[AMDFX] AMD Steamroller IPC Leaked! Cosmology Benchmark! - Page 26 - Overclock.net

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #251 of 745 Old 10-30-2013, 10:07 AM
PC Gamer
 
SpeedyVT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moragg View Post

On topic, I reckon a 12C/6M Steamroller chip that can be OC'ed easily would sell really well, especially if Mantle takes off.

APU will most likely not have anything over 6-8 eight cores in the future. Primary reason is that further HSA implementation will be threading some x86 threads through the GPU instead of CPU. Meaning better IPC all the way around.

SpeedyVT is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #252 of 745 Old 10-30-2013, 10:25 AM
Overclocker
 
EniGma1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedyVT View Post

APU will most likely not have anything over 6-8 eight cores in the future. Primary reason is that further HSA implementation will be threading some x86 threads through the GPU instead of CPU. Meaning better IPC all the way around.

yes and no. GPU cores excel in floating point work, we still would need strong integer cores and lots of them as things become more multi-threaded. Additionally you only see an increase in performance if there is a ton of things needing to be processed or whatever you are doing is not latency sensitive in any way. Executing code on the GPU has a huge latency penalty compared to executing it on the CPU. This means much lower IPC in all circumstances, just that overall you can get a boost if enough is executed in parallel to overcome this hit to performance.

EniGma1987 is offline  
post #253 of 745 Old 10-30-2013, 10:28 AM
 
MoGTy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedyVT View Post

APU will most likely not have anything over 6-8 eight cores in the future. Primary reason is that further HSA implementation will be threading some x86 threads through the GPU instead of CPU. Meaning better IPC all the way around.

Yes and I wonder what the power consumption would be like. A little birdie told me the EU might just cap CPUs at 90W in the not too distant future.

English isn't my mother tongue, excuse my phrasing.
MoGTy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #254 of 745 Old 10-30-2013, 10:30 AM
 
Moragg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,724
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 80

I have no idea about designing CPUs, but doesn't that mean AMD could have a APU-only setup where the integrated GPU is used to accelerate performance using HSA when a discrete GPU is installed?

Moragg is offline  
post #255 of 745 Old 10-30-2013, 10:53 AM
Linux Lobbyist
 
sdlvx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Gentoo optmized software nirvana
Posts: 1,671
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedyVT View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by polyzp View Post

The jump from the 1100t to the FX 8150 was more significant than you think! At ~5 Ghz the 8150 is no joke of a chip.


Not where I was getting at, but I do see your point. However it was a step back in terms of IPC, but it was progress in works. Without bulldozer there wouldn't be piledriver.

IPC doesn't mean anything on it's own.

I'm going to dumb the numbers down to make my point, but I hope you understand it from this.

Lets say you have one chip that runs at 1ghz and does 10 instructions per clock tick, chip A

Now you have a chip that runs at 10ghz and does 5 instructions per clock tick, chip B

Chip A has superior IPC but Chip B is actually 5 times faster.

I realize Bulldozer didn't turn out this way and neither did netburst, but Power8 and Power7 DID and they are highly clocked parts that have lower IPC yet still are extremely fast. My point is that it's entirely possible for a chip to have horrible IPC yet better clocks.

There is no way K10 anything would run at 5ghz 24/7 and if you have the cooling it's possible. Not to mention there's a stock 4.7base 5ghz turbo PD chip for sale in retail right now, which is 30% increase in clockrate over Phenon 2 x4 965. Bulldozer did not reduce IPC by enough to not make up for the clockspeed gained. FX x1x0 series problem was that the chip was designed for high frequency and it didn't make it there. PD did though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by polyzp View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by polyzp View Post

The whole point of AMDFX.blogspot.com was to point out that overclocked Bulldozer shined, while stock it was confined! AMD finally pushed their clocks our the box now to 5 Ghz because they knew that it would traverse the bottleneck for high end GPUs. For people to say bulldozer was crap was an overstatement given the fact that an overclocked 8150 absolutely crushed any stock intel CPU at the time of release even in gaming. But to say that is unfair is correct, but the differences are covered by the overclock deltas. Although the FX 9370 has little overclock room, for 240 USD, you can gaurantee a 5 Ghz overclock out the box. This is not true for intel's haswell. My friend's 4770k is stable at just 4.2 Ghz!

4.2 Ghz 4770k is probably the better CPU but there is something about that 5.0 Ghz people love..

And it was like this when we were going for 4ghz. Trust me, I have a dead P4 Prescott in my basement that's aftermath of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by polyzp View Post

Given the data is Legit, this shouldnt even be in rumours. The numbers are real.

Yeah, but it was reposted by a questionable site! Therefore everything is bad about the data! IF I post a wikipedia article on a shady blog I own then that wikipedia article is no longer trustable. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
sarcasm!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuivamaa View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moragg View Post

Really? I have a 1055T clocked at 3.8GHz, what kind of OC would I need on an 8320 (which I just bought) to achieve at least the same gaming performance?

