# Bulldozer



## StrangleHold

Bulldozer die shot.

Looks to me like that not only does each module have its own shared L2 cache. Looks like by the die that each module has its own shared L3 cache. Instead of one large L3 for all cores.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...Core_Orochi_Processor_for_the_First_Time.html


----------



## Troncoso

I'm not that up to date with the latest tech like this cool guy here finding info on a octo-core, but it seems strange to me that they keep adding more and more cores, meanwhile very very few are actually making software to take advantage of them. When they finally do, this thing will be a beginner's cpu.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

If I am understanding correctly this eight-core AMD processor is set up as a quad-core with dual-core processors in each core.  Each dual-core inside this processor shares 2 megabytes of level 2 cache.  I think my statement is correct.


----------



## StrangleHold

Right, each module has 2MB. of L2. 

No word of how much L3. But it looks like each module has its own L3 too. Just a guess from what it looks like. 

Might be a good idea. You could add modules and keep the same ratio of L3.


----------



## Benny Boy

Interlagos in production and shipped.
http://blogs.amd.com/work/2011/09/07/the-start-of-a-new-era/


----------



## mihir

So even the single thread applications will be able to utilize atleast two cores, am I right?


----------



## jonnyp11

i've heard that from several spots, i guess but won't know till its out or about out.


----------



## StrangleHold

mihir said:


> So even the single thread applications will be able to utilize atleast two cores, am I right?


 
From what I understand, no. A single thread will use one set of pipelines on a module. But will have access to the whole upper end with out sharing and the whole 2mb. of L2.


----------



## jonnyp11

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/computers...nth-for-amd-bulldozer-desktop-processors/6652

so it is supposedly going to be october, but we will be starting with 4 flavors of the 8 core and 2 of the quad, while still only 1 for the 6 core


----------



## StrangleHold

Check these prices out.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-FX-Series-Processors-Now-Available-for-Pre-Order-221172.shtml

http://www.cpu-world.com//news_2011/2011091101_Pre-order_prices_of_AMD_FX-Series_CPUs.html


----------



## Benny Boy

Looks very competitive as usual. The reviews/benchmarks will be interesting.


----------



## StrangleHold

World record overclock, FX-8150 with 8036.9 mhz.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Scores-World-Record-for-Fastest-CPU-221504.shtml

http://hardocp.com/article/2011/09/13/amd_bulldozer_fx_model_8150_cpu_overclocking_preview


----------



## mihir

Since it is Hard OCP the results are full proof, and damn 8GHz is a lot.


----------



## Benny Boy

Woo Hoo ! lol 
And on an Asus board (hehe  )


----------



## StrangleHold

Turns out they had the Virus scanner running.

8.429GHz 
http://techland.time.com/2011/09/13/watch-amd-break-8ghz-world-record-with-daring-cpu-overclock/


----------



## linkin

StrangleHold said:


> Right, each module has 2MB. of L2.
> 
> No word of how much L3. But it looks like each module has its own L3 too. Just a guess from what it looks like.
> 
> Might be a good idea. You could add modules and keep the same ratio of L3.



Every BD chip will have 8MB of L3 is what I've heard, even the hex and quad cores.


----------



## Benny Boy

linkin said:


> Every BD chip will have 8MB of L3 is what I've heard, even the hex and quad cores.


Heard/seen that too.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

Looks like AMD is back in the game with their Zambezi core processor line.  Prices on the central processing units look really good too.

Now if I can just convince my employer to replace my junk Pentium 4 computer at work here with a Zambezi core computer.  Hey, a man can dream can't he?


----------



## StrangleHold

linkin said:


> Every BD chip will have 8MB of L3 is what I've heard, even the hex and quad cores.


 
Yea, I know. That post was made over a year ago.

Plus you all remember these are just ES models of the 8150 too.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

2048Megabytes said:


> Now if I can just convince my employer to replace my junk Pentium 4 computer at work here with a Zambezi core computer.  Hey, a man can dream can't he?



Well, my wish came partially true.  One of my co-workers quit on September 19th and I ended up with his computer!  The computer I ended up with has a Core 2 Duo 6550 Processor.  I can definitely feel a difference in processing power over the Pentium 4 (3.2 gigahertz) Processor I was stuck with.  Oh thank goodness!


----------



## JackMcHale

8 cores at 8gigs. OMgawd. could you imagine seeing how fast that thing loads google? lmao


----------



## Okedokey

JackMcHale said:


> 8 cores at 8gigs. OMgawd. could you imagine seeing how fast that thing loads google? lmao



They only overclocked one of the modules and that was just able to get it to run GPUz (on helium).  Not gaming with that my friend.


