Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [FUD] Bulldozer to come close to i7
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[FUD] Bulldozer to come close to i7 - Page 17

post #161 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajile View Post
I guess I'll weigh in.

A BULLDOZER MODULE IS NOT TWO COMPLETE CORES!!!


AMD may like for you to believe this to be true, but it is not (strictly speaking). Each module has only one FPU (floating point unit) The addition of the second "core" (which is only for integers NOT floats) takes only 12% additional die space for DOUBLE the INTEGER performance (but shares the float unit making the second integer core incomplete ie not real). SMT (simultaneous multithreading AKA hyperthreading) on Intel chips takes 5% additional die space and only offers 10-30% performance increases and it will result in performance loss when efficient programming algorithms are used.

edit: AMD claims 80% increase in total performance for the addition of a second integer core. The likely reason that performance is not doubled is caused by an integer unit waiting to use the FPU. As more float calculations are offloaded to a dedicated unit, it can be hypothesized that integer performance will approach the magic 100% mark (it is still possible for the only float numbers used in quite a while to still need to be crunched at the same time thus making the guarantee of 100% theoretically impossible (scheduling aside), but at that point performance difference would be only one cycle which is insignificant when measuring in gigahertz)


Most benchmarks measure FLOPS (floating point operations per second). Because an "eight core" bulldozer processor only has 4 FPU's, it having equal FLOAT performance to a quad-core i7 (which also has 4 FPU's) is not completely surprising nor is it surprising that a benchmark would show them as nearly equal in performance. It should also be mentioned that any benchmarks used were not likely to have been compiled for AVX and if they were, bulldozer performance would increase drastically. If a benchmark were to take only integer performance into account, it is likely that a four module bulldozer would mop the floor with a four-core sandy bridge because bulldozer has eight integer cores. It is also noteworthy that the most commonly used non-graphical applications (word processors, web browsers, etc) use many times more integer calculations than float calculations.

One last thing to note on FPU performance: AMD isn't interested in super fast x86 FPU's. AMD bought ATI in order to take advantage of the extreme float power inherent in graphics cards. The fastest supercomputer in the world (FLOPS not integer) uses a horde of Nvidia graphics cards. Integrating a graphics card (or using an add in card) is much more efficient (per mm^2) at floats than increasing the number of x86 float units (if the majority of the floats are offloaded, one FPU can satisfy the needs of more than one integer unit).

All that said, I look forward to the upcoming sandy bridge vs bulldozer cage match.
blasphemy.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
amd Phenom II x6 1090T gigabye UD7 990FX 5870 G.skill flare 2 x 4gbs 2000mhz  
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
westerdigital cooler master eisberg 240L Vista 64 bit spceptre 1920 x 1200 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
muli-media ftw lol 1200 watt silverstone none another cheap one $20 
Mouse PadOther
none ATi 650 pro theater  
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
amd Phenom II x6 1090T gigabye UD7 990FX 5870 G.skill flare 2 x 4gbs 2000mhz  
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
westerdigital cooler master eisberg 240L Vista 64 bit spceptre 1920 x 1200 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
muli-media ftw lol 1200 watt silverstone none another cheap one $20 
Mouse PadOther
none ATi 650 pro theater  
  hide details  
Reply
post #162 of 163
They talk about the "new 6-core i7 CPUs" What are they refering to? 980x? 990x?

I want the south to rise again. I'm fed up with all these new sockets.
post #163 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by beers View Post

Clock for clock the K7's were faster than P4's..
It wasn't until Intel pushed the P4 over 3 Ghz that it started noticeably outperforming the socket A athlons..
Yup, still remember that day, back when I was a young teen, reading the headline news on zdnet.com, about the Athlon 500 putting an absolute smackdown on the P3 500.

Till that day I've never even heard of AMD.

Unfortunately, AMD right now looks like itself back in the K6 days
Oldie
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500K 4.7 GHz P67A-UD4 FirePro V4800 @ 840 MHz Patriot Viper Extreme 
Hard DriveCoolingMonitorPower
OCZ Solid 3 120G NH-D14 Benq M2700HD Antec TruePower 
CaseAudio
HAF 932 Z-5500 
  hide details  
Reply
Oldie
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500K 4.7 GHz P67A-UD4 FirePro V4800 @ 840 MHz Patriot Viper Extreme 
Hard DriveCoolingMonitorPower
OCZ Solid 3 120G NH-D14 Benq M2700HD Antec TruePower 
CaseAudio
HAF 932 Z-5500 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [FUD] Bulldozer to come close to i7