Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [MPC]Leaked AMD Trinity Slide Promises Big Gains Over Llano APUs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[MPC]Leaked AMD Trinity Slide Promises Big Gains Over Llano APUs - Page 8

post #71 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

They could have saved money by not trasitioning to 32 nm on the CPU right away and investing the money saved on improving the Phenom II architecture. If Intel did it with Nehalem on 45nm, why can't AMD ? I would say even more, Intel could technically very well release Sandy Bridge at 45nm without the GPU. AMD is trying to do everything at the same time (new architecture + new manufacturing process) and they don't have the money to make that work. Not even Intel does that.

Even better, they could have transitioned to 32nm, but kept the same PH2 archetecture. The new architecture has flaws, and I think the only thing keeping it from being next to useless compared to a PH2 is the fact that it's on a 32nm process. A 32nm PH2 would destroy Bulldozer until they get the kinks worked out with their new design.
Arcturus
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 4690k @ 4.4ghz Asrock Z97 Pro4 Sapphire R9 390 G.Skill Sniper 2133mhz 8gb 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 Evo 250gb WD Blue - 1Tb Mirrored Hyper 212 Evo Windows 8.1 
PowerCaseAudioAudio
XFX TS 650w Corsair Carbide 200r Fiio E10/E9 Stack AKG Q701 
Audio
Grado SR325e 
  hide details  
Reply
Arcturus
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 4690k @ 4.4ghz Asrock Z97 Pro4 Sapphire R9 390 G.Skill Sniper 2133mhz 8gb 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 Evo 250gb WD Blue - 1Tb Mirrored Hyper 212 Evo Windows 8.1 
PowerCaseAudioAudio
XFX TS 650w Corsair Carbide 200r Fiio E10/E9 Stack AKG Q701 
Audio
Grado SR325e 
  hide details  
Reply
post #72 of 84
Just because a lot is written here a nice article about BULLDOZER CMT

http://atenra.blog.com/2012/02/01/amd%E2%80%99s-bulldozer-cmt-scaling/
post #73 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsumi View Post

You're acting like they simply increased clock speeds using the same cores to get better performance. They didn't, based on what we've seen Bulldozer capable of. They had to have made some IPC improvements which you're so hung up on, as well as increasing clock speeds, all while keeping within the same thermal envelop. And that's the important thing, that the thermal envelop is the same, yet performance is higher. In the end, what it really comes down to is performance/watt in these systems (besides price/performance), which is what AMD is really losing to Intel at the moment, and what Bulldozer actually lost to in regards to Thuban. Not to say that pure raw performance doesn't matter, but for what these chips are targeted at, it's not about raw performance.
Additionally, higher stock clocks at the same thermal envelop generally means higher overclocks possible as well, since the chip is drawing less power and putting out less heat. If that doesn't translate to improvements, I don't know what else can mean more performance to you, besides getting an Intel.
And IMO, comparing Stars performance to Trinity performance is as valid as comparing Vishera performance to Thuban performance. Both Stars and Trinity do not have L3, while Vishera and Thuban both have L3. So performance differences should be similar, and comparable.

Look, I said in my first post on this thread that this was good enough for mainstream PCs. The problem with your argument is that Piledriver will have shared L2 cache within modules, while Stars doesn't, so, it's not as you are saying. There is that added benefit to Piledriver.

The main point I said with Piledriver - while maintaining that it would be good for mainstream PCs - is that AMD needs a proper flagship. And I stand by what I said, there is only so much you can do when you have to ramp up clockspeeds to get more performance. Why do you think Intel is staying away from that ? They had a Pentium 4 running at 3.8 Ghz and now they are almost at 22 nm and what is the fastest clockspeed you've seen from them ? All I was saying is that they may very well have been able to keep the thermal envelope the same with a 2 module, 4 core design, but what about when you put Piledriver on the desktop and have to add more modules and more clockspeed ? Having a controlled power envelope for mobile is one thing, nothing guarantees you that with a higher clockspeed and more modules it won't use much more energy, and I'm saying this because thatt is exactly how Bulldozer works on the desktop. Now, have they made any fundamental changes that mean that you can now ramp up clockspeeds with more modules and keep the same or lower envelope ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artikbot View Post

NEIN.
Intel's RD budget is more than tenfold AMD's and they have to develop monstrous graphics powerplants that fight nVIDIAs at the same time that they develop processors.
Do you seriously call that 'no need to invest lots of money'? I'm surprised they still manage to give fight with so little resources.
By the way, AMD has (I suppose you know it) no fabs. Therefore they rely on whatever GF/TSMC has. Then crap happens when the fab promised you X but they deliver X/2.

