Bulldozer ships next month.

ninehunid said:
that's what I was thinking. without any concrete evidence i would think that the most you could get out of the 4xxx would be a 5 'core' unlock. because im thinking that if there are 2 good modules and 2 mods with 1 core each good, they'd sell it as a 6 core. The biggest unlock you could get out of a 6xxx would be 7 'cores' and so on... That is if they can disable the cores seperately per module.
Click to expand...

Nope that's not how you get unlocks.

Checking each chip is too expensive so only a few are checked per small batch and they are binned according to it.

Also if there were means of disibling one half of module we would see 7 core cpus on release day probably ;)
 
Michaelius said:
Nope that's not how you get unlocks.

Checking each chip is too expensive so only a few are checked per small batch and they are binned according to it.

Also if there were means of disibling one half of module we would see 7 core cpus on release day probably ;)
Click to expand...

Well that and while the cores are done well enough to be cores, the fact is they will never offer a half module....well because its a module. That's the packaging. The shared resources make it impossible to section one off from another, for all intents and purposes going forward a module is the lowest common denominator so any configuration due to core disabling will always be at the module level and every core count will be of a factor of 2.
 
Topweasel said:
Well that and while the cores are done well enough to be cores, the fact is they will never offer a half module....well because its a module. That's the packaging. The shared resources make it impossible to section one off from another, for all intents and purposes going forward a module is the lowest common denominator so any configuration due to core disabling will always be at the module level and every core count will be of a factor of 2.
Click to expand...
It actually depends on which portion of the module is defective.
I think you could still disable or enable cores one by one.
 
Evil Penguin said:
Where was that idiot when the Core 2 quads were released? :p
Click to expand...

Welcome to [H] everything you say can and will be misquoted and misused against you.

If anyone actually went back and read the originally referenced post (Post 13 of this thread), you would find that it was saying there were TDP limitations due to the sheer number of cores that are now on the MCM (in case someone didn't know, Magny-Cours is MCM too).
 
Evil Penguin said:
It actually depends on which portion of the module is defective.
I think you could still disable or enable cores one by one.
Click to expand...

I really don't think it be that simple I mean if that was the case wouldn't you see more CPU's sold with more then just cache and cores disabled. Cores we designed to be sectioned off for disabling same for modules. I don't think that AMD spent the time and money for redundant connection points and such to break a core out of a module. It would take a lot of money and not be worth it. Would seem pretty stupid to save ~5-10% die space on going the module route and then end up spending so much money and development just to be able to separate the unseperatable cores.
 
I read about a new technique called wafer bonding. Also think I read where the Bulldozer is an 11 layer CPU. They claim by using different wafers, they spoke of 3, it could cut down on the number of defects? The article made sense, forgot where I read it tho. Wonder if GF is looking at it?
 
Why is there so much hope for Bulldozer to fail? It would seem like someone cheering for the economy to fail. These CPUs are made in America, supporting American workers, whats to hate? Why do people hope it will fail? I could see where some assume it will be worse performance than Intel from past experience but to flat out hope it's a flop is silly.
 
griff30 said:
Why is there so much hope for Bulldozer to fail? It would seem like someone cheering for the economy to fail. These CPUs are made in America, supporting American workers, whats to hate?
Click to expand...
Aren't they made in Germany by a company whose majority owner is Abu Dhabi?
 
SLee said:
Aren't they made in Germany by a company whose majority owner is Abu Dhabi?
Click to expand...

AMD products are designed in USA and Canada, produced in Dresden and soon to be Buffalo NY as well as Taiwan for the GPU products.

Intel's CPUs are designed in Israel and USA, and manufactured in USA, Ireland, China and Israel.
 
sirmo said:
AMD products are designed in USA and Canada, produced in Dresden and soon to be Buffalo NY as well as Taiwan for the GPU products.

Intel's CPUs are designed in Israel and USA, and manufactured in USA, Ireland, China and Israel.
Click to expand...

Aaand Texas;)
 
yall are wrong.

intel is designed in mordor, forged by the fires of mt. doom.

amd is designed in asgard, and fabricated by gifted artisans from the region of thrudheim.

:D:D
 
Some people are just stuck in their ways:. rooting for the winner kicking the loser when he is down.

But don't worry there are enough of us hoping that Bulldozer will deliver, it is still exciting to see AMD come with something they put so much effort in and after many delays it is here (good month and a half).
 
wuttz said:
yall are wrong.
intel is designed in mordor, forged by the fires of mt. doom.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that make them indestructible? Well... from everything but the fires of Mt Doom. And perhaps the amount of heat some people put them through while overclocking :p
 
wuttz said:
yall are wrong.

intel is designed in mordor, forged by the fires of mt. doom.

amd is designed in asgard, and fabricated by gifted artisans from the region of thrudheim.

:D:D
Click to expand...

This.

nonameo said:
Advantage to MCM 8 core: quad memory channels instead of dual.
Click to expand...

Disadvantage to MCM octo-core: latency. Off die hops for inter-core communication and L3 cache across dies can reduce performance.
 
Mr. Bluntman said:
Disadvantage to MCM octo-core: latency. Off die hops for inter-core communication and L3 cache across dies can reduce performance.
Click to expand...

A Magny-Cours MCM doesn't have significantly lower performance than a dual-socket 8/12-core Lisbon system. If the performance difference between a dual-die MCM and a dual-socket system with the same amount of cores was tangible, it wouldn't have been done.
 
Whelp, it's July 31st, so I guess we can rule out that early August release. LOL! Who knows, maybe something magic will happen next week! Hehehe!
 
JMccovery said:
A Magny-Cours MCM doesn't have significantly lower performance than a dual-socket 8/12-core Lisbon system. If the performance difference between a dual-die MCM and a dual-socket system with the same amount of cores was tangible, it wouldn't have been done.
Click to expand...

actually, Mangy Cours is lower clocked (vs C32 SKU), and has fewer inter-die HT links than old Socket F, between sockets. Seems like the links were not on-package for Mangy Cours/G34, but rather via the socket! [EDIT: and at 19xx pins, they couldn't push too many more pins in]

I once asked JF-AMD why C32 even existed if G34 was like dual C32, he said there was enough of a market and customer (not consumer) demand for high clocked, few core, systems (since socket G34 has lower TDP than two C32 sockets, reguardless of binning, dual C32 should have more headroom for higher clocks, IMO).
 
Last edited:
I'm going Sandy Bridge but I still want Bulldozer to come out asap.

Just want to see what its capable of. A little bit of healthy competition is always good :).
 
I want bulldozer to ship, so all the amd fanboys can see how much better sandy bridge is. :)
 
xDezor said:
I want bulldozer to ship, so all the amd fanboys can see how much better sandy bridge is. :)
Click to expand...
And I think all the sane people would like fanboys from both sides to STFU so we can get an accurate view of the product without bias.

P.S. In case you didn't get the hint, I was also referring to you and your troll bait post.
 
the only way it would be a fail for me would be if clock for clock its identical to phenom 2.


but even so i wouldnt be too terribly dissapointed at that since id be moving from 4 cores to 8 and that would be enough for me to warrant the purchase over SB
 
Who cares about clock for clock? I love Intel, but if BD has more cores + clocks higher in the same TDP, then that's an unqualified win.
 
EuphoricRage470 said:
Who cares about clock for clock? I love Intel, but if BD has more cores + clocks higher in the same TDP, then that's an unqualified win.
Click to expand...

Well clock for clock could very well matter. Lots of cores is nice and all but many programs have yet to take advantage of anything beyond 2 cores, much less 4 or 6 and so forth. You could have a 1000 core processor but if it has the processing power of a 486DX, it's kind of useless.
 
EuphoricRage470 said:
Yeah, but clock-for-clock doesn't matter so much if your clocks are really high! :)
Click to expand...

we already know it should clock higher than phenoms, but my fail or not fail meter isnt very strict.

when i said clock for clock if performance was identical to phenom 2's i ment identical.

if clock for clock it has only a 10% advantage give or take, it would be great imo when you also include its higher clock potential it would be a really solid chip.

but like i said id still be happy if it wasnt any faster clock for clock.


ive already commited to going bulldozer so at this point without any info im looking at moving from a 955BE to the top end 8core bulldozer that comes out in sept. and moving from 4 to 8 cores is enough of a reason for me to get it even if they performed the same clock for clock. any extra perf per clock is just gravy to me.
 
JMccovery said:
If the performance difference between a dual-die MCM and a dual-socket system with the same amount of cores was tangible, it wouldn't have been done.
Click to expand...

I didn't say there was a tangible difference, just a difference. I agree that if it wasn't worth doin' it probably wouldn't be done, and monolithic dies mean nothing. Look at IBM POWER, Intel Core 2 Quad/Xeon/Pentium Pro, etc., etc., etc.
 
xDezor said:
I want bulldozer to ship, so all the amd fanboys can see how much better sandy bridge is. :)
Click to expand...

You sound like a high school kid trying to convince his buddy how much better his Camaro is versus his buddy's stang...
 
OFaceSIG said:
You sound like a high school kid trying to convince his buddy how much better his Camaro is versus his buddy's stang...
Click to expand...

He's not the only one. Likely they are Sandybridge owners who don't want to see a cheaper faster alternative so soon after buying an i7 but it sounds like kindergarten mentality.
 
BD will not be cheaper at least the top end 8 core version will not be significantly cheaper than the processor it competes against the i7 2600K. BD will however offer better multitasking experience provided you can make good use of 6 or more simultaneous threads.
 
Last edited:
LOL @ fanbois!

Competition is good, keeps prices in check and offers multiple choices. Those who want either company to fail are freaking idiots...
 
Hmm, didn't use AMD since Athlon X2 days, i'm in the mood to go back now, i hope they will deliver something really good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top