Leaked Bulldozer benches ???

JF-AMD

Your comments are welcomely accepted and we appreciate them. They are also 100% truthful and with the best intentions as far as I can see.

We just have alot of people here that really need to go back to school and learn some mannors and english, myself included. I will 100% take you on your word and agree that AMD will not support BD in socket AM3 or AM2+ for that matter.

Those of us here that are [H}ard will try to make BD both fit and or work in what we have if possible.

And yes it is possible that you did say it would not work at some point, I never read that post. But you have kept to what you know... not supported.
 
drescherjm said:
Because it has 2 extra cores versus the X6 and AMD wants to compete with Intel on performance.
Click to expand...

Half correct...

It doesn't truly have 2 extra cores.. it's only marketed that way.
And yes they are trying to compete with intel that's true.

Bulldozer is really as much of a true 8 core processor as the Intel 2600K is with hyper threading. Mind you the AMD implementation should work better than the Hyperthreading clock for clock, I'm guessing only.

For us it's really going to come down to the following.

Can AMD offer a 8-series BD chip that competes with the 2600K... will an overclocked BD8 compete with a 4.8Ghz 2600k. In both price and preformance.

I'm actually really interested in the 2500K vs the 8 and 6 series. I personally think the 6 and the 4 will be the new poor mans gaming rig.
 
i don't know if this has any merit. But i remember not to long ago Nivida didn't support AMD with SLI. They also announced they had no plans to. Fast forward to today, They announced support for AM3+ motherboards.

I think this is a indicator on how these processors will perform. They definitely sparked Nivida's interest, which has really been up Intels rear the past few years.

Of coarse these benchmarks are fake. Although they would be highly impressive if those are the scores at 800mhz per module. Truth is I will turn to Kyle and the crew at HARDOCP to release benchmarks which i can trust and know with 100% certainly that this is how this processor will perform.
Bulldozer is really as much of a true 8 core processor as the Intel 2600K is with hyper threading
Click to expand...

no, bulldozer a true 8 core CPU, well depending on model. I think your mistaken, as The bulldozer CPU's used 2 cores per module but they share the same FPU and schedulers. So it has up to 8 logical cores vs intel which has 4 cores + 4 virtual cores (hyperthreading) Or in the case of the Extreme processors 6 cores + 6 virtual cores.
 
tlc4tvm said:
Half correct...

It doesn't truly have 2 extra cores.. it's only marketed that way.
And yes they are trying to compete with intel that's true.

Bulldozer is really as much of a true 8 core processor as the Intel 2600K is with hyper threading. Mind you the AMD implementation should work better than the Hyperthreading clock for clock, I'm guessing only.

For us it's really going to come down to the following.

Can AMD offer a 8-series BD chip that competes with the 2600K... will an overclocked BD8 compete with a 4.8Ghz 2600k. In both price and preformance.

I'm actually really interested in the 2500K vs the 8 and 6 series. I personally think the 6 and the 4 will be the new poor mans gaming rig.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a fair comparison. I admit I don't know many specifics about how Hyperthreading works, but I know that a quad core, Hyperthreaded processor is still just a quad core processor. OTH, the cores in the Bulldozer module are distinct structures. An eight-core bulldozer will have eight actual CPU cores. The caveat being that they are paired off into modules which share some resources.

That said, I'm not a IC engineer and I'm just going off Bulldozer's wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(processor)
 
tlc4tvm said:
I'm actually really interested in the 2500K vs the 8 and 6 series. I personally think the 6 and the 4 will be the new poor mans gaming rig.
Click to expand...

Ah Intel ripped you off too, I smell a jealous Intel buyer. Jealous of AMD buyers getting the best performance per dollar and your performance isn't even that much better if at all? :p or were all your upgrade options null, because they killed off your sockets/chipsets this year or last? :rolleyes: So sad to hear that :D How much did you spend on your 2600k/2500k build then, did you have to ship that mobo back for a new one that could function properly too? LOLZ.

Because what every PC gamer needs is a CPU that can push their GPU to 98+ percent in the games they play, AMD does it easily. :) and they don't go around killing off their sockets every year like Intel's been doing since Core architecture.

I spent 295.00 for my system a 4+Ghz Quad Core AMD....85 on a AMD CPU, less than 80 on a Noctua DH 14 cooler (15% off newegg sale). 90 on a CFX SATA6 USB3 mobo and 40 on ddr3 1333 memory. All brand new stuff in sealed packages. btw My 85 dollar AMD CPU pushes NFS Shift 2 to only 98% usage @ 1920x1080p all settings maxed :eek: haha. I finally tweaked everything and get 30-48 fps in that game. Which is really respectable with a 260GTX. Every other game runs even faster than that one. I play on my 75+ inch HD projector, it's awesome. So I'm not even close to being CPU bound in games. I'm sure you will laugh at that though because you haven't tried it out to see how demanding of a game it is though. AMD makes awesome stuff. Just keep hating in the AMD section you silly Intel fan-boy! You sound like a sore loser to me anyhow.