There we go again, I already addressed that. You guys are all having problems with the way I phrased it, aren't you ? I'm sorry, I'll try to be more clear the next time. What I meant is: AMD does not have money. Intel does. But not even Intel introduces a new architecture AND a new manufacturing process at the same time. So how does AMD have money to do both sucessfully ? They don't, and Bulldozer is the result. And what if Globalfoundries isn't theirs anymore, that is actually one more reason to go at it with more caution. Intel goes with caution so any eventual problems with a new manufacturing process are not amplified by eventual problems with a new architecture, and vice-versa, why doesn't AMD do the same ? Like someone already said, why is GF being used as an excuse ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipze View Post

go back to playing games bro all this improvement talk is getting to your head

LOL, you had so many posts to make a joke about and you chose the wrong one. I was being as neutral as possible answering a legitimate question stating the facts of what we know thus far regarding Piledriver. Most of it is paraphrasing what the alleged AMD slide says on the OP. The only thing I added was the 26.6% higher clockspeed, and even that is being neutral, because it's just doing the math from what we allegedly know from the A10 5800K's clockspeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lostmage View Post

Even better, they could have transitioned to 32nm, but kept the same PH2 archetecture. The new architecture has flaws, and I think the only thing keeping it from being next to useless compared to a PH2 is the fact that it's on a 32nm process. A 32nm PH2 would destroy Bulldozer until they get the kinks worked out with their new design.

Exactly, actually yours is a better example, they have to compete on power envelope for mobile, so, yes, the best approach, while being cautious and not spending too much money, would be that, transition to 32 nm and use a mildly improved Thuban with the added Turbo Core 3.0 instead of Turbo Core and adding the new instruction sets.

I honestly don't know why people even suggest this might not be possible. It is and they did exactly that with Llano, which they managed to release more than three months before Bulldozer, even though they had the added complication of having an on-die GPU too, and yet they managed to deliver it sooner.
Edited by tpi2007 - 4/5/12 at 10:26am
 
Metro 2033 review
Metro 2033
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-3820 Asus Sabertooth X79 MSI GTX 750 Ti TF Gaming 16 GB Corsair DDR3 1866 Mhz Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD 830 128GB + WD Caviar Black 1TB Sony Optiarc DVD-RW Corsair A70 + Noiseblocker M12-P Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ RL2455HM Cooler Master Octane Corsair AX750 Professional Modular 80 Plus Gold Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus 
Mouse
Cooler Master Octane 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Metro 2033 review
Metro 2033
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-3820 Asus Sabertooth X79 MSI GTX 750 Ti TF Gaming 16 GB Corsair DDR3 1866 Mhz Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD 830 128GB + WD Caviar Black 1TB Sony Optiarc DVD-RW Corsair A70 + Noiseblocker M12-P Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ RL2455HM Cooler Master Octane Corsair AX750 Professional Modular 80 Plus Gold Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus 
Mouse
Cooler Master Octane 
  hide details  
Reply
post #74 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

