Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just to be sure of what I've read.
Intel double some of the components on each processors of the CPU so it can do 2 threads at the same time (hypertheading) but AMD do the same thing but sell the CPU not as a 4 core but a 8 and says they REMOVE some components, preventing Intel from suing AMD?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,832 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Eddyall
View Post

Just to be sure of what I've read.
Intel double some of the components on each processors of the CPU so it can do 2 threads at the same time (hypertheading) but AMD do the same thing but sell the CPU not as a 4 core but a 8 and says they REMOVE some components, preventing Intel from suing AMD?

not really
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,711 Posts
What? AMD's top BD has 8 actual physical cores. Intels quads with hyper threading have 4 physical cores. Completely different things.
 

·
Network Enthusiast
Joined
·
4,793 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Skripka
View Post

What? AMD's top BD has 8 actual physical cores. Intels quads with hyper threading have 4 physical cores. Completely different things.

I thought it had 8 Physical cores but 4 FPU's aka 1 per 2 cores. Which is what makes it run slow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Quote:


Originally Posted by Buckaroo
View Post

I thought part of the settlement was that they where going to share chip technology anyway.

I didn't know of any agreement between Intel and AMD.
Maybe Intel let them use hyperthreading, but AMD changes the name and the explication.

Quote:


Originally Posted by Skripka
View Post

What? AMD's top BD has 8 actual physical cores. Intels quads with hyper threading have 4 physical cores. Completely different things.

That's what I'm saying, it not an actual 8 physical core, it's a hyperthreaded 4 core.

Quote:


Originally Posted by Shiftstealth
View Post

I thought it had 8 Physical cores but 4 FPU's aka 1 per 2 cores. Which is what makes it run slow.

If you compare a quad core with a hyperthreaded dual core the quad core will beat the dual core. So since they say Bulldozer have a 8 core, it normal not as good at what you could expect.

And please, I'm looking for a serious discussion, that's why I came here.
I don't want to speak to fan boy, just people who knows computer components.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,711 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Eddyall
View Post

I didn't know of any agreement between Intel and AMD.
Maybe Intel let them use hyperthreading, but AMD changes the name and the explication.

That's what I'm saying, it not an actual 8 physical core, it's a hyperthreaded 4 core.

If you compare a quad core with a hyperthreaded dual core the quad core will beat the dual core. So since they say Bulldozer have a 8 core, it normal not as good at what you could expect.

And please, I'm looking for a serious discussion, that's why I came here.
I don't want to speak to fan boy, just people who knows computer components.

It is NOT hyperthreading.

Let me quote an AMD engineer who used to post here:

Quote:


Originally Posted by JF-AMD

There are some inaccuracies in your assessment.

First, there is one FP unit per module. This can be seperated into 2 FMACs for running most applications so you end up with a 1:1 ratio of integer and FP on a core.

This is not "hardware hyperthreading". People who describe it as such generally don't understand exactly what we are doing or how it varies. In hyperthreading there is one scheduler that presents 2 virtual cores, essentially giving two entry points into a single set of integer pipelines. If one thread is consuming 100% (or probably 90%) of the physical integer pipeline on the core, then the other thread sits idle essentially.

A module has 2 integer units, a share FP that can act as 2 FP units, a single FP scheduler (that is how you can share 2) and 2 integer schedulers. A module can handle 2 unique threads at the same time. If one is at 100% pipeline utilizaiton the other can also be at 100% utilization.

To call it hyperthreading is really wrong, a better description is "modular computing". The system, the OS and the apps will see cores as physical cores because that is what they are.

And dragonsmp, the FP is very different. In current products it is an FPU, for BD they are FMACs and can support a far wider range of instructions.

http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/11...type-core.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
733 Posts
AFAIK, 1 core = 1 ALU ( 1 integer core, that can do arithmetic calculation).

Modern CPU have within each x86 core 1 ALU and 1 FPU( floating point unit).

Back on the day the processor had only ALU cores, and FPU was added separetly, on the motherboard(just like a video card, but instead a FPU). But soon ALU and FPU were joined in the same space, however what defines a core its the ALU, the integer unit.

Bulldozer has 4 modules, let's say 4 big cores, but each bulldozer core, has 2 integer units instead of 1. Thats why Bulldozer 4Module/8Core is labeled like that, because it has 8 interger cores but "only" 4 FPU.

Hyperthread doesnt double anything, it just has some extra stuff that, enable it to run 2 thread in each core, but its not 2 threads at the same time, this it how it works;

Lets say we have 1 core and 2 threads(thread 'a' and thread 'b') to be run, what hyperthread does is, it starts working on the thread 'a', but when thread 'a' stops running for some reason(waiting for data or whatever), it starts working on thread 'b', so the core it self is running all the time one thread, be it thread 'a' or thread 'b', hyperthread basically raises the efficiency not letting the core stay at idle mode waiting for resources to come to be processes.