It plays every DX9/10 game wonderfully smooth for me (even with an older GPU). When there is actually some DX11 titles available. (not just 1 appealing game like Metro 2033) Seems to me anyhow that there is more DX11 benchmarks to actual DX11 Games available, and this is all you 2500/2600k buyers harp on all day long or your Super Pi benchmark scores? Have fun with those man.)

I'm gonna drop in a DX11 GPU into this system someday, but I'm waiting for the next Nvidia GPU's to be released along with some dang games like Dirt 3, TES Skyrim (b4 or after the mod community adds tessellation etc. to it, heck might just pirate it till the GOTY edition comes out to retail stores then pay for it like I did with Oblivion), BF3, or even Metro part 2 before I go crazy on a next GPU. For now this system is Kick-A. So I'm going to hold out for the Next Gen GPU's +DX 11 capable games, and enjoy my awesome gaming poor mans system. :D:D:D:D:D:D Unlike you.

2586see.png
 
Oh my GOD the Intel fan boys cant stop flaming away at how much better they want to feel justified in their intel purchases.

I for the other hand have 2600K, 2500K, 965BE, and I will WILL be getting a 10 core dozer when they come out. So I guess I will fan boy all of em'

And in spite of the fan boys in these forums I absolutely hope that AMD bulldozer completely SHREDs Intel this next round.



p.s. its good for competition.
 
They're no worse then some of the AMD-koolaid drinkers in this thread bragging about 3 year old performing hardware running at 1080p like it's some Christmas miracle. Bring back the days of the Athlon XP and co. utterly kicking Intel to the curb and you'll have a point.

As tang said, hopefully BD pans out to be some real competition for what Intel is producing today and not 3 years ago, then we'll all benefit.
 
JF-AMD said:
I am sure that somewhere, in the interwebs, I said that it would not work. I am a server guy and I asked someone in the desktop world. That was the first response.

Later, in talking to them I found out that someone might try to put it in AM3, but if they did, we would not support it.

I am pretty sure that 99% of my posts have said "not supported". There might be 1% of my posts, early on, that said it would not work. At the time that was believed to be true. I have never made a comment about pin sizes (I don't even know the size of the pins.)

Today, still, BD in AM3 is not supported by AMD. That has not changed and I doubt it ever will.

I am not in the desktop business. I have answered questions about the technology that are common to both products. If my presence here is causing problems, I am happy to drop. Seeing as I am writing this at 11 at night in hotel room in scotland, I am sure that there are other things that I could be doing instead.
Click to expand...

Ok folks, time to "bury the hatchet". First, JF-AMD, I do not want to see you "drop" unless it is a new Bulldozer on my desk or at [H]. I will not try to claim to have read everything you have posted on the Bulldozer. I was frustrated that I almost missed a smoking deal on 4 MSI 890FX-GD70 motherboards because by what you said they would not work with the Bulldozer CPU. I went ahead and bought them anyways (btw.. this MB rocks). Now, it does look like I can upgrade the CPU to a bulldozer in the future.

I believe your "1%" of your early on posts were just a simple mistake/misstatement. Because you work for AMD, any statements you make concerning technical aspects of the new CPU's should have a lot of credibility. With this higher level of credibility comes a higher level ridicule if you get one wrong. I was the vessel of that ridicule.

With that said I am over it. I would like to see your continued involvement with the community but will admit I will remain a little bit skeptical.


GO AMD!

The rest of you suck.
 
Last edited:
odysseus145 said:
I don't think that's a fair comparison. I admit I don't know many specifics about how Hyperthreading works, but I know that a quad core, Hyperthreaded processor is still just a quad core processor. OTH, the cores in the Bulldozer module are distinct structures. An eight-core bulldozer will have eight actual CPU cores. The caveat being that they are paired off into modules which share some resources.

That said, I'm not a IC engineer and I'm just going off Bulldozer's wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(processor)
Click to expand...

AMD will call a CPU that has one of these modules a “dual-core” CPU, in reality the CPU isn’t true a dual-core product, because there aren’t two complete and complete CPUs inside the product.
 
Spooony said:
AMD will call a CPU that has one of these modules a “dual-core” CPU, in reality the CPU isn’t true a dual-core product, because there aren’t two complete and complete CPUs inside the product.
Click to expand...

