Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD FX-4100 Bulldozer

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

  • #11
    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. I believe the way HT works is it's physically 2 cores with each core running 2 threads at the same time, hoping they don't collide. Bulldozer CPUs are 2 physical cores that run 2 threads in physically separate locations.

    The next fact is AMD removed the total amount of instructions per clock in order to increase clock speed. Thats why if you were to take a 3.6Ghz single-core Phenom (if that even exists) and have the FX-4100 face off in single-threaded tasks, the Phenom will immensely outperform, even though everything about it is supposedly worse.

    I may be wrong about this, but I believe that if a single-threaded task is run on 1 core, the other thread of that core can't be used. Whereas with HT, there is no restriction. This can cause significant slow-downs.

    Comment


    • #12
      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.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
        I may be wrong about this, but I believe that if a single-threaded task is run on 1 core, the other thread of that core can't be used.
        Hmm do you really mean core? or module? If it's the latter, I think you can have another thread running on the other core of the same module, but then resources have to be shared and some workloads suffer, e.g. FP-heavy stuff.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Qaridarium
          this cpu will speed up by 3% for the cache kernel patch and 10% for the scheduler kernel patch and maybe 20% for the compiler patches.
          also as i know amd will upgrade the micro code in the bios to fix some speed bugs.

          but yes technically this cpu is a dual-core with some extra Integer help units.

          If some one need a true quatcore with greater speed from amd he can get the Opteron 6204.
          but yes 400? isn't cheap.
          A dual core with 2 Millions transistors? Quite huge for being a dual core...

          Comment


          • #15
            Anyway, it looks comparable to an i3 in terms of price and performance.

            I'd like to know more about power consumption -- how do all these extra transistors affect it?

            If power consumption is comparable, then this particular processor is OK. Even if there are doubts is the architecture can compare with intel's high-end offerings in the near to mid future.

            Comment


            • #16
              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.
              Michael Larabel
              https://www.michaellarabel.com/

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Qaridarium
                it dosn't matter how much transistors it is in FACT a dual-core.,
                Sound more like a dual-core-plus-dual-half-cores. Basically they added more of the circuits that are most commonly used, especially under a server type load, but probably not so good for a lot of multimedia competing for the same FP unit.

                Comment


                • #18
                  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; 19 October 2011, 12:27 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Qaridarium
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      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.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X