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).
the thread only heading in that direction because I DO HEADING IT INTO that direction!
Originally Posted by bridgman
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"
amd go back from 3 interne cores per CORE to an 2 internal core per CORE model,
Originally Posted by duby229
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.
in my point of view modern complex designs only matters because of bad software.
Originally Posted by bridgman
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
While some argue about the semantics, I hope others are optimizing software for the architecture