This has been brought up so many times that I don't even know what to say other than go through the other threads and actually read them.
 
kirtar said:
This has been brought up so many times that I don't even know what to say other than go through the other threads and actually read them.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to say basically coz its the truth aint it?
 
There is nothing to say basically coz its the truth aint it?
Click to expand...

I would say not exactly. However we discussed that to death in the large thread about Bulldozer and Bobcat processors.
 
what are you people smoking?

a module has 2 cpu cores in it, they just share resources.......
 
Let's wait until June and then come back here and flag all of the stupid post as LOL
 
Spooony said:
AMD will call a CPU that has one of these modules a “dual-core” CPU, in reality the CPU isn’t true a dual-core product, because there aren’t two complete and complete CPUs inside the product.
Click to expand...
There are no announced models with a single module.
 
DarkStryke said:
AMD-koolaid drinkers in this thread bragging about 3 year old performing hardware running at 1080p like it's some Christmas miracle.
Click to expand...

If I drink-ed their Kool-Aid shouldn't I be dead. :rolleyes: If your going to use catch phrases, try not to fail next time. ;)

Yeah well I asked an owner on these very forums how much FPS he is getting in NFS S2. He can't break 50fps @ 1080p with 580GTX SLI. Another guy has 2 6970's in CFX and gets fps drops in the high 20's.Thread if you don't believe me. I have an 85 dollar AMD cpu with a 260GTX! Gets 30fps-48fps constant. I did have to tweak and OC, but what a value for gaming!

I also asked an owner of a 6990 his FPS he is getting in NFS S2 -gaming thread I think- with a 6990 he said 30fps-60fps. Come on. I guess I better stop posting so you don't cry on this thread anymore.

BTW AMD Hater-Aid is better than Intel Hater-Aid :D
 
tlc4tvm said:
Half correct...

It doesn't truly have 2 extra cores.. it's only marketed that way.
Click to expand...

Spooony said:
AMD will call a CPU that has one of these modules a “dual-core” CPU, in reality the CPU isn’t true a dual-core product, because there aren’t two complete and complete CPUs inside the product.
Click to expand...

Both of you, please explain in depth why you believe that these are not true cores. Be sure to list all of your points so that I can address them completely in one post and we can all move on. These are true cores.
 
ebduncan said:
i don't know if this has any merit. But i remember not to long ago Nivida didn't support AMD with SLI. They also announced they had no plans to. Fast forward to today, They announced support for AM3+ motherboards.

I think this is a indicator on how these processors will perform. They definitely sparked Nivida's interest, which has really been up Intels rear the past few years.
Click to expand...

Well was this also a reason why Bulldozer was moved to the end of 2nd quarter instead of the start ?
 
How long has all this Bulldozer talk been going on now. Seems like forever. What's the deal.
 
Some users should really read what's a core, how it works ... and try to analyze the Bulldozer architecture a little bit further and try to understand how it works before posting "opinions" where the arguments used are poor and show the lack of understanding in what they are talking about...

It's good to look good at the eyes of a community ... but when you do it... try to say something accurate and use valid arguments.

Jeez...
 
JF-AMD said:
Both of you, please explain in depth why you believe that these are not true cores. Be sure to list all of your points so that I can address them completely in one post and we can all move on. These are true cores.
Click to expand...

Actually the easiest way to clear this up is to answer the following example.

Example:
If running 1 single threaded benchmark on a 8-series BD chip completes in 100 seconds.

How long would it take 2, 4, 8, or 16 to complete simultaneously.

The answer should be pretty simple.



Answer for the Phenom II x4
2 takes 100sec (two cores idle)
4 takes 100sec
8 would take 200 sec
16 would take 400 sec

Answer for the 2600K
2 take 100sec (two cores idle)
4 take 100sec
8 takes "It depends on the benchmark but less than 200sec and more than 100sec"
16 would take twice as long as 8.


I'm guessing for the 8000 series... since two cores make up one module, sharing, fetch decode, FPU's. If you run 8 heavily optimized tasks each thread will run slightly slower than running 4 tasks through 4 modules... but overall the 8 tasks will complete much faster than running 2 set of 4 tasks back to back.
 
tlc4tvm said:
Actually the easiest way to clear this up is to answer the following example.

Example:
If running 1 single threaded benchmark on a 8-series BD chip completes in 100 seconds.

How long would it take 2, 4, 8, or 16 to complete simultaneously.

The answer should be pretty simple.



