Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD FX-4100 Bulldozer

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by Qaridarium
    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...

    Last edited by duby229; 19 October 2011, 10:33 PM.

    Comment


    • #42
      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


      • #43
        Let's first make a good definition for "core" before continuing to argue this way.

        Comment


        • #44
          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..).
          Test signature

          Comment


          • #45
            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


            • #46
              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
              Test signature

              Comment


              • #47
                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


                • #48
                  ???

                  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).
                  Test signature

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    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


                    • #50
                      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

                      Working...
                      X