Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Z-80 > i9
Joined
·
17,244 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Now, as we all know Bulldozer performs like crap in its current iteration, there's no excuse and believe me, what I'm posting here isn't an excuse. Any posts saying that it is will be reported and hopefully deleted by our friendly moderating team. This is infact a my thoughts on the Bulldozer architecture as a whole and why Zambezi sucks so hard at the moment.

Note: I don't claim to be an expert with CPUs, this is what I think is affecting performance from BD going from what I've read and what I know.

1) Cache thrashing & Latency: This review from Anandtech shows that L2 and L3 cache latency is horrible, L2 cache latency being nearly double Intels and L3 cache latency being over double. What does this mean for performance? It means that it takes longer for data to get to the cores, combined with the small L1 cache that is used by many cores at once vs by two at most...Well, it makes for a messy scenario, I'm willing to bet a lot of the time the pipelines are doing nothing while waiting for data to come from the cache.

2) CPU scheduling and software: Bulldozer is an entirely new chip, I doubt AMD pulled anything from Thuban/Deneb apart from x86 compatibility, history has shown us (Three separate examples, all from Intel, seriously. Read up on your history if you call this an excuse, I can come up with more if you really want) that new architectures tend to suck when they first come out with the second generation parts being far better (For reference, Pentium 75/90 and the Pentium II. That site is owned by a very reputable store in my home town) I think the same will hold true for Bulldozer, especially since it seems to fare better in Linux than Windows, not to mention this post...There is heaps of room for improvement, and AMD could easily do it.

3) Power consumption: Now, this is a doozy of an issue, a CPU pulling easily nearly 500w alone? There's something wrong there, extreme leakage doesn't seem like it's it either or these chips would require LN2 to come stock...However there is evidence suggesting (Not proving, we need more evidence) that it may be an issue with the CHV motherboard and BD.

4) Delays, delays, delays: We all know BD was delayed 2 quarters from when it was meant to launch, and we all know Trinity with the Piledriver cores is launching in Q1 2012 assuming there's no issues or delays. We also know now (Assuming you didn't before) that history shows that new architectures tend to suck on their first outing and that Llano is AMDs main source of revenue. Now, there were rumours that AMD delayed BD due to Llano yields being bad which I believe (Along with BDs performance), but a friend of mine pointed out something that could very well be true...What if Bulldozer is a pipe cleaner product?

AMD have done it before to great success, BD is a new architecture and the compilers (Intels compiler, gcc, etc) need to get some optimization for this architecture, its not like it used to be where you could get the previous generations one and still get decent performance.
One example of optimization would be to make threads go on either only even or odd cores until they absolutely have to use the others. (Eg. If your program uses 4 cores, use core 1, 3, 5 and 7 on a FX-8150 for max performance but then use cores 2, 4, 6 and 8 when needed)

AMD launching BD, as much of a failure as it is, would make the devs of the various compilation tools at least get a basis for optimization, as well as optimization in the OS for BDs cores, as such, Bulldozer isn't meant to be the product that destroys everything, Piledriver is but they launched Bulldozer to get the worst parts of a new arch out of the way earlier.

They also could have delayed Bulldozer to put more engineers on Piledriver, but after all, it looks like software (Time fixes this) and the cache are what limits BD, I wouldn't be surprised if Piledriver is very good.

Once again, please don't post "This is excuse making!" There is no excuse for BDs performance, but there are reasons for why it is this bad, if any fanboys start posting about Intel in here (This has nothing to do with Intel, so don't say "My i5 is better!" for example) and it goes out of control, I'll PM a mod for a lock, please just discuss possible reasons why BD is slow in here. Excuse the incoherence in some areas, I'll rewrite this after I've had a bit of a good sleep.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
532 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Brutuz
View Post

please just discuss possible reasons why BD is slow in here.

must've got stuck in some mud.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
519 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Brutuz
View Post

please just discuss possible reasons why BD is slow in here.

Well they jinxed themselves calling it Bulldozer. I mean have you ever seen a fast bulldozer? Maybe had they called it Ferrari things would be different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
726 Posts
The caching is EXACTLY what I was trying to point out early on when we were speculating about BD performance, and is EXACTLY why I expected BD to flop initially.

But everyone argued back my points and called me an Intel fanboy despite me going off of a professional dissection back in march.

http://realworldtech.com/page.cfm?Ar...WT033011040021

Now to be quite frank I was expecting extreme power consumption just on the premise of the 8 cores.. but I wasn't expecting this much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,832 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Awkwardly Awesome
View Post

Well they jinxed themselves calling it Bulldozer. I mean have you ever seen a fast bulldozer? Maybe had they called it Ferrari things would be different.



Maybe bulldozer code name is all about bulldozing old crud out of the system and clearing the way for the Piledriver.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
726 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by SCollins
View Post

Maybe bulldozer code name is all about bulldozing old crud out of the system and clearing the way for the Piledriver.

A pile driver is still slow...

I would think you would prefer a Jackhammer?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
dont you always get problems with this sort of stuff though when new stuff comes out???? i will prob get a bd x8 but not untill summer next year at earlisest until i know most the bugs have gone
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
726 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by wedge
View Post

See? What did I tell you?

Um, what are you talking about? Just because there's an Intel logo below my avatar doesn't make me a fanboy.


He made a comment and I responded. That's how forums work you know...

Can't anyone have a laugh at the naming convention? What.. if I had an AMD under my avatar then could I poke fun?

I'm not against AMD in any way shape or form, however Bulldozer is the biggest pile of fail to exist yet.