----------



## linkin

Yeah that's true, but a world record is a world record 

The latest questionable material from DonanimHaber:

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_22a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_21a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_20a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_19a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_18a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_17a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_15a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_14a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_13a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_12a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_11a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_10a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_9a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_8a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_7a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_6a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_5a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_4a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_3a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_2a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_1a_dh_fx57.jpg

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/amdfxpressdeck_16a_dh_fx57.jpg


----------



## Okedokey

Who cares about the 980X, the 2600K beats it in almost everything.  Lets see a real world SB (probably IB by the time BD comes out) and BD.


----------



## jonnyp11

look at the fourth link, it shows on the pic the system is a xeon on osx, wtf.


----------



## claptonman

http://www.apple.com/macpro/features/processor.html

My friend has a dual-quad Xeon mac. Its a beast.


----------



## CrayonMuncher

Some early benches who knows how real they are.:

AMD-Benchmarks.html

Why is it on the 4th pic in that link that it shows the ram to be less expensive on AMD than on Intel?


----------



## spynoodle

CrayonMuncher said:


> Some early benches who knows how real they are.:
> 
> AMD-Benchmarks.html
> 
> Why is it on the 4th pic in that link that it shows the ram to be less expensive on AMD than on Intel?


If these benches are true, then that would be epic.


----------



## StrangleHold

One of the problems AMD is having is GlobalFoundries. When AMD owned the Foundry they were just a year behind Intel on nm. GlobalFoundries claimed by 22nm. that would be even and match Intel. Well at 32nm. they are over a year behind now. Plus talking about going to 28nm. instead of 22nm. AMD has already changed the contract with them and only paying for working dies instead of by the wafer. One of the reasons the Zambezi is late, cant get enough stock for a full release. Bet they start moving over some orders to TSMC. It looks like GlobalFoundries is starting to be screw ups.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

I wonder if Intel is going to cut the $1,000 price tag on the Core i7 990X Six-Core now that the AMD FX 8150 8-Core Processor is going to be hitting the shelves?  Probably not.


----------



## jonnyp11

well they are going to say, hmm, they have those 2 extra cores, but we have the 4 extra threads so we're good, the end. and they ar supposed to have 8 cores next year if i remeber an article correctly, but i also want to say it may have been by 2013 or 14, which amd is supposed to have 10 cores next year.


----------



## Okedokey

I call bullshit.  Why?  As if AMD would release slides on their latest offering with spelling mistakes.  LOL


----------



## linkin

bigfellla said:


> I call bullshit.  Why?  As if AMD would release slides on their latest offering with spelling mistakes.  LOL



Pretty much my thoughts


----------



## jonnyp11

also on one of the slides near the middle the arrows weren't centered, it was sloppy on like 4 or more of them.


----------



## linkin




----------



## mx344

^haha, you mad?


----------



## linkin

Just a little


----------



## claptonman

So I posted in another forum my new build, and said I was going to upgrade to Bulldozer when it came out. I got this response:

"First off when that chip comes out , there maybe a compatibility issue with the chip and the mobo . Amd chips dont just work by socket . They also work on voltages and the motherboard has to support the voltage of the chip . I found out this out the hard way when i got my Phenom 9950 BE x4 chip . It burnt out a mobo i paid £179 for at the time as it did not support that particular ships voltages . However there is a way to check it out when the chip is released . Go to the amd website and look for the chips specs . there should be a page of compatible mobo's somewhere there . You may have to buy a new motherboard by the time that ship is released . 

My advice is to buy the top end 6 core when the 8 core is released . Not many programs fully utilize a quad core , never mind a 6 core chip . It also means that the mobo you have will more than likely support the six ore chips . If you are lucky and your mobo does support its voltages then a quick bios update and your home free . 

I suppose my real advice to you is not to jump the gun on the 8 core chips ."

Does this sound accurate? I know I have to do a BIOS update, but what about what he said?


----------



## StrangleHold

The Gigabyte GA 970A UD3 fully supports the Zambezi 4/6/8 core. Only lower end AM3+ 900 series cheap made boards might not support the upper end Zambezi. But yours is a 8+2 power phase setup and has the higher wattage socket. The dude is confused by his own past screw ups.