Answer for the Phenom II x4
2 takes 100sec (two cores idle)
4 takes 100sec
8 would take 200 sec
16 would take 400 sec

Answer for the 2600K
2 take 100sec (two cores idle)
4 take 100sec
8 takes "It depends on the benchmark but less than 200sec and more than 100sec"
16 would take twice as long as 8.


I'm guessing for the 8000 series... since two cores make up one module, sharing, fetch decode, FPU's. If you run 8 heavily optimized tasks each thread will run slightly slower than running 4 tasks through 4 modules... but overall the 8 tasks will complete much faster than running 2 set of 4 tasks back to back.
Click to expand...
From what I have read about the Bulldozer arch, the entire front-end can handle issuing instructions to both cores of a module without much of a penalty. Remember, it is not the same as HyperThreading, while both cores in a module may share the front-ends and a FPU, it is still similar to two separate cores.

More than likely, AMD saw that multiple cores have a lot of redundant logic, so why have multiples of what can be shared, when you won't incur a large penalty for doing so?
 
rive22 said:
How long has all this Bulldozer talk been going on now. Seems like forever. What's the deal.
Click to expand...

The deal is that it is finally "here" after being postponed for a good amount of time. They made the decision to release it on 32nm about a year ago ? And now the mainboards are slowly getting released some of them on the older chipsets and the newest which is the 990 line suopports Nvidia SLI.

We are still waiting for pricing and such we do know that it will get released in June ...
 
@tlc4tvm:

Things to consider. I/O overhead, context switching, a kernel will shuffle threads from CPU cores, and lastly the biggest two are shared resources and turbo.

When all the cores are being taxed your single thread performance will drop because headroom for turbo diminishes, this is the case for intel CPUs as well.

What I am saying is the results will be benchmark dependent and I doubt we can theorize them until someone publishes the benches.
 
tlc4tvm said:
Actually the easiest way to clear this up is to answer the following example.

Example:
If running 1 single threaded benchmark on a 8-series BD chip completes in 100 seconds.

How long would it take 2, 4, 8, or 16 to complete simultaneously.

The answer should be pretty simple.

Answer for the Phenom II x4
2 takes 100sec (two cores idle)
4 takes 100sec
8 would take 200 sec
16 would take 400 sec

Answer for the 2600K
2 take 100sec (two cores idle)
4 take 100sec
8 takes "It depends on the benchmark but less than 200sec and more than 100sec"
16 would take twice as long as 8.


I'm guessing for the 8000 series... since two cores make up one module, sharing, fetch decode, FPU's. If you run 8 heavily optimized tasks each thread will run slightly slower than running 4 tasks through 4 modules... but overall the 8 tasks will complete much faster than running 2 set of 4 tasks back to back.
Click to expand...

How, exactly, is this defending your statement that they are not true cores?
 
Heres an example:

In a trailer park there are 8 trailers.

1 trailer is linked to a second trailer via a wodden walkway.

Both trailers being separate use the same wooden walkway to transport the trailer park ladies between the two when the ....

LOL just kidding. Holds about as much relevance as people saying they are not true cores.

Hopefully I made a point.
 
I could understand why some people would be worried about performance with resource sharing, but as long as the shared components have enough performance to handle the increased load there should be no problem. We just have to wait and see how it goes. I think what they have done with the modules is really interesting, and should benefit them well. I also think that they will have adequate performance. If you look at the new AMD Phenom 2 980BE you can see how mature their 45nm process is. It does 4.2Ghz on stock voltages, and does 4.5Ghz to 4.7Ghz with some more voltage. Thats on 45nm not 32nm. Bulldozer is going to be on 32nm, and will have the HKMG (hi-K metal gate) technology. Even with 8 cores I think that they will easily do 4.5 to 5Ghz even on a new and less mature process. I am genuinely excited, and I am looking forward to more competition.
 
Untitledone said:
I could understand why some people would be worried about performance with resource sharing, but as long as the shared components have enough performance to handle the increased load there should be no problem. We just have to wait and see how it goes. I think what they have done with the modules is really interesting, and should benefit them well. I also think that they will have adequate performance. If you look at the new AMD Phenom 2 980BE you can see how mature their 45nm process is. It does 4.2Ghz on stock voltages, and does 4.5Ghz to 4.7Ghz with some more voltage. Thats on 45nm not 32nm. Bulldozer is going to be on 32nm, and will have the HKMG (hi-K metal gate) technology. Even with 8 cores I think that they will easily do 4.5 to 5Ghz even on a new and less mature process. I am genuinely excited, and I am looking forward to more competition.
Click to expand...