You can't simply add more cores to get more performance. It doesn't work that way without strengthening what allows those cores to function. AMD's approach to BD was "HEY LETS THROW MORE CORES ON A DIE GUIZE!" if you think otherwise.. they were supposed to release a 12 core!

We're already barely utilizing 4 cores! Why would we need 8?

I mean really, it couldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out it's architecture was going to have issues!

The last AMD advancement ever made was on the x64. Since then AMD hasn't really accomplished anything. I'm disappointed in AMD currently... they have a lot of work to do to bring themselves back up in caliber to what we saw years ago.

Sheesh. Tired of this fanboy crap...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Hello I like the op it has helped me understand a little bit more about bulldozer and how AMD maybe are working that plan of attack so to speak with mircoprocessing, will have a read of all links on op later when I am not on my phone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
726 Posts
I'm thinking AMD may have to abandon bulldozer (they've sunk how much into BD's development?) and try a new approach. But that's just my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by MediaRocker
View Post

Um, what are you talking about? Just because there's an Intel logo below my avatar doesn't make me a fanboy.


He made a comment and I responded. That's how forums work you know...

Can't anyone have a laugh at the naming convention? What.. if I had an AMD under my avatar then could I poke fun?

I'm not against AMD in any way shape or form, however Bulldozer is the biggest pile of fail to exist yet.

You can't simply add more cores to get more performance. It doesn't work that way without strengthening what allows those cores to function. AMD's approach to BD was "HEY LETS THROW MORE CORES ON A DIE GUIZE!" if you think otherwise.. they were supposed to release a 12 core!

We're already barely utilizing 4 cores! Why would we need 8?

I mean really, it couldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out it's architecture was going to have issues!

The last AMD advancement ever made was on the x64. Since then AMD hasn't really accomplished anything. I'm disappointed in AMD currently... they have a lot of work to do to bring themselves back up in caliber to what we saw years ago.

Sheesh. Tired of this fanboy crap...

AMD guy here. I will back you on this.

I am absolutely disgusted at this release personally. I wanted something to compete all around with the I-5 and I-7. And what we ended up with was a cpu that performs worse per core than a phenom II. The only thing it runs well in (which is a given) is applications that use more cores. and it barely does that compared to the 4 cored intels.

As I said before I helped two friends buy their new I-5 2500k systems because they wanted the best gaming rig for the money. I will gladly be upgrading to Ivy Bridge when it comes out.

I really wanted AMD to pull this off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by MediaRocker
View Post

I'm thinking AMD may have to abandon bulldozer (they've sunk how much into BD's development?) and try a new approach. But that's just my opinion.

I understand don't flog a dead horse but have you read the OP some good points made about BD, and some things will get better with time software ect
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,238 Posts
At the moment AMD is stuck with the BD architecture it would take way to long to develop a new one. Remember that everything from Athlon 64 to Phenom 2 thubans are on the same basic architecture. That's not to say AMD can't make some radical redesings to the BD architecture.

Edit: What worries me the most is the AMD road map that only shows a 15% increase in speed when Piledriver is supposed to launch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,032 Posts
I think that 10-15% speed increase will be per core. In 2 years we will have 16 core AMD cpus. They should name it Eric Shun, Sandy's Rap*** or Bridge Cutter.

If AMD doesn't deliver, I don't think it will be around for much longer. We're in the middle of an economic crisis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,044 Posts
AMD didnt just add more cores they completely made a new chip. If they would of took a phenom II and made it a 8 core ok. Iam tired of the ******* saying more cores. If you run a game at 1080 with a single 580 it performs good. BF3 benchmarks prove it. Is it the beat bang for the buck no. And how many people run 2 500 dollar video cards. On this site there are more than average but most dont. And reguardless the processor will sell people will see 8core and 4.2 turbo and buy it and it will perform to their expectations. I was no way going to buy bulldozer i just upgraded. But i hope its a good stepping stone to the next amd product. Oh and the people who cry about the power it draws i have never used that as a factor in buying a processor. Unless your folding 24/7 its a non issue. And all of this is from a gamers standpoint so i dont want to hear about bussiness care3 about electric bills.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,337 Posts
We'll see. All the evidence right now point to Bulldozer being inferior to SB. An 1100t is keeping up with bulldozer...that's pretty bad. I'm actually interested in a 1100t right now just because I already have a board that supports it any way. I don't want to pay more than $150 for it however. If I have to pay more than $150 I might as well buy a 2500k.

AMD needs to lower their prices to compete. That's the bottom line. Assume the worse, and don't buy an fx processor thinking it will improve in performance down the road.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
736 Posts
You all need to remember that Piledriver is not a new architecture, but simply a new CORE, same with Steamroller and Excavator. If the problem is the architecture (i.e. how the cache is used, etc.) then a new core isn't going to make much of a difference.

Now, I can maybe understand (or hope) that the Zambezi chips are "pipe cleaners" and I really sincerely hope it's software optimization that needs to be address. I don't buy that it was delayed to work on piledriver though. Otherwise Trinity (which uses piledriver cores) wouldn't have been pushed up. By the "pipe cleaner" theory though, the names make more sense: Bulldozer does the dirty work, is slow, but clears the way. Piledriver hammers down the foundation. Steamroller paves the road to the future. Excavator demolishes the competition.
 

·
GWAMM
Joined
·
2,015 Posts
So... Piledriver next, another eternal wait begins?

Lol, I'm far from in a hurry, just bored and I hoped BD would bring some fun to the enthusiast crowd.
When are the high-end Piledrivers due anyway?
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top