Originally Posted by schmotty
Originally Posted by EniGma1987
Im still of the opinion that we have no chance of seeing GDDR5 with Kaveri. That rumor started because the APU made by AMD for the PS4 was using GDDR5, but we know for a fact that the PS4 and Kaveri are completely different. Kaveri uses Bulldozer architecture
while PS4 has Jaguar core architecture. The memory controller does not have to be the same for both chips, and Sony supposedly owns the IP for the GDDR5 controller in their custom solution. It wouldnt be something that AMD could just cut and paste into a whole different CPU. That, along with the fact that there are none, and currently no plans for memory companies to release RAM sticks with GDDR5 chips would suggest it is nothing more than a wishful rumor. To solder all memory to the board would be a bad idea on desktop, and it doesnt make much sense for AMD to work on developing both a GDDR5 and DDR3 controller and put them both inside Kaveri and use one for laptop and embedded and the other for desktop. I really don't think we will see anything more than standard doul channel DDR3 like we have now unfortunately. And probably get a dual or maybe quad channel DDR4 controller with the CPU after Kaveri in the next generation.
Kaveri is using Steamroller architecture. Bulldozer was a bust.
Steamroller is Bulldozer. Steamroller, Piledriver, and Bulldozer are all referred to as bdver3, bdver2, and bdver1 in GCC documentation submitted by AMD. It is similar to how Intel has different code names for what are basically a die shrink of the same thing (Sandy Bridge -> Ivy Bridge), but AMD does it backwards and improves the architecture instead of improving the fab process.
Excavator will probably be called bdver4 and if there's anything after that that uses modules, it'll be bdver5, bdver6, etc.
bdver1 was a fantastic idea poorly executed, and when you make an x86 architecture from scratch that's so radically different like bdver1 was, it's honestly expected to see issues arise and massive room for improvement. However, in my opinion, that's a great thing, because it means AMD managed to create something brand new that was kind of comparable to what Intel has had for ages and has refined over and over and over again.
I would think that AMD has a lot more room to grow still, if they choose to maintain the bulldozer module architecture, and there's a lot more room for them compared to Intel. People do not give AMD enough credit with Bulldozer and the fact that they made something completely new that was about the same as the old stuff and was still kind of competitive with Intel.
Intel has tried to make new architectures as well, one of which is Itanium, which is a failure, and the other is Atom, which has been a disaster for half a decade, far worse than Bulldozer was.