----------



## CrazyMike

Maybe this is the wrong spot to ask, but i was just curious if anyone has heard of credible resource when the Bulldozer is suppose to hit retail. I have seen them testing it, and looks incredible (videos and pictures), but till it hit's the real world, I'm unsure.


----------



## jonnyp11

they should either ship first half of next month or if we're lucky then over the next few days i hope


----------



## BurningSkyline

Well, I hope ASAP. I've been putting off a build for a while now.


----------



## CrazyMike

BurningSkyline said:


> Well, I hope ASAP. I've been putting off a build for a while now.



Same here! going on 5 months now..... getting impatient!


----------



## Okedokey

Imagine AMD shareholders lol


----------



## linkin

bigfellla said:


> Imagine AMD shareholders lol



Probably a good time to buy AMD shares.


----------



## jonnyp11

Any new dates or anything leaked so far, even for the interlagos or anything???????


----------



## StrangleHold

CrazyMike said:


> Same here! going on 5 months now..... getting impatient!


 
Been longer then that. They started talking Bulldozer back after the first Phenom release. It was suppost to come out instead of the Phenom II. But decided at 45nm. the die would just be to big. So they delayed the release to be on 32nm.



jonnyp11 said:


> Any new dates or anything leaked so far, even for the interlagos or anything???????


 
All I have heard is, its still on for the 12th. But who really knows, because that date was not even officially said from AMD.


----------



## jonnyp11

well that's the first i've even heard of that date, and are there any tech conferences or expos this month, prob a good bet to look for them or at least more info there.


----------



## spynoodle

linkin said:


> Probably a good time to buy AMD shares.



That's what I've been thinking. If benches are good, then I'm buying.


----------



## Okedokey

spynoodle said:


> That's what I've been thinking. If benches are good, then I'm buying.



Given the 5 year historic chart, and the fact that one chip wont necessarily change that, and the fact that the buy in price is 3,000 shares at $5.19 ($15,570) you are better off putting your money in the bank.


----------



## jonnyp11

well if you can afford it with their interlagos and zambezi cpus coming out so soon i'd day their shares can only go up from that point, there isn't much room for going down.


----------



## StrangleHold

Well there is two stories to that. True since when the core 2 was released in 2006 AMD has dropped in market share and stock price. If Zambezi is released with in the next few weeks, its took AMD 5 years to be atlease competitive.

But the other side is between 2000 and 2006 AMD has Intel beat clock for clock. The very same thing would have had happend to Intels market share and stock price if Intel didnt use unfair and in some instances unlawful business practices to keep it from falling through the floor. 

So you can look at Intel from two perspectives.
1. Intel was a good company that did it for the sake of their company.

2. At the same time spent billions of dollars in pay offs to OEMs to keep market share resulting in a fools game selling inferior products to customers instead of spending it on research to release a better product.

It took Intel with a research and development budget that is higher then AMD total income 6 years to beat AMD clock for clock. AMD has been, what 5 years now working on a new processor that should be out in a few weeks that will atleast make them competitive again.

Either way you look at it, Intel pretty much sucks as a company and is willing to screw you over as a customer without people even realizing it. Dont get me wrong, I am not a AMD fanboy. There are only two dogs in town, and one is willing to bite your kid in the face over its dog food bowl. So I pick the other.


----------



## jonnyp11

so it's more like you are an intel hateboy instead of amd fanboy, sounds about right don't ya think


----------



## StrangleHold

Yeah, Intel screwed over customers for years selling a inferior processor by spending billions of dollars buying off and installing fear in OEMs not to use AMD processors.


----------



## mx344

emachines wasnt afraid.


----------



## jonnyp11

That's cuz they suck donkey cuz they're owned by HP, or was it gateway and compaq was HP, I have both so always get confused


----------



## mx344

it's gateway.
and I dont see how them sucking has anything to do with them using AMD's?


----------



## StrangleHold

eMachines started out selling cheaper versions with the same spec. of larger companies like HP/Compaq. At first they were seen as the lower quality of the computer venders. As time went on they started selling higher quality PC even at a smaller price point. Think at a point before being bought out they had the lowest repair issues then even all the major brands.

Gateway about at the same time went in the complete opposite direction. Was selling fairly good quality computers at the same price point as the major OEMs. For some reason thinking painting the boxes that looked like a cow would impress someone. They strarted losing market share and decided to make cheaper computer but not lowering the price. Which even made them lose more sells.

I guess Gateway decided buying eMachine was a way out of going under and using eMachine strategy of selling computers. Even though Gateway bought eMachine, eMachine CEO ran the whole company. Well it didnt work out.