You're not the only one. My first post in this thread:
There is a point. Intel ditched Netburst and switched strategy. And no, the decrease in IPC is not negated by the module design when single threaded performance matters. It will be negated if you have a highly parallel workload, but that is not always the case, so you need good single threaded performance. And the better it is, the faster the CPU will finish the job and go into idle mode on that core.
Toyota does have Lexus, Fiat does have Ferrari like I mentioned in my first post, Honda does have Infiniti, BMW does have Rolls-Royce and Volkswagen does have Bentley. Mainstream car manufacturers need to cater to their customers' desires, they need to show that they can make the best possible car and that that know-how will somehow trickle down to their mainstream products. That is why I said what I said in the last part of my first post. You need a proper flagship. Pretending that you can conquer the consumer by shifting the focus from competing with Intel and giving what the consumer wants instead does not tell the whole story. People want to know that they have a product that is made by a company that can make a truly remarkable product, even if the product that they have just bought is mid-range or entry level.
That is why Nvidia has the most marketshare in the discrete GPU market, for example. And that is why AMD finally made a proper high-end single GPU card with the HD 7970 after all these years of talking about going for performance / watt / price.
I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that Piledriver is to Bulldozer the same as Northwood is to Willamette. It's better, but it's still based on the same architecture. So, yes, it if turns out like Northwood, it will be reasonable. Let's just hope they don't bring a Prescott after that. LOL

I think you misunderstood my comment about the module design. Granted overall Bulldozer was a failure, but the Module design itself is not a failure. You can talk about the low IPC or increase power draw, but in the end, the Module design is still a winner. We'll soon see how Trinity and Piledriver improved on the Module design.

AMD has a flagship, the FX. Just because it doesn't compare to the competitor's flagship doesn't meant that they scrap it all together. Using your flagship analogy, the module design is trickling down to the lower end models, ala Trinity. The module design is innovative and remarkable. What more do you need to see this?

Just for the recored, Honda has Acura and Nissan has Infinitti.
post #75 of 84
You guys keep confusing zambezi with bulldozer.
Money
(17 items)
 
Z575
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3.8Ghz MSI B350 Pro Carbon GIGABYTE R9 390 8GB 1100/1650Mhz 16GB Team DDR4-3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
PNY CS1311 240GB - OS 2 x 2TB WD Black Raid 0 Synology DS416slim 4 x 1TB (raid 5) Corsair H100 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 10 Pro ElementaryOS Loki LG 29UM67P 29" 2560x1080 FreeSync HPE 87 w/ Browns + Ducky PBT caps 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
EVGA 600W B2 Lian Li PCA05N Steelseries Rival 100 FiiO G10K + Philips SN9500HiFi 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD A6-3420M @ 2.2Ghz 1.1v Lenovo Torpedo A55 6720g2 8GB Kingston 1600 CL9 
Hard DriveOSMouse
Samsung 840 250GB ElementaryOS x86_64 Abyssus 3.5G 
  hide details  
Reply
Money
(17 items)
 
Z575
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3.8Ghz MSI B350 Pro Carbon GIGABYTE R9 390 8GB 1100/1650Mhz 16GB Team DDR4-3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
PNY CS1311 240GB - OS 2 x 2TB WD Black Raid 0 Synology DS416slim 4 x 1TB (raid 5) Corsair H100 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 10 Pro ElementaryOS Loki LG 29UM67P 29" 2560x1080 FreeSync HPE 87 w/ Browns + Ducky PBT caps 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
EVGA 600W B2 Lian Li PCA05N Steelseries Rival 100 FiiO G10K + Philips SN9500HiFi 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD A6-3420M @ 2.2Ghz 1.1v Lenovo Torpedo A55 6720g2 8GB Kingston 1600 CL9 
Hard DriveOSMouse
Samsung 840 250GB ElementaryOS x86_64 Abyssus 3.5G 
  hide details  
Reply
post #76 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostmage View Post

Even better, they could have transitioned to 32nm, but kept the same PH2 archetecture. The new architecture has flaws, and I think the only thing keeping it from being next to useless compared to a PH2 is the fact that it's on a 32nm process. A 32nm PH2 would destroy Bulldozer until they get the kinks worked out with their new design.