The tweaks and boosts in 8 years it might even hit 10Ghz at stock
 
Untitledone said:
I could understand why some people would be worried about performance with resource sharing, but as long as the shared components have enough performance to handle the increased load there should be no problem. We just have to wait and see how it goes. I think what they have done with the modules is really interesting, and should benefit them well. I also think that they will have adequate performance. If you look at the new AMD Phenom 2 980BE you can see how mature their 45nm process is. It does 4.2Ghz on stock voltages, and does 4.5Ghz to 4.7Ghz with some more voltage. Thats on 45nm not 32nm. Bulldozer is going to be on 32nm, and will have the HKMG (hi-K metal gate) technology. Even with 8 cores I think that they will easily do 4.5 to 5Ghz even on a new and less mature process. I am genuinely excited, and I am looking forward to more competition.
Click to expand...

AMD knows what they are doing.
 
tangoseal said:
Heres an example:

In a trailer park there are 8 trailers.

1 trailer is linked to a second trailer via a wodden walkway.

Both trailers being separate use the same wooden walkway to transport the trailer park ladies between the two when the ....

LOL just kidding. Holds about as much relevance as people saying they are not true cores.

Hopefully I made a point.
Click to expand...

LOL a better analogy that you think...

In your first line you stated 8 complete trailers.
Then connected by wodden walkways

Now if I come find out that 2 trailers share a bedroom... :D

Well the efficiency of each trailer will be impared by what's going on in each trailer, especially the bedroom.
 
JF-AMD said:
How, exactly, is this defending your statement that they are not true cores?
Click to expand...

Well orginally when the concept of a core/CPU was released, for the layman a core was very similar to a CPU. A dual core was acutally better in most instances that a dual CPU single core due to shared cache etc...

In short there is a penalty for placing two cores within the same module.

A 4 module cpu will probably have 150 to 180% the performance of 4 cores.
Where as a 4 core has about a 0-30% advantage using HT.

I suppose true cores is overstated, perhaps full cores.

Granted the implementation of the module concept is fantastic and will give AMD a large boost. However we will now have arguements regarding module vs core performance.
 
In response to the semi-tangent regarding whether it's "really a dual-core":
Let's say I took a dual-core CPU, and removed a core (not sure how, but it doesn't really matter). What's left would basically be a single-core CPU.

Let's say I took a BD module, and removed a "single-core CPU" from that module. Is what's left a single core CPU, or is it more like 80% of a single-core CPU? If it's the latter, then it's weird to call something plus 80% of something as "two somethings."
 
Funkmaster_A said:
In response to the semi-tangent regarding whether it's "really a dual-core":
Let's say I took a dual-core CPU, and removed a core (not sure how, but it doesn't really matter). What's left would basically be a single-core CPU.

Let's say I took a BD module, and removed a "single-core CPU" from that module. Is what's left a single core CPU, or is it more like 80% of a single-core CPU? If it's the latter, then it's weird to call something plus 80% of something as "two somethings."
Click to expand...

So if you take a Dual CPU computer that has a single north-bridge that they share resources from & you remove one of the CPU's are you left with a whole CPU? Sounds like the same thing to me.
 
Take a sandybridge. Pull out a core. Put it in its own package. Will it perform like a sandybridge? No. It doesn't have an L3 cache. It doesn't have a memory controller. and there are probably some other bits missing.

This entire discussion is meaningless.

An Atom performs far less than 80% of a Xeon. Does that make atom not a full core?

How about we all just worry about performance at the socket level and leave all of the other stuff alone?
 
Simple question:

If two cores in Bulldozer are equal to normal cores then why the whole 2 module , 3 module, 4 module cpus instead of 4/6/8 cores?
 
AMD knows what they are doing but do all the PhD holding computer engineers on these forums know better than AMDs highly paid, highly intelligent engineers?

Probably not! I'm going as far in thinking there are no PhD holding computer engineering masterminds on these forums, and if there is, they have not participated in this thread.

Stop fan boy trolling AMD pages and go click on Intel.

Maybe just maybe this is you.... just sayin'
Fanboy-Anatomy.jpg
 
tangoseal said:
AMD knows what they are doing but do all the PhD holding computer engineers on these forums know better than AMDs highly paid, highly intelligent engineers?

Probably not! I'm going as far in thinking there are no PhD holding computer engineering masterminds on these forums, and if there is, they have not participated in this thread.

Stop fan boy trolling AMD pages and go click on Intel.

Maybe just maybe this is you.... just sayin'
Fanboy-Anatomy.jpg
Click to expand...

Well, I have a PhD in kicking arse

bulldozeruarch.jpg


p2uarch.jpg


You can see real easily that AMD Bulldozer is missing a second FP Unit

trollface.jpg


If I have offended anyone I am sorry but rofl really
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top