Originally Posted by Tivan
I know that! I was asking how this makes the integer cores into 'integer units', that aren't cores.
Intel also have the floating point units, by the way. (which don't really seem like cores, because they cannot run the PC standalone. But any integer core can function as the computational heart of a computer.)
And Zen has hyper threading as well, they will have 2 threads per core.
Just curious how putting 2 integer core into a module that share non-essential resources for functioning as sole computational unit of a PC, makes em 'units' not cores. They're also units, of cores. Sure. 2 core units per module. Kinda like Intel has 4 core units per quad core. Fun fact, intel quad cores also share some resources between cores. Are they not quadcores but single cores? Or zero core, 4 units?
They sure are, depending on how you want to define em. That's where I'm curious how the guy I asked would define these terms. I just want to gain an insight into a new classification methodology like that, that I'm not too familiar with.
Zen has 4-thread hyperthreading and is NOT doing sub-cores. That's the change. An array of sub-components of the main core are being implemented this time and Zen is NOT using the Piledriver Y shaped core architecture of the previous product ( Bristol Ridge is a Piledriver variant on AM4 but isn't Zen)
The "decode" unit has been beefed up with 4-thread capacity - the problem was that in Excavator the Decode units weren't set up with independent thread capacity from the main core. So all integer function will slide right through to the integer system on threads and separate threads can feed the FPscheduler. This is by far a simplified example of the mathmatical function of the cores. If Excavator/Piledriver/Bulldozer/Junkdredger had actually had ACTUAL hyperthreading capacity they'd have performed better than what we got. Goes to show that some people shouldn't be allowed to design CPUs.
Its not the change in the way the chip does mathematics, its the changes in the way it handles threaded tasks, Bulldozer lacked efficient internal automation of multiple thread tasks from an era in which intel capitalized on hyperthread and multi-thread code support. AMD went for brute power that had to be fed in a specific manner and intel went for finesse up-front to be able to respond quickly to changes in load. The end result was that intel's hyperthreading was pushed higher and farther, if AMD had developed an actual functional task scheduler system that kept programs from trying to stick multiple tasks in the same hole they would have fared better. AMD learned from that and has made an "intel style" hyperthread-line CPU with 4 threads handled per core instead of 2. Whether AMD's system will pay off in the long-run is unknown (and whether intel will pay programmers to use code systems that interfere with operation as well).
Interestingly intel is now implementing systems in their chips that AMD has used for a long time (Brisbane) that allow more flexibility in operation as well.tl;dr
Basically the confusion here is what happens when your tech writers can't be bothered to actually write or understand what they're writing. The Zen "Zeppelin" APU is an 8 core 32 thread processor with an additional Greenland embedded graphics processor (how good of one we don't know, probably the tiny wimpy one they showed in December). Calling it cores is just ignorance and poor journalism.Edited by prjindigo - 2/3/16 at 5:44pm