So in the end Gateway along with eMachine was bought out by Acer. Even if people dont like Acer (which I never have had a problem with them) they have alot better business model then Gateway ever though of. I think if Acer just completely dropped off the Gateway brand and combined the business models of eMachine and Acer together it would have been a better pay off.

It was HP that bought out Compaq.


----------



## mx344

^hmm I learned something, nver knew acer bought them out. fun fact of the day.


----------



## StrangleHold

Dell was a big player in the post 52 above. Dell had to pay a 100 million fine and Michael Dell plus some other top Dell top brass had fines too (up to 4 millon each) because they took big under the table pay offs from Intel not to use AMD processors. Intel from 2003 through 2007 paid Dell 4.3 billion not to use AMD processors.

In the middle of all this Dell was in talks with AMD to buy out AMD. That way they could have completely cut off Intel and have there own processor plus get out of a Intel representative being in the office every few days threatening them with some kind of retaliation in one way or another if they used AMD processors. But Dell was already under pressure because of really low profit margin and decided to not deal with it and take Intels pay off money.

And they were not the only company Intel was doing this to. This is some of the reasons I dont like Intel.


----------



## linkin

> It was HP that bought out Compaq.



And it was a sad day when that happened... they made good computers.


----------



## StrangleHold

Yeah, Compaq was a good company for a OEM. Going back Compaq and eMachine should have merged. Let Gateway fall apart and folded on its own and told HP to screw off.

Edit
Another cool little story. Back in like 1984 and 1985. Jerry Sanders founder of AMD and Robert Noyce one of the founders of Intel (were friends at the time, both had come from Fairchild) were in talks of combining the two companies. Hardware profits had really hit rock bottom and they though combining the two companies, they had a better chance of survival competing with the japanese that were selling hardware at rock bottom prices. But the talks fell apart.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

Thank goodness the merger between AMD and Intel fell apart.  Where would be without AMD and Intel today?  We would probably have processors about 25% as powerful as present day technology with about a $500 price tag on them.


----------



## Benny Boy

http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/AMD-FX-8150-CPU-Spotted-in-Retail-6.jpg/

Getting ready.

http://blogs.amd.com/play/2011/10/06/getyourrigready/


----------



## spynoodle

linkin said:


> And it was a sad day when that happened... they made good computers.



....and then HP turned their name into a synonym for "crap." I was also very sad about that.


----------



## mihir

2048Megabytes said:


> Thank goodness the merger between AMD and Intel fell apart.  Where would be without AMD and Intel today?  We would probably have processors about 25% as powerful as present day technology with about a $500 price tag on them.



True, monopoly in any particular field is the always the worst for that field.


----------



## Knunez

If I install an FX processor on my motherboard without updating the bios first what would happen?


----------



## StrangleHold

Knunez said:


> If I install an FX processor on my motherboard without updating the bios first what would happen?


 
1. Not recognize the processor, but boot and run fine. Might have the set the speed and voltage manually.
2. Not recognize the processor, but being completely unstable.
3. Not boot at all.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

A single mark has been posted at CPU Benchmarks for the AMD FX-8150 Eight-Core Processor.  If the mark is accurate it is almost as powerful as the Intel Core i7 2600 Processor.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8150+Eight-Core


----------



## spynoodle

2048Megabytes said:


> A single mark has been posted at CPU Benchmarks for the AMD FX-8150 Eight-Core Processor.  If the mark is accurate it is almost as powerful as the Intel Core i7 2600 Processor.
> 
> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8150+Eight-Core



Awesome, now if the price is right...


----------



## Okedokey

StrangleHold said:


> 1. Not recognize the processor, but boot and run fine. Might have the set the speed and voltage manually.
> 2. Not recognize the processor, but being completely unstable.
> 3. Not boot at all.



Or it may just work becuase the chipsets on current 3 boards are exactly the same as 3+. Your beloved AMD simply wants your money for black sockets.


----------



## StrangleHold

bigfellla said:


> Or it may just work becuase the chipsets on current 3 boards are exactly the same as 3+. Your beloved AMD simply wants your money for black sockets.


 
The AM3+ socket has higher wattage and amps support then the AMM2/+/3. But he was talking about bios support.


----------



## jonnyp11

bigfellla said:


> Or it may just work becuase the chipsets on current 3 boards are exactly the same as 3+. Your beloved AMD simply wants your money for black sockets.



typical bigfella fanboyism.

your intel just wants an extra 15+ for the ability to overclock at all.