BullDozer can actually run 8 threads at the same time, because it has 8 integer units/cores. But when it comes to Floating point operations, BD only has 4 FPU, thats why it looses to SB very often, because SB has better FPU , although they have each 4 FPU.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,832 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Erick
View Post

AFAIK, 1 core = 1 ALU ( 1 integer core, that can do arithmetic calculation).

Modern CPU have within each x86 core 1 ALU and 1 FPU( floating point unit).

Back on the day the processor had only ALU cores, and FPU was added separetly, on the motherboard(just like a video card, but instead a FPU). But soon ALU and FPU were joined in the same space, however what defines a core its the ALU, the integer unit.

Bulldozer has 4 modules, let's say 4 big cores, but each bulldozer core, has 2 integer units instead of 1. Thats why Bulldozer 4Module/8Core is labeled like that, because it has 8 interger cores but "only" 4 FPU.

Hyperthread doesnt double anything, it just has some extra stuff that, enable it to run 2 thread in each core, but its not 2 threads at the same time, this it how it works;

Lets say we have 1 core and 2 threads(thread 'a' and thread 'b') to be run, what hyperthread does is, it starts working on the thread 'a', but when thread 'a' stops running for some reason(waiting for data or whatever), it starts working on thread 'b', so the core it self is running all the time one thread, be it thread 'a' or thread 'b', hyperthread basically raises the efficiency not letting the core stay at idle mode waiting for resources to come to be processes.

BullDozer can actually run 8 threads at the same time, because it has 8 integer units/cores. But when it comes to Floating point operations, BD only has 4 FPU, thats why it looses to SB very often, because SB has better FPU , although they have each 4 FPU.

It has 8 128b fpu core that can be fused into 4 256b fpu cores.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Thanks, I see there's a small difference but a real 8 core would still be better right?

Edit: I only read JF-AMD post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,832 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Eddyall
View Post

Thanks, I see there's a small difference but a real 8 core would still be better right?

I guess compared to a fake core ? Certainly 8 real cores would be better then 8 mockups, or models.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Eddyall
View Post

I didn't know of any agreement between Intel and AMD.

"As part of the deal announced on Nov. 12, Intel (INTC) will pay $1.25 billion, and AMD (AMD) will drop all pending antitrust litigation. The two companies also forged a five-year cross-licensing agreement that gives the companies access to each other's key chip technology."

From this link.
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...112_354928.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Quote:


Originally Posted by Buckaroo
View Post

"As part of the deal announced on Nov. 12, Intel (INTC) will pay $1.25 billion, and AMD (AMD) will drop all pending antitrust litigation. The two companies also forged a five-year cross-licensing agreement that gives the companies access to each other's key chip technology."

From this link.
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...112_354928.htm

So Intel had to pay 1 250 000 000$ to AMD because AMD couldn't compete with Intel?
Hope it doesn't happen with nVidia too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
So yeah AMD steals Intel's technology and still sucks. Brains + Tech will always triumph over just Tech. Hence Teacher > Student.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,321 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by kchris
View Post

So yeah AMD steals Intel's technology and still sucks. Brains + Tech will always triumph over just Tech. Hence Teacher > Student.

You come off as an ignorant fanboy,please go back the Intel side.
AMD came up with 64 bit x86 technology,which allows your Intel system to use more than 3GB of ram,AMD also has the first true quad core.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Quote:


Originally Posted by ORL
View Post

Wow... just wow.... Please research before typing. Thanks.

I've read the reason Intel did not make a 6 core for LGA 1155 was because AMD didn't have anything to compete with the LGA 1366 6 core. I will happely say I was wrong if they did have something to compete.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,096 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Eddyall
View Post

So Intel had to pay 1 250 000 000$ to AMD because AMD couldn't compete with Intel?
Hope it doesn't happen with nVidia too.

No. Intel was paying companies to not even offer AMD as a cpu choice. Therefor hindering their ability to sell units for intels own good. Which is bad for customers and the industry. And as punishment intel had to pay AMD for its probable loses from the payoffs.

Quote:


Originally Posted by Eddyall
View Post

I've read the reason Intel did not make a 6 core for LGA 1155 was because AMD didn't have anything to compete with the LGA 1366 6 core. I will happely say I was wrong if they did have something to compete.

Its more likely that they don't have large enough customer base, in that price range, to make producing them profitable(at least for desktops).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,564 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Eddyall
View Post

I've read the reason Intel did not make a 6 core for LGA 1155 was because AMD didn't have anything to compete with the LGA 1366 6 core. I will happely say I was wrong if they did have something to compete.

Please no one feed the troll.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top