Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › Why didn't AMD advertise modules as multithreaded cores?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why didn't AMD advertise modules as multithreaded cores?

post #1 of 7
Thread Starter 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/2

So if you scroll down to the section about the front-end comparison, you'll be able to see quite clearly that instruction rate only increases every TWO cores, meaning that the number of instructions only increases with an increase in module count. I mean, really, it'd look a lot better if it was being advertised as a multi-threaded quad-core.

My thoughts on the matter, at least.
Limeworks
(22 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 ASUS P5E64 WS EVOLUTION MSI GTX560 Ti Twin Frozr II OCZ Reaper HPC Edition 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Western Digital Caviar Western Digital Caviar Green Western Digital Caviar Green Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 HP Lightscribe DVD+RW Burner Thermaltake Frio Windows 7 Ultimate 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell 23" SP2309W Dell 20" 2007FP IBM (Lexmark) Model M Antec NeoPower Blue 650W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Slightly Modded P180B Logitech G500 Rocketfish SoundMAX Integrated S/PDIF 
AudioAudio
Yamaha RX-V992 Superlux HD681 
  hide details  
Reply
Limeworks
(22 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 ASUS P5E64 WS EVOLUTION MSI GTX560 Ti Twin Frozr II OCZ Reaper HPC Edition 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Western Digital Caviar Western Digital Caviar Green Western Digital Caviar Green Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 HP Lightscribe DVD+RW Burner Thermaltake Frio Windows 7 Ultimate 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell 23" SP2309W Dell 20" 2007FP IBM (Lexmark) Model M Antec NeoPower Blue 650W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Slightly Modded P180B Logitech G500 Rocketfish SoundMAX Integrated S/PDIF 
AudioAudio
Yamaha RX-V992 Superlux HD681 
  hide details  
Reply
post #2 of 7
I completely agree with you. I just think that all the noobs will be like "OMG worlds first 8 core. Must buy it!". Most of the people buying these processors will probably know nothing about the inner workings of them and will buy them solely based on what they are told by Newegg or TigerDirect or wherever they buy them. Sad but true.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II x6 1090T @ 3.2ghz Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 XFX GeForce 9600 GSO Fatal1ty 16GB Corsair Vengeance 1600mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OCZ Solid 3 120gb LiteON Windows 7 Ultimate x64 BenQ 22" x2, LG 19" x2, Vizio 47" 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Thermaltake Meka G1 Ultra 750W Cooler Master CM690 Nvidia Edition Microsoft Sidewinder x8 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II x6 1090T @ 3.2ghz Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 XFX GeForce 9600 GSO Fatal1ty 16GB Corsair Vengeance 1600mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OCZ Solid 3 120gb LiteON Windows 7 Ultimate x64 BenQ 22" x2, LG 19" x2, Vizio 47" 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Thermaltake Meka G1 Ultra 750W Cooler Master CM690 Nvidia Edition Microsoft Sidewinder x8 
  hide details  
Reply
post #3 of 7
They just make a multithreaded 4-core CPU and call it 8-core. Soon we will see a PDF from Intel saying AMD made a false claim about 8-core like MSI said Gigabyte did not have PCIe Gen3.
post #4 of 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lime;15277586 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/2

So if you scroll down to the section about the front-end comparison, you'll be able to see quite clearly that instruction rate only increases every TWO cores, meaning that the number of instructions only increases with an increase in module count. I mean, really, it'd look a lot better if it was being advertised as a multi-threaded quad-core.

My thoughts on the matter, at least.

I thought everyone knew this since the first day BD was introduced. I remember this video - Linus with the AMD guy.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxbG2AmdMNY&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLD432F83219DD64EE[/ame]

Well I guess not... 67,505 views!

lachen.gif
post #5 of 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by _s3v3n_;15277994 
I thought everyone knew this since the first day BD was introduced. I remember this video - Linus with the AMD guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxbG2AmdMNY&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLD432F83219DD64EE

Well I guess not... 67,505 views!

lachen.gif

Often when theres a review of something new, most users don't want to know how it works, only how it performs. Just like the P4 and Hyperthreading
post #6 of 7
Because BD does not have multithreading cores. A single core can still only process a single thread at a time--technically a "module" can process two (or more, depending on the number of cores per module) threads simultaneously, much in the way that two CPU cores can do the same thing. It's just that the BD architecture sought to minimize redundancies of components between cores to make them more efficient--like shared FPU's and such. But a core can still only process a single thread at a time, so it's really not a multithreading CPU--not any more than any other mainstream multi-core processor available at the moment.

Until we move away from x86 architecture, BD and AMD's apu-variant processors will not achieve any more of a parallel-processing stance than any of the other current CPU's. It's more a fault of how software is written, and not a fault of the hardware architecture (IMHO). I mean, look at how GPGPU applications have developed--things like F@H and such--there needs to be intelligent design of applications to take advantage of it, except the problem is that a piece of software currently needs to cater to the vast disparity between computer hardware available. We're more shackled by x86 programming rather than how many threads a current CPU core can handle.

Things like OpenCL and new variants of C-programming are looking to take advantage of the apu architecture and achieve a more-multithreading processing ability, but it's still a ways off.

I guess that last bit was a little off topic, but still relevant.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #7 of 7
I wish dozer works like a quad, would be much better in single-threaded apps. Isn't it OSes fault?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › Why didn't AMD advertise modules as multithreaded cores?