Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 80

Thread: AMD FX-4100 Bulldozer

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Cas- View Post
    I wondered if this image below is from the Anandtech review of the processor helps clear up some of the confusion with how the processor can be optimised. The issue seems to be getting 'turbo core' enabled and directing threads with shared data to the same core.

    Is the situation the same under Linux?
    Coupled with this it should interesting. Reassigning thread - core priorities?
    Last edited by PsynoKhi0; 10-19-2011 at 01:27 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    it dosn't matter how much transistors it is in FACT a dual-core.,
    It matters if you're interested in technology and its development.
    It doesn't matter if you're chit-chatting.

    I'm not chit-chatting, are you?

    errata corrige: those are two *billion* transistors, and actually it is the number of transistor of the FX 8000 series (8 integer ALUs, 4 FPUS, AMD sells it as an 8-core processor), but since FX-4000 series is the same processor as FX-8000 with some non-functional units, they share the same 2 billion transistor design.
    The fact it has 2 billion transistors matters even when you're talking about *power*. Actually FX 8000 series is really awful, I expect that FX 4000 series is almost as awful as its bigger brother.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackshard View Post
    It matters if you're interested in technology and its development.
    It doesn't matter if you're chit-chatting.

    I'm not chit-chatting, are you?

    errata corrige: those are two *billion* transistors, and actually it is the number of transistor of the FX 8000 series (8 integer ALUs, 4 FPUS, AMD sells it as an 8-core processor), but since FX-4000 series is the same processor as FX-8000 with some non-functional units, they share the same 2 billion transistor design.
    The fact it has 2 billion transistors matters even when you're talking about *power*. Actually FX 8000 series is really awful, I expect that FX 4000 series is almost as awful as its bigger brother.
    Are you sure the FX-4000 series will be an 8Core/4Module CPU with 2 modules turned off? It would seem strange to go through the trouble of making the whole Module design and then not use it.. At the same time I guess considering it has the full 8Mb L3 cache which from what I saw was split up in 4 parts on the die on the 8Core. Some of the Idle numbers show that the new CPU isn't too bad, but definitely load, and OC on the 8150, that was just insane, there's a hopefully room for improvement considering this is an entirely new arch. but boy does it need it as well :P.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medallish View Post
    Are you sure the FX-4000 series will be an 8Core/4Module CPU with 2 modules turned off?
    It most probably is, at least for the first batch.
    From what I've read production costs for one die per series would be higher (especially with the first production runs, if you factor in that yield improvements would have to be duplicated across all dies), plus they can sell chips that don't meet the QA requirements for the top-of-the-line instead of just binning them.
    It's a trick that's been used for a while. I think the first Athlon II were actually Phenom II with L3 cache cut off. Phenom II x2 could also have extra cores unlocked. Provided the motherboard allows it, it might still be possible with BD.
    There's no guarantee though, and there might be some trade-offs (higher vcore for stable operation, lower overclockability etc.)

    @blackshard: power draw from the FX-4100 is better than Deneb. Ditto for FX-6100 vs Thuban Link
    Last edited by PsynoKhi0; 10-19-2011 at 02:34 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PsynoKhi0 View Post
    It's a trick that's been used for a while. I think the first Athlon II were actually Phenom II with L3 cache cut off.
    It's much older than that.

    486SX was just a 486DX with the FPU disabled.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    It's much older than that.

    486SX was just a 486DX with the FPU disabled.
    Meh you got me there... I should have kept the examples to disabled cores

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    The facts people are missing is this:
    The CPU is a dual core, but has the physical elements making it seem like a quad core, but it really isn't.
    Actually the fact is that there is no industry accepted definition of what a core is comprised of.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Anyone happen to know if there's any newer kernel patches than http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux..../focus=1170744 for Bulldozer? Google hasn't turned up any others, just checking.
    i think right now window8 do have more patches in the windows kernel...

    windows8 does have a scheduler patch with +10% speed

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackshard View Post
    It matters if you're interested in technology and its development.
    It doesn't matter if you're chit-chatting.
    I'm not chit-chatting, are you?
    i do not understand the word "chit" do you mean shit?


    Quote Originally Posted by blackshard View Post
    I
    errata corrige: those are two *billion* transistors, and actually it is the number of transistor of the FX 8000 series (8 integer ALUs, 4 FPUS, AMD sells it as an 8-core processor), but since FX-4000 series is the same processor as FX-8000 with some non-functional units, they share the same 2 billion transistor design.
    The fact it has 2 billion transistors matters even when you're talking about *power*. Actually FX 8000 series is really awful, I expect that FX 4000 series is almost as awful as its bigger brother.
    8 integer ALUs sound like a 8 core cpu but the 4 core intel cpus also do have 8 integer ALUs.

    also i 4*128bit FPUs and 4*256bit SIMD units.

    The SIMD units tells us 4 core for the FX8000 and the FPU couns also 4.

    the FX4000 is a dualcore in AVX256bit and its a dualcore in Floadingpoint Calculation and its a Dualcore in Integer to if you count the overall Integer units in an intel CPU because there are 2 integer units per intel core. FX4000 integer count=4 intel dualcore integer count=4

    it is a dualcore in all criteria.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Wow... talk about sucking ass. I would like AMD to come up with an awesome new cpu architecture as much as the next guy, but this is a really terrible one. 3,6GHz with 3,8GHz "turbo"? 200 extra MHz are sure to make a huge difference. </sarcasm> This would be an awesome CPU if it cost 70 and had a 65W (or less) TDP.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •