Originally Posted by MrJava
Guess I'm just used to tech industry alphabet soup.
Here's a recent kaveri presentation to leaf through. Not much new info, except for slide 21 which shows an abstract representation of a CPU module with 3 ALUs per core. I try not to read too much into these things but I wonder if its an old diagram referencing the 2 ALUS + 1 MMX pipe (per core) or if its something else.http://share.csdn.net/#/detail/851
On a side note, I think Kaveri may include "True Audio" technology since the R7 260X (Bonaire??) does as well.
Originally Posted by os2wiz
Yes, that is what I expected. Too many acronyms and what's worse is obsolete acronyms.
There are some things in those slides that make me feel optimistic. References to desktop platforms as well as mentioning GPGPU instead of APU.
I like the tone of the slides in general. It is talking about HSA first and APUs second, leading me to feel like APU is just an ends to a means for HSA and that AMD plans on going further with it. It seems to me like HSA on APU is a very safe way to go about this. Imagine folks who go for AMD APU because of GPU performance in games, and then a year or two from now they are suddenly running HSA applications and their chips are flying. It is a great way to get a nice install base.
Contrast that with desktop or even some laptops, where a single AMD GPU coupled with an Intel CPU means AMD has no control over the platform. So every AMD GPU with an Intel CPU wouldn't be HSA compatible.
After seeing these slides discuss HSA in the way they did, as a final goal with APU as a stepping stone, I feel much more confident that APUs are an effort by AMD to get control of a platform as opposed to pushing HSA.
I think that if AMD can build a solid enough platform of CPU + GPU + chipset they will move to desktop, but the numbers for that on desktop for people running AMD CPU + AMD GPU + AMD chipset are probably quite abysmal.
I am kind of out of it but what I'm trying to get at is that it is a lot easier to get someone to buy an AMD CPU + GPU + chipset if you're selling someone an APU as opposed to trying to get someone on a new platform when they have a choice between AMD and Nvidia for graphics and Intel and AMD for CPU in the same build. APU eliminates a lot of possibilities and pushes consumers more towards AMD APU if they are going AMD.
Originally Posted by EniGma1987
Originally Posted by NaroonGTX
That would mean either Steamroller-based or a Piledriver refresh (again).
Hypothetically speaking, I'm not so quick to rule out a SR part, regardless of the fact that BD & PD FX were based off the Operton variants (well, they pretty much *were* the same chip)
Not pretty much, they are 100% the same. Even down to the four HT Links being present in the desktop version. Those links are simply laser cut so they don't work. Even the high end 16 core G34 server parts are simply two FX-8350 on a single package through an MCM.
That is a Vishera desktop die, the FX-8350. You can see two HT Links on the right side, one at the top right and one at the bottom right as well (dual DDR3 controllers are on the far left if you were wondering). I take the server roadmap as not showing any Steamroller AM3+ compatible die, along with no core codename ever hinted at, the silence on the matter as well as trying to dodge the question by AMD, the direction AMD is trying to move in, and the lack of anything leaking by other means (mobo makers) to show that there will not be an AM3+ Steamroller design anytime soon if at all, which I have said from the beginning.
I have heard some speculation on GC34 being a unified socket between server and desktop and it makes a lot of sense. FX and Opteron are the same chip, yet AMD has to do additional work to sell the same chip to different customers? Why not just sell FX and Opteron on the same platform as the same chips and just bin them differently? No more fusing off. No more multiple chipsets, one less platform to maintain while not losing any customers on either platform.
It also makes AMD much more competitive on the high end, because it opens up the possibility of MCM packages being sold to enthusiasts. The only thing that makes 3930k and greater so expensive and sought after is multi-thread performance. 3930k at core i3 clock speed is basically the same in single thread. People who want to pay for all those cores will because they want those cores for multi-threaded workloads that they run.
And the best part about that for AMD is that they don't have to do anything. They just let people buy the same Opterons other people would buy for servers and put them in an enthusiast board.
It also opens up the possibility for multi-CPU rigs. The problem with other multi-CPU rigs right now is that:
1. You can't overclock on new Intel multi-CPU rig
2. 4x4/quadfather/etc required special platform for consumers
I don't even think you would need expensive opterons for a multi-CPU rig if AMD didn't fuse off the extra HT links on FX chips. It would be a lot of power consumption, but two FX steamrollers with 4m/8c will not be slower than 4930k in multi-thread and it would probably be cheaper for the two FXs than it would be for the single 4930k.
The problem with all of this is that it's a horrible time to introduce a new platform if you want to keep it around for any length of time (pro-tip: Intel is going to trash current platform in a year or two), because we're on the brink of DDR4. So what is AMD to do? Release a new platform with DDR3 and have it be obsolete in a year? Or hold it out?
And what does it look like AMD is doing? Holding out.
I just hope to see a 4m/8c steamroller part sometime in my lifetime. I get the feeling that if you could run it 4m/4c and it still saw the 40% IPC increase PIledriver sees and SR will come close to SB IPC, it'd be an amazing chip. Not sure if the front end changes would affect that though, it probably would by a lot.