----------



## wolfeking

jonnyp11 said:


> typical bigfella fanboyism.
> 
> your intel just wants an extra 15+ for the ability to overclock at all.


BS. ASAIK, you can overclock a nonK all day long using the FSB. What you are saying is the same as saying you need a 555/955/1090T to overclock a AMD. 
Intel just doesn't officially support OC on a non k SB.


----------



## jonnyp11

i know that, you just won't get nearly as far or easily with a non k, and for the amd ones, for the more expensive ones that are black, they also come with the higher clocks too so that's what they'd be priced even without the added overclocking/unlocked multiplier.

and btw i know about the fsb from my own overclocking adventures on this damn pentium pos.


----------



## wolfeking

Refer back to the previous statement by you. 





			
				johnnyp11 said:
			
		

> for the ability to overclock at all


. Then you respond to being called with 





			
				johnny again said:
			
		

> i know that, you just won't get nearly as far or easily with a non k



you have contradicted yourself. Think before you speak.


----------



## StrangleHold

From what I understand, the non K versions FSB is pretty much not locked. So raising it will raise the PCI/SATA//PCIe bus, will freak out. But you can bump up the Turbo multiplier, looks like you can get around 4ghz.


----------



## claptonman

So that Oct. 12th date isn't looking promising...


----------



## Perkomate

The non-K series, from what I've heard, have their multiplyer locked to 3 units above. So I think you can squeeze a little more ghz out of them that way. 
In regards to the FSB method, Intel don't reccomend OC-ing by more than 5% because at that point you will probably lose data from your SATA ports, I.E. your hard drive.
It's worth getting the K.


----------



## Okedokey

The chipsets are identical.  AMD has basically admitted that.


----------



## linkin

bigfellla said:


> The chipsets are identical.  AMD has basically admitted that.



But the socket has an extra pin and supports more current going through it 

900 series also gets SLI support which won't happen on 800 series boards, though you can easily install the hacked drivers, but there's always a risk involved with that.

I just hope my mix of am3+ socket and 890gx chipset board supports the things once they're out.


----------



## Okedokey

The socket has nothings to do with the chipset.  THe chipsets are identical, in fact you will probably be able to run BD on 8xx chipsets.


----------



## Benny Boy

bigfellla said:


> you will probably be able to run BD on 8xx chipsets.


Does an available bios update not mean anything to be able to run BD?
I think it might.


----------



## StrangleHold

The Northbridge only really runs the PCIe lanes. No reason to change it. And the southbridge, I guess they could have added USB 3.0 (runs from a another onboard chip) to it. But other then that there was really no reason to change it. Socket AM3+ supports higher amps, from 110A on the AM3 to 145A on AM3+, plus it supports higher HT. 2600/5200 and 3200/6400 HT


----------



## BurningSkyline

Just Curious, what are your personal expectations guys? I've been trying not to look at the leaked information, because I don't want to get my hopes up or down. That said, I expect the 8xxx chips to be slightly slower than the i7-2600, 6xxx chips on par or slightly faster than the i5-2500, and 4xxx chips slightly slower.


----------



## claptonman

That's pretty much what www.cpubenchmark.net says.


----------



## BurningSkyline

claptonman said:


> That's pretty much what www.cpubenchmark.net says.



I see, I had no idea that was actually TRUE, which is why I haven't seen it. but what about the other chips?


----------



## StrangleHold

My (guess) with the 8150. With the right bios update and the windows update. It will maybe trade blows with the 2600/K. 

But you will still have the 8120 and I think a 8100, which all three are unlocked. If the 8120 and 8100 clock close to the 8150, you can even save more money. To me the sweet spot will be the 6100 in performance and price. What uses more then 4 cores anyway. Plus its unlocked too.


----------



## linkin

http://translate.google.com.au/tran...oro/topic/161158-abulldozer-lanzado-en-china/

Apparently launched in China already.

Passmark: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

FX-8150 scores 8,681 - For comparison the 2600K scores 9,972

Both at stock speeds, whatever they may be.


----------



## jonnyp11

considering the 8150 is supposed to be closer to 250 (266 wasn't it?) i think a 1300 point diffreence isn't too good for amd, but since the 2600 scores 8951, it makes me ask wtf is up with their scores since other than .1ghz they perform the same at stock don't they? and also if you look further down it labels the quad core variations as the fx-5200 (3597) and fx-5000 (3039), which since the 965be sores a 4289 that doesn't look too good, but we'll just have to wait to see how reliable those are, and btw the 5200 has 6 samples and the 5000 has like 130 something samples.


