I completely agree with you. I just think that all the noobs will be like "OMG worlds first 8 core. Must buy it!". Most of the people buying these processors will probably know nothing about the inner workings of them and will buy them solely based on what they are told by Newegg or TigerDirect or wherever they buy them. Sad but true.

 

They just make a multithreaded 4-core CPU and call it 8-core. Soon we will see a PDF from Intel saying AMD made a false claim about 8-core like MSI said Gigabyte did not have PCIe Gen3.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lime;15277586
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/2

So if you scroll down to the section about the front-end comparison, you'll be able to see quite clearly that instruction rate only increases every TWO cores, meaning that the number of instructions only increases with an increase in module count. I mean, really, it'd look a lot better if it was being advertised as a multi-threaded quad-core.

My thoughts on the matter, at least.

I thought everyone knew this since the first day BD was introduced. I remember this video - Linus with the AMD guy.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxbG2AmdMNY&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLD432F83219DD64EE[/ame]

Well I guess not... 67,505 views!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by _s3v3n_;15277994
I thought everyone knew this since the first day BD was introduced. I remember this video - Linus with the AMD guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxbG2AmdMNY&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLD432F83219DD64EE

Well I guess not... 67,505 views!

Often when theres a review of something new, most users don't want to know how it works, only how it performs. Just like the P4 and Hyperthreading

 

Because BD does not have multithreading cores. A single core can still only process a single thread at a time--technically a "module" can process two (or more, depending on the number of cores per module) threads simultaneously, much in the way that two CPU cores can do the same thing. It's just that the BD architecture sought to minimize redundancies of components between cores to make them more efficient--like shared FPU's and such. But a core can still only process a single thread at a time, so it's really not a multithreading CPU--not any more than any other mainstream multi-core processor available at the moment.

Until we move away from x86 architecture, BD and AMD's apu-variant processors will not achieve any more of a parallel-processing stance than any of the other current CPU's. It's more a fault of how software is written, and not a fault of the hardware architecture (IMHO). I mean, look at how GPGPU applications have developed--things like F@H and such--there needs to be intelligent design of applications to take advantage of it, except the problem is that a piece of software currently needs to cater to the vast disparity between computer hardware available. We're more shackled by x86 programming rather than how many threads a current CPU core can handle.

Things like OpenCL and new variants of C-programming are looking to take advantage of the apu architecture and achieve a more-multithreading processing ability, but it's still a ways off.

I guess that last bit was a little off topic, but still relevant.

 

I wish dozer works like a quad, would be much better in single-threaded apps. Isn't it OSes fault?