AMD did not have the money or time to port Phenom II over to 32nm. And in a sense, they had to get Bulldozer out in order to determine the flaws in the architecture. Instead of focusing on what they should have done, why don't we focus on what they can and are doing, and whether or not it's effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

Look, I said in my first post on this thread that this was good enough for mainstream PCs. The problem with your argument is that Piledriver will have shared L2 cache within modules, while Stars doesn't, so, it's not as you are saying. There is that added benefit to Piledriver.
The main point I said with Piledriver - while maintaining that it would be good for mainstream PCs - is that AMD needs a proper flagship. And I stand by what I said, there is only so much you can do when you have to ramp up clockspeeds to get more performance. Why do you think Intel is staying away from that ? They had a Pentium 4 running at 3.8 Ghz and now they are almost at 22 nm and what is the fastest clockspeed you've seen from them ? All I was saying is that they may very well have been able to keep the thermal envelope the same with a 2 module, 4 core design, but what about when you put Piledriver on the desktop and have to add more modules and more clockspeed ? Having a controlled power envelope for mobile is one thing, nothing guarantees you that with a higher clockspeed and more modules it won't use much more energy, and I'm saying this because thatt is exactly how Bulldozer works on the desktop. Now, have they made any fundamental changes that mean that you can now ramp up clockspeeds with more modules and keep the same or lower envelope ?
There we go again, I already addressed that. You guys are all having problems with the way I phrased it, aren't you ? I'm sorry, I'll try to be more clear the next time. What I meant is: AMD does not have money. Intel does. But not even Intel introduces a new architecture AND a new manufacturing process at the same time. So how does AMD have money to do both sucessfully ? They don't, and Bulldozer is the result. And what if Globalfoundries isn't theirs anymore, that is actually one more reason to go at it with more caution. Intel goes with caution so any eventual problems with a new manufacturing process are not amplified by eventual problems with a new architecture, and vice-versa, why doesn't AMD do the same ? Like someone already said, why is GF being used as an excuse ?
LOL, you had so many posts to make a joke about and you chose the wrong one. I was being as neutral as possible answering a legitimate question stating the facts of what we know thus far regarding Piledriver. Most of it is paraphrasing what the alleged AMD slide says on the OP. The only thing I added was the 26.6% higher clockspeed, and even that is being neutral, because it's just doing the math from what we allegedly know from the A10 5800K's clockspeed.
Exactly, actually yours is a better example, they have to compete on power envelope for mobile, so, yes, the best approach, while being cautious and not spending too much money, would be that, transition to 32 nm and use a mildly improved Thuban with the added Turbo Core 3.0 instead of Turbo Core and adding the new instruction sets.
I honestly don't know why people even suggest this might not be possible. It is and they did exactly that with Llano, which they managed to release more than three months before Bulldozer, even though they had the added complication of having an on-die GPU too, and yet they managed to deliver it sooner.

The shared L2 cache means that each core within a module has to share resources with each other, instead having their own dedicated. And now you're saying this is a Piledriver advantage, when you've been bashing the Bulldozer module the entire time, essentially saying it's a failed and flawed design?

Right now, based on the rumors, we have 4 gimped cores surpassing 4 full cores in terms of IPC (26% clockspeed gain with 29% performance boost means there has to be IPC gains over it, if numbers are accurate), and at the very least being comparable to it. With Bulldozer vs Phenom, we have 8 gimped cores barely matching 6 full cores.

AMD has to introduce new architecture and new processing node at the same time precisely because they lack the money and resources (no in house foundry) to do so. Global Foundries might not deserve all of the blame for the high wattage and hot chips, but some of the blame does go to them for the immature 32nm process.
Millenium Falcon
(24 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 4930k MSI Big Bang Xpower II EVGA GTX 690 Patriot Viper II Sector 7 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
OCZ Deneva 2 Corsair Force 3 Maxtor Western Digital Green 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Samsung BD/DVD-RW Swiftech MCP655 x2 Black Ice GTX 480 Black Ice GTX 280 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool Repack Dual D5 Watercool Heatkiller 3.0 Alphacool GTX 690 fullcover Bitspower Big Bang Xpower II fullcover 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 64-bit Professional 3x Dell S2340 Max Keyboard Durandal CoolerMaster V1000 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Azza Genesis 9000B Logitech G700 Roccat Alumic Onkyo HT-S9100THX 
  hide details  
Reply
Millenium Falcon
(24 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 4930k MSI Big Bang Xpower II EVGA GTX 690 Patriot Viper II Sector 7 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
OCZ Deneva 2 Corsair Force 3 Maxtor Western Digital Green 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Samsung BD/DVD-RW Swiftech MCP655 x2 Black Ice GTX 480 Black Ice GTX 280 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool Repack Dual D5 Watercool Heatkiller 3.0 Alphacool GTX 690 fullcover Bitspower Big Bang Xpower II fullcover 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 64-bit Professional 3x Dell S2340 Max Keyboard Durandal CoolerMaster V1000 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Azza Genesis 9000B Logitech G700 Roccat Alumic Onkyo HT-S9100THX 
  hide details  
Reply
post #77 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyin15sec View Post

