www.hsafoundation.com/

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by curaga View Post
      Nothing has perfect scaling, even atomic instructions used in lockless methods have overhead. Thus a 50GHz cpu would always be better than 50 1 GHz cpus in performance.
      This leads to an interesting question: Why don't we have really ridiculously large CPUs that are about 50GHz and take up as much room as 50 1GHz CPUs?

      Because it's cheaper and more effective to hire programmers to write good code. Also if one machine breaks they can usually just swap it out if I'm not mistaken. If that super expensive CPU burns out then that's it, toast, gone. I believe the word is scalability.

      That being said, I wouldn't mind having a very large two core CPUs. Actually, I wouldn't mind having a FX-8350 that's 4 times the size if it means that it can use passive cooling. That would be awesome!

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by profoundWHALE View Post
        This leads to an interesting question: Why don't we have really ridiculously large CPUs that are about 50GHz and take up as much room as 50 1GHz CPUs?
        It's sort of a two part answer. For any given fab process/voltage and resulting gate delay there's certain relationship between clock frequency and the amount of pipelining required, and the amount of pipelining goes up "faster than linear" past a certain clock frequency, so...

        1. The "silly frequency" (ie where the increase in pipelining gets silly relative to the increase in clock frequency it buys you) for current fab processes is probably below 10 GHz today

        2. Even if you weren't dealing with diminishing returns in terms of clock frequencies alone, there's a performance hit you get from branching, and to some extent the inability to perfectly predict branches limits the amount of pipelining (and hence clock frequencies) even if the mfg was willing to spend silly amounts on pipelining

        We may finally be at the point where 1024 chickens *can* plow the field better than two strong oxen. I would like to see *that* on Mythbusters
        Last edited by bridgman; 08-25-2014, 04:24 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          A 50GHz CPU (if possible at all) would use too much power, wouldn't it?


          I wonder if AMD plans to use that disasterous OpenCL implementation... they would become the laughing stock (as they are now) if things don't work as expected.
          As it has been repeatedly over and over again, AMD hardware is the best, AMD drivers/software are the worst. Meanwhile, nVidia says they are a software company.
          It's a good thing that we have a whole new driver/OpenCL implementation in Linux, but it's a terrible thing that there are so few developers..

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by profoundWHALE View Post
            This leads to an interesting question: Why don't we have really ridiculously large CPUs that are about 50GHz and take up as much room as 50 1GHz CPUs?
            At 50Ghz you're most likely either going to run into power issues (too much in too small a space) or speed-of-light issues trying to keep the clock in sync across an entire massive die.

            Believe me, if it were technically feasible, that's the direction the CPU companies would have gone in. Intel certainly thought they were going there in the P4 days, and they completely gave up that strategy when they ran into a brick wall trying to implement it.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
              And just what real world application do you need more single thread performance for as opposed to more cores?
              Games? Nope, Core 2s are fine in terms of single thread performance for most games
              Compiling? There's a lot more to be gained by going parallel
              Spreadsheets? Nope
              Video Encode/Decode? That's offloaded to the GPU
              ArmA 3 and every other simulation/CPU-intensive game. Majority of games doesn't benefit from many cores. Even quad cores don't get a boost over dual cores in most games.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Bucic View Post
                ArmA 3 and every other simulation/CPU-intensive game. Majority of games doesn't benefit from many cores. Even quad cores don't get a boost over dual cores in most games.


                I want you to notice something about this chart compare the FX-8350 to the i7-4770k
                the difference? 5FPS, with both well above 30FPS with no CPU going above 60

                now
                compare

                vs

                overclocked to 4.5GHz clock for clock there is then only a 3 FPS difference

                Further from the Battlefield 4 official site http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield-4/pc
                PC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

                Minimum requirements:

                OS
                WINDOWS VISTA SP2 32-BIT (WITH KB971512 PLATFORM UPDATE)
                PROCESSOR
                AMD ATHLON X2 2.8 GHZ
                INTEL CORE 2 DUO 2.4 GHZ
                MEMORY
                4 GB
                GRAPHICS CARD
                AMD RADEON HD 3870
                NVIDIA GEFORCE 8800 GT
                GRAPHICS MEMORY
                512 MB
                HARD DRIVE
                30 GB

                Recommended requirements:

                OS
                WINDOWS 8 64-BIT
                PROCESSOR
                AMD SIX-CORE CPU
                INTEL QUAD-CORE CPU
                MEMORY
                8 GB
                GRAPHICS CARD
                AMD RADEON HD 7870
                NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 660
                GRAPHICS MEMORY
                3 GB
                HARD DRIVE
                30 GB
                and here's the one for Crysis 3 http://www.crysis.com/us/crysis-3/buy
                MINIMUM SYSTEM OPERATING REQUIREMENTS FOR PC:
                • Windows Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8
                • DirectX 11 graphics card with 1Gb Video RAM
                • Dual core CPU
                • 2GB Memory (3GB on Vista)
                • Example 1 (Nvidia/Intel):
                • Nvidia GTS 450
                • Intel Core2 Duo 2.4 Ghz (E6600)
                • Example 2 (AMD):
                • AMD Radeon HD5770
                • AMD Athlon64 X2 2.7 Ghz (5200+)

                RECOMMENDED SYSTEM OPERATING REQUIREMENTS FOR PC:
                • Windows Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8
                • DirectX 11 graphics card with 1GB Video RAM
                • Quad core GPU
                • 4GB Memory
                • Example 1 (Nvidia/Intel):
                • Nvidia GTX 560
                • Intel Core i5-750
                • Example 2 (AMD):
                • AMD Radeon HD5870
                • AMD Phenom II X4 805