----------



## StrangleHold

The FX 5000/5200 have nothing to do with Bulldozer/Zambezi.


----------



## linkin

[H] Reviews going live today:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/12/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review


----------



## jonnyp11

those links show nothing

and i was just looking, you know i haven't been looking at this stuff long enough to know that the 5000 and 5200 weren't zambezi's, seems sort of stupid to use a very similar naming to a several year old chip if you're saying like i think you are that these were from the original fx series.


----------



## linkin

Because the reviews aren't live yet because NDA hasn't been lifted.

Check the links in approx 5 minutes 

ლ(ಠ益ಠლ

Y U NO LAUNCH YET?


----------



## jonnyp11

HOW U DO DAT?????????? It awsome!!!!!!!!

ლ(ಠ益ಠლ

(i copied and pasted that if that's actually how you did dat)


----------



## linkin

I copied it.


----------



## jonnyp11

both now instead of nothing say 

_404 ERROR

REQUEST COULD NOT BE FOUND
The page that you have requested could not be found at this time. We have provided you a list of related articles below or you can use our site search to find the information that you are looking for._


----------



## jonnyp11

but i went ahead and did a google search and under the news tab they had this first when i put in the past hour filter, and i skipped to the gaming benches page too

http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page10.html


----------



## mx344

^that was a cool vid, thanks for the post


----------



## linkin

http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_cpu_review,1.html

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/2011/test-amd-bulldozer/

http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...5-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150-processor-review.html


----------



## Okedokey

Benchmarks out, slower than 1100t and more expensive, and hotter and consumes more power! The duke nukem mega fail from AMD! Lol


----------



## jonnyp11

so overall, depending on the specific test, it either rivals the 2500k and sometimes the 2600k, or it can actually fall behind the x4 980, but also on one of the pages i looked at, not sure if i or you posted it or if its posted at all, but they were saying it was priced at 245 or 22% less than the 2600k and offered 20% less performance, making it a little better technically, and also since the 8120 is according to them the same chip with a lower clock and a price of 205, the 8120 was a pretty dang good one, but it makes me ask why in several benches it had really low scores compared to the 8150


----------



## Perkomate

jonnyp11 said:


> so overall, depending on the specific test, it either rivals the 2500k and sometimes the 2600k,



If it's the 8150 or whatever, then that's an 8 core. An 8 core rivals a quad core. That's not what I would call stunning performance.


----------



## mx344

this just doesn't make sense to me. I can't possibly imagine that AMD would put that much effort into a redesign, to yield worse results, that doesn't even make sense.


----------



## claptonman

If programs were to actually utilize 8 cores, it would be the clear winner. But since most programs use much less than that, the higher clocked and different designs will win.


----------



## Okedokey

Well I saw this coming to be honest, and as much as a few members might think im happy about this im not.  Its not good for the competitive market nor for AMDs crashing share price.

At the end of the day this is a mediocre release, which may get better with optimised bios and motherboard configurations, and possible software that can utilise the architecture (read Windows 8).  In addition most users wont see the difference between a i5 and a BD, however if you are building a new system, an i5 is mid range with an upgrade path (Ivy Bridge included), whereas the BD top level chip is the end of the line.



> that performance-wise it's as good, overall, as a Core i5 2500K. Except that the Intel processor costs about $35 less: and that's a sore point


 Source

Ive said it before and ill say it again, the SB range is a better option.


----------



## linkin

bigfellla said:


> Well I saw this coming to be honest, and as much as a few members might think im happy about this im not.  Its not good for the competitive market nor for AMDs crashing share price.
> 
> At the end of the day this is a mediocre release, which may get better with optimised bios and motherboard configurations, and possible software that can utilise the architecture (read Windows 8).  In addition most users wont see the difference between a i5 and a BD, however if you are building a new system, an i5 is mid range with an upgrade path (Ivy Bridge included), whereas the BD top level chip is the end of the line.
> 
> Source
> 
> *Ive said it before and ill say it again, the SB range is a better option.*



Yep.

Except if you bought a board back when they were released and switching platforms costs more.

I think that was AMD's plan from the start. Get everyone on the new boards/chipset/socket and when BD finally drops it's more expensive to switch over to Intel.


----------



## SuperDuperMe

Not sure if its up already but us brits have prices and preorders up on ARIA

https://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Components/CