Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

First Linux Benchmarks Of AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Qaridarium
    no SSE5 is FMA3... and they don't have FMA3 in the bulldozer they ad FMA4 because intel cheat to amd

    now intel makes FMA3 first and amd had to ad FMA3 in the next bulldozer.

    also the XOP is SSE5 and intel do not support it at all.

    intel will bring FMA3 in 2013...
    Nope wrong again... XOP AND FMA4 were parts SSE5 that were not compatible with AVX and so they were spun off into their own extensions. The rest of SSE5 was compatible with AVX and so thats what it became.

    EDIT: FMA3 is not the same as FMA4

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by duby229 View Post
      Nope wrong again... XOP AND FMA4 were parts SSE5 that were not compatible with AVX and so they were spun off into their own extensions. The rest of SSE5 was compatible with AVX and so thats what it became.

      EDIT: FMA3 is not the same as FMA4
      Exactly...

      Comment


      • #33
        Evidently they don't care too much about Linux coverage for this less-than-stellar product launch.
        This type of remarks makes me less likely to read future articles.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by that guy View Post
          This type of remarks makes me less likely to read future articles.
          And AMD less likely to send samples.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by that guy View Post
            This type of remarks makes me less likely to read future articles.
            He was actually being polite by not saying it's crap.

            Here's what Hitler has to say about it, couldn't agree with him more:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SArxcnpXStE

            Funny stuff too , I laughed so hard.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Qaridarium
              as i know amd come with SSE5 first this means (FMA3+XOP+CVT16)
              Not according to AMD documentation. FMA4+XOP+CVT16.

              Comment


              • #37
                AMD won 64bit extension battle because they had a very strong product, at least as good as Intels and they were selling it at a very competitive price thus quickly gaining market share. There were simply too many amd cpus out there for intel to ignore that. Now, with the crappy lower-end cpus that AMD makes and no one wants to buy, what the hell are they thinking proposing new instruction sets?

                I can't believe it - over 1 billion new transistors for almost no benefit? What the fuck AMD?

                A standardization committee for the x86 architecture would really be a great thing. It would be great for competition, but I am afraid it might be too late to save the technological development. So much shitty legacy crap is already out there, it stinks.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by misiu_mp View Post
                  AMD won 64bit extension battle because they had a very strong product, at least as good as Intels and they were selling it at a very competitive price thus quickly gaining market share. There were simply too many amd cpus out there for intel to ignore that.
                  The reason AMD won the 64-bit extension war was that Microsoft backed it. MS and intel (at least back then) didn't exactly have a loving relationship. MS didn't like all the compromises that intel was insisting being put into windows and intel certainly didn't like the fact that MS at the time were going to be using a AMD chip in the first gen XBoX. Going AMD64 instead of IA64 didn't require a compromise be made with regards to their existing line where as IA64 required some major changes and legacy apps would have to run under emulation.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                    The reason AMD won the 64-bit extension war was that Microsoft backed it.
                    It may have been so, but the only reason they had that backing was the strength of their products. Today its clear who leads the x86 cpu development. Not AMD.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by misiu_mp View Post
                      Today its clear who leads the x86 cpu development. Not AMD.
                      Ya but I don't think that VIA can maintain that lead for long. :P

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X