                HI-PERFORMANCE PC SPECIFICATIONS:
                • Windows Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8
                • Latest DirectX 11 graphics card
                • Latest quad core CPU
                • SLI / Crossfire configurations will run even better
                • 8GB Memory
                • Example 1 (Nvidia/Intel):
                • NVidia GTX 680
                • Intel Core i7-2600k
                • Example 2 (AMD):
                • AMD Radeon HD7970
                • AMD Bulldozer FX4150
                And guess what? with the consoles running octocore netbook processors, now guess what game developers are going to be forced to optimize for?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by curaga View Post
                  Nothing has perfect scaling, even atomic instructions used in lockless methods have overhead. Thus a 50GHz cpu would always be better than 50 1 GHz cpus in performance.
                  Always? no. Multi-threading doesn't have perfect scaling however neither does frequency.
                  • Can you run SuperPi faster on that 50GHz cpu? hell yes.
                  • Will LibreOffice run faster? no.
                  • Will a game run faster? maybe, maybe not since they're running at 1Ghz as opposed to the more usual 2 or 3+, plus there's a bunch of other factors in play like what kind of game and so on, but say 12 4Ghz CPUs will provide you a better experience for most games. why?
                    • Throwing more Hz at the problem does nothing about the interrupts whereas more cores can potentially do so
                    • a game might not be able to take advantage of more cores but keep in mind you've got other things running in the background like say... the OS and if you've just got a single core it's going to have to do a lot more task switching than if you've got more cores available for these long running processes to expand themselves out to and stay in
                  • Will your overall experience be better (assuming said 1Ghz CPUs are enough for most tasks)? no. It's not something that you can show in a benchmark but interactivity is improved when you have more cores, exactly because you can spread out those long running processes to more cores and thus remove a lot of task-switching on the CPU

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Kivada View Post
                    ... Kabini is the current low end line ...
                    No!
                    The current low power line is Beema/Mullins.

                    ... replaces the older Stars cores of the Jaguar ... lines.
                    Kabini replaces itself? (Hint: Kabini has Jaguar cores)

                    ... some confusion.
                    You enlarge the confusion.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post

                      now
                      compare

                      vs

                      overclocked to 4.5GHz clock for clock there is then only a 3 FPS difference
                      Is this seriously your conclusion? No, wait. What was even your point exactly? What were you trying to prove by comparing the two?
                      Last edited by Bucic; 08-26-2014, 07:15 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
                        Oh please, the average GUI application spends almost all of it's time listening on the event loop as opposed to actually doing anything, and I don't exactly need a xeon to render QtCreator or Dolphin. Also please link to this website that you visit that demands all this performance that you need "a lot more single thread performance" than AMD currently provides. Keep in mind that if you have to draw upon sunspider or other web benchmarking sites, that you'll be proving my point for me.
                        Latency of complex GUI / website to keyboard and mouse events usually depends on single thread performance. Every modern desktop CPU should be fast enough, but latency can be different.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by JS987 View Post
                          Latency of complex GUI / website to keyboard and mouse events usually depends on single thread performance. Every modern desktop CPU should be fast enough, but latency can be different.
                          Intel is amazing for having low latency/fast memory lanes which really helps in the performance or even performance perception. That being said, I paid a total of about $500 CAD (after taxes) for a top end AMD card and CPU. Top end Intel 4790K and on sale for same price as 4770K: $360 + $7 shipping + $36.70 taxes, which is about $400 CAD. I did buy my GPU from ebay though which helped with the cost. Throwing on a NVidia card and hitting about the same price point would basically be worthless because it would be a $100 card. Also typically Intel boards are more expensive... but I would have to say that the boards are worth the money.


                          All that aside, this is what I got from the ARMA 3 FPS battle:
                          $200 FX-8350 Stock (4.0 GHz) @ 48 FPS
                          $360 4770K Stock (3.5 GHz) @ 49 FPS
                          _____
                          $160 for 1 fps = Intel not worth it

                          $200 FX-8350 OC (4.5 GHz) @ 52 FPS
                          $360 4770K OC (4.5 GHz) @ 55 FPS
                          ____
                          $160 for 3 fps = Intel not worth it

                          Oh, I just wanted to add that Intel's i7 line have integrated GPUs, while the AMD FX do not.
                          That being said, Intel's closest offering, Xeon, is significantly more expensive so it's not even worth looking at.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by curaga View Post
                            Nothing has perfect scaling, even atomic instructions used in lockless methods have overhead. Thus a 50GHz cpu would always be better than 50 1 GHz cpus in performance.
                            but not in performance per dollar

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Bucic View Post
                              Is this seriously your conclusion? No, wait. What was even your point exactly? What were you trying to prove by comparing the two?
                              The point is that in terms of real world performance AMD single threading is more than good enough, even for your ARMA 3 maxed out. Can you squeeze a few extra FPS out of the intel processor? yes. Enough to seriously impact gameplay? no despite the fact that it's got significantly better single thread performance.

                              Meanwhile the design of the PS4 and the XBone means that most games are going to have to be designed to take advantage of 8+ threads in order to achieve the performance required for next-gen graphics with minimal single thread requirements because well... they're running on a netbook architecture, and as we can see in the requirements for Crysis 3 and Battlefield 4 that the dual core thing is quickly becoming quite a thing of the past.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
                                The point is that in terms of real world performance AMD single threading is more than good enough, even for your ARMA 3 maxed out. Can you squeeze a few extra FPS out of the intel processor? yes. Enough to seriously impact gameplay? no despite the fact that it's got significantly better single thread performance.
                                Hint: no one was comparing AMD to Intel performance, it was just the importance of single-threading performance.

                                Try running that test with a 2.5Ghz processor on 8 cores vs a 4.5Ghz processor (of the same architecture) on 2 cores and let's compare the results. At least, that's what i thought the topic was - you seem to be talking about something else.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X