I think you misunderstood my comment about the module design. Granted overall Bulldozer was a failure, but the Module design itself is not a failure. You can talk about the low IPC or increase power draw, but in the end, the Module design is still a winner. We'll soon see how Trinity and Piledriver improved on the Module design.
AMD has a flagship, the FX. Just because it doesn't compare to the competitor's flagship doesn't meant that they scrap it all together. Using your flagship analogy, the module design is trickling down to the lower end models, ala Trinity. The module design is innovative and remarkable. What more do you need to see this?
Just for the recored, Honda has Acura and Nissan has Infinitti.

I don't think I misunderstood your comment, the module design is a conceptual mistake, because it is too ideal. It makes assumptions of things that are not yet a reality. Intel has a more realistic approach. The current software market is much better suited to four strong cores and Hyperthreading on the side for those few applications that benefit from more threads than eight weaker integer cores that would perform well if software would be more multithreaded and if applications would already take advantage of AVX instructions and if people already had Windows 8.

Bulldozer looks good on paper if you talk about the future, but it fails to deliver the performance you need today. AMD is pretending it can have its cake and eat it when it can't. Intel knows this and has a more sensible approach. Even if they do make the next desktop Piledriver CPUs with improved cores, cache latencies, etc, they will still have the same conceptual problem: you can't have more performance than Intel with that approach unless you use more power. Bulldozer is a 125 w TDP CPU, while Intel, on the same manufacturing process has a 95 w TDP CPU with a GPU factored in.

You're right about Honda having Acura and Nissan having Infiniti, my mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.M. View Post

You guys keep confusing zambezi with bulldozer.

Nobody is confusing anything. Talking about Bulldozer on the desktop is much easier than saying Zambezi, which is a term some people may not be familiar with.
Edited by tpi2007 - 4/5/12 at 12:45pm
 
Metro 2033 review
Metro 2033
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-3820 Asus Sabertooth X79 MSI GTX 750 Ti TF Gaming 16 GB Corsair DDR3 1866 Mhz Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD 830 128GB + WD Caviar Black 1TB Sony Optiarc DVD-RW Corsair A70 + Noiseblocker M12-P Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ RL2455HM Cooler Master Octane Corsair AX750 Professional Modular 80 Plus Gold Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus 
Mouse
Cooler Master Octane 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Metro 2033 review
Metro 2033
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-3820 Asus Sabertooth X79 MSI GTX 750 Ti TF Gaming 16 GB Corsair DDR3 1866 Mhz Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD 830 128GB + WD Caviar Black 1TB Sony Optiarc DVD-RW Corsair A70 + Noiseblocker M12-P Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ RL2455HM Cooler Master Octane Corsair AX750 Professional Modular 80 Plus Gold Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus 
Mouse
Cooler Master Octane 
  hide details  
Reply
post #78 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsumi View Post

AMD did not have the money or time to port Phenom II over to 32nm. And in a sense, they had to get Bulldozer out in order to determine the flaws in the architecture. Instead of focusing on what they should have done, why don't we focus on what they can and are doing, and whether or not it's effective.

But the thing is, they did! It's called Llano !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsumi View Post

The shared L2 cache means that each core within a module has to share resources with each other, instead having their own dedicated. And now you're saying this is a Piledriver advantage, when you've been bashing the Bulldozer module the entire time, essentially saying it's a failed and flawed design?

You're not making a logical conclusion. Shared cache is by definition more efficient than non shared cache because when one core needs more cache it can have access to all of it. That is why Llano performs worse than Thuban and Deneb, because it has no shared L3 cache. And that is why Piledriver, with that improvement, will bridge the performance gap, but that does not mean it still isn't a flawed concept.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsumi View Post

Right now, based on the rumors, we have 4 gimped cores surpassing 4 full cores in terms of IPC (26% clockspeed gain with 29% performance boost means there has to be IPC gains over it, if numbers are accurate), and at the very least being comparable to it. With Bulldozer vs Phenom, we have 8 gimped cores barely matching 6 full cores.

I did say that in my first post, there seems to be an improvement. But given that you also have Turbo Core 3.0, it's too soon to say if there is an IPC gain or not. Also, it's too soon and probably not right to compare these budget Piledriver cores to Thuban or Deneb or Bulldozer because they are not targeted at the same performance segment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsumi View Post

AMD has to introduce new architecture and new processing node at the same time precisely because they lack the money and resources (no in house foundry) to do so. Global Foundries might not deserve all of the blame for the high wattage and hot chips, but some of the blame does go to them for the immature 32nm process.

What you are saying is a mistake. Everybody will tell you that if you factor in a new manufacturing process with a new architecture you will have many more potential problems to solve, and that requires financial resources and time. That is why they managed to get Llano out the door more than 3 months sooner than Bulldozer, because it's easier and cheaper to take an existing architecture, add some mild updates, and transition it to a new manufacturing process.
Edited by tpi2007 - 4/5/12 at 12:48pm
 
Metro 2033 review
Metro 2033
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-3820 Asus Sabertooth X79 MSI GTX 750 Ti TF Gaming 16 GB Corsair DDR3 1866 Mhz Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD 830 128GB + WD Caviar Black 1TB Sony Optiarc DVD-RW Corsair A70 + Noiseblocker M12-P Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ RL2455HM Cooler Master Octane Corsair AX750 Professional Modular 80 Plus Gold Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus 
Mouse
Cooler Master Octane 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Metro 2033 review
Metro 2033
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-3820 Asus Sabertooth X79 MSI GTX 750 Ti TF Gaming 16 GB Corsair DDR3 1866 Mhz Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD 830 128GB + WD Caviar Black 1TB Sony Optiarc DVD-RW Corsair A70 + Noiseblocker M12-P Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ RL2455HM Cooler Master Octane Corsair AX750 Professional Modular 80 Plus Gold Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus 
Mouse
Cooler Master Octane 
  hide details  
Reply
post #79 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by totallynotshooped View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by RagingCain View Post

    Quote:


If we see this architecture, that is Bulldozer, in anything, it will still be a massive disappointment every which way you look at that CPUs performance, especially when looking at the competition.  There is no magic task scheduler, ala Windows 8, waiting to unleash Bulldozer's performance, because its potential isn't there, and what performance it could gain in the new instruction set would still place behind current gen i7s, and unless Ivy completely flops out, it will be even further behind when it gets reved out.

The entire Bulldozer is worse than its previous generation in terms of IPC or IPS or power saving.  Lets not even bring Intel into this.  The entire Bulldozer architecture was a massive flop both on paper, and real world performance was far behind Thubans and even Denebs in some tests.

This is Piledriver we are talking about, not 1st gen bulldozer.
Anaway, real world performance for Orochi/zambezi is actually not as bad as everybody says, especially in Photoshop, beating out a 2600k. if you look at a basic desktop running a chip, you might actually be surprised at its performance in certain apps.
 

 

You should read who and what I quoted, the fact of the matter is that ESP brought into it Bulldozer, I merely speculated one should wait for actual results of these.  AMD has a habit, ala Bullzdozer, of releasing marketing aimed at hype without any substance.  My comments about Bulldozer were off topic, my comment on waiting for some benchmarks before worshiping it were very much warranted.

 

Edited: My comment "this architecture, that is Bulldozer," was to emphasize I am not talking about this new chip, but commenting on what ESP had said.


Edited by RagingCain - 4/5/12 at 12:57pm
Snowdevil
(16 items)
 
ASUS G750JM
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
[i7 4790K @ 4.4 GHz (1.186v)] [Asus Sabertooth Z97 Mark S] [nVidia Geforce GTX 1080] [nVidia Geforce GTX 1080] 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
[G.Skill 32GB DDR3 2133 MHz] [Crucial MX100 256GB] [Phanteks PH-TC12DX] [Win 10.1 Pro] 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
[LG 29UM65 (2560x1080)] [QNIX Evo II LED (2560x1440)] [WASD v2 Tenkeyless] [NZXT Hale90 v2 ] 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
[ThermalTake GT10 Snow Edition] [Razer Mamba - Chroma] [Razer Kabuto] [Razer Man O' War] 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770HQ Intel HM87 Express Chipset Geforce GTX 860M 8GB DDR3L 1600 MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD EVO DVD-RW Stock Windows 8.1 
Monitor
1920x1080 TN 
  hide details  
Reply
Snowdevil
(16 items)
 
ASUS G750JM
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
[i7 4790K @ 4.4 GHz (1.186v)] [Asus Sabertooth Z97 Mark S] [nVidia Geforce GTX 1080] [nVidia Geforce GTX 1080] 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
[G.Skill 32GB DDR3 2133 MHz] [Crucial MX100 256GB] [Phanteks PH-TC12DX] [Win 10.1 Pro] 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
[LG 29UM65 (2560x1080)] [QNIX Evo II LED (2560x1440)] [WASD v2 Tenkeyless] [NZXT Hale90 v2 ] 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
[ThermalTake GT10 Snow Edition] [Razer Mamba - Chroma] [Razer Kabuto] [Razer Man O' War] 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770HQ Intel HM87 Express Chipset Geforce GTX 860M 8GB DDR3L 1600 MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD EVO DVD-RW Stock Windows 8.1 
Monitor
1920x1080 TN 
  hide details  
Reply
post #80 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

I don't think I misunderstood your comment, the module design is a conceptual mistake, because it is too ideal. It makes assumptions of things that are not yet a reality. Intel has a more realistic approach. The current software market is much better suited to four strong cores and Hyperthreading on the side for those few applications that benefit from more threads than eight weaker integer cores that would perform well if software would be more multithreaded and if applications would already take advantage of AVX instructions and if people already had Windows 8.
Bulldozer looks good on paper if you talk about the future, but it fails to deliver the performance you need today. AMD is pretending it can have its cake and eat it when it can't. Intel knows this and has a more sensible approach. Even if they do make the next desktop Piledriver CPUs with improved cores, cache latencies, etc, they will still have the same conceptual problem: you can't have more performance than Intel with that approach unless you use more power. Bulldozer is a 125 w TDP CPU, while Intel, on the same manufacturing process has a 95 w TDP CPU with a GPU factored in.
You're right about Honda having Acura and Nissan having Infiniti, my mistake.

By using your logic, we'd still be using 32 bit processors and Front Side Bus. You can't let current "reality" dictate what your future processors be like. Back in 2003, was there a mainstream need for 64bit processors? No. Was there a need for Hypertransport? No. Was there a need for IMC? No. Yet AMD Still went ahead with those changes. Today, Intel has followed up with all of these changes, because they address limitations of a modern processors. We didn't need all these features back then, but it shouldn't be held back just because the current environment didn't need it.

You need to stop thinking of what Intel would do. The REAL reality is, once again, AMD just doesn't have the financial capabilities as Intel. The module design address 2 very important aspects of semiconductor manufacturing.

Die space and thermal envelope.

Intel can perfect a die shrink much much faster than AMD. To address die space, they used the Module design. Less transistors means they can free up die space. Less transistors means, the thermal envelope will not be as high.

AMD is not trying to "eat their own cake". All they did was lay the foundations for future processors. This had to have happen at some point, which other posters have already mention plenty of times.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [MPC]Leaked AMD Trinity Slide Promises Big Gains Over Llano APUs