From anandtech forums, an interesting comparison on SCII (one of the worst cases for FX lineup in gaming).



Stock 6300 more or less matches a pumped up phenom II.

SC2 is a weak point in Bulldozer architecture and it's not fair to point that out without pointing out situations where FX does better. Comparing FX to Phenom is comparing Phenom when it's in one of its stronger games and FX when it's in one of their weaker ones. If you wanted to be fair you'd post a BF4 benchmark and I don't think Phenom 2 x4 would be very close to an FX chip outside of FX 4000 series.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moragg View Post

I have no idea about designing CPUs, but doesn't that mean AMD could have a APU-only setup where the integrated GPU is used to accelerate performance using HSA when a discrete GPU is installed?

I am thinking that FX 9000 series was to prep motherboard makers for high wattage parts in a single socket. A 4m/8c APU with a decent amount of GCN cores would be a hot, hot chip. I would imagine the Intel fanboys running around making all sorts of snide remarks.

But it does seem like that is the plan for AMD's end goal, but it is easier to get HSA going on APUs alone right now as they're higher volume.

I've always imagined a situation where you have an APU in your rig with a dGPU. the dGPU does NOTHING but renders the graphics while the APU's GPU portion does the physics calculations, tressFX, particles, etc.

It would undo the step backwards Nvidia took with running PhysX on the GPU and bring us more in line with the times of Aegia PhysX where you had an add in card that only added visual appeal to games without a frame rate hit. Except AMD's solution would be general purpose and you would be able to use it in multiple scenarios with different software.

AMD is also working on getting HSA working with dGPUs, so if you weren't playing games it should be possible to eventually get HSA going between APU GPU, dGPU, and CPU on a platform similar to AM3+ (but obviously not AM3+).

I've always hoped for a unified socket between server and HEDT so we could take 2 socket Opteron rigs and bus OC them.

You know you're an AMD guy when even your router has 4 cores.
sdlvx is offline  
post #256 of 745 Old 10-30-2013, 10:55 AM
PC Gamer
 
SpeedyVT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoGTy View Post

Yes and I wonder what the power consumption would be like. A little birdie told me the EU might just cap CPUs at 90W in the not too distant future.

You also forget that the APU is an SoC, there are more components on chip than FX or any other processor including Intel's. So the chip being at either 90watts or 100watts is significantly better in terms of total system power consumption. Intel's make for NB and SB although well performing are incredibly bulky and can be seen on their processor layout. If you haven't noticed how much larger Intel's chips have been getting while remaining at a low nm die production you'd understand what I mean.

SpeedyVT is offline  
post #257 of 745 Old 10-30-2013, 11:05 AM
PC Gamer
 
SpeedyVT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdlvx View Post

I am thinking that FX 9000 series was to prep motherboard makers for high wattage parts in a single socket. A 4m/8c APU with a decent amount of GCN cores would be a hot, hot chip. I would imagine the Intel fanboys running around making all sorts of snide remarks.

The FX 9000 was intended for LN2 abusers. Reason why it's a limited product, since it only appeals to hobbyist overclockers. It completely removes it's thermal envelope so that a person can literally push it to burn and the end result is usually higher than unlocked cores on LN2. Intel fanboys shouldn't make snide remarks as their thermal envelope often comes at a crushing speed when overclocking. AMD fanboys need to calm their overly defensiveness down a bit.

It's also to sell a pre-overclocked chip so those without experience can get the performance.

If they had the enhanced piledriver cores like in richland they'd probably hit 5.4 ghz on air. No point in putting the enhanced piledrivers on if steamroller cores are around the corner.

SpeedyVT is offline  
post #258 of 745 Old 10-30-2013, 11:13 AM
 
Kuivamaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Finland
Posts: 4,593
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 218
I actually brought SCII up since it is one of the worst case scenarios for BD architecture and yet, it still more than matches stars clock for clock. PD is better than Ph II in pretty much everything.

Kuivamaa is offline  
post #259 of 745 Old 10-30-2013, 11:18 AM
Commodore 64
 
JoeelMex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1
If only they made a m-atx 990fx board i would buy a 8350 to mess around. frown.gif

JoeelMex is offline  
post #260 of 745 Old 10-30-2013, 01:39 PM
Programmer
 
MrJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Well AMD had it right over a decade ago, there is no replacement for displacement .... err IPC. POWER6 was the high-clocking speed demon. POWER7 and POWER8 refocused on IPC and better multi-threaded scaling within each core.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdlvx View Post

-- snip --

"AMD are on track to catch up on high performance cores"
- Jim Keller, Corporate Vice President and Chief Architect of AMD's Microprocessor Cores

"I hope so, Jim."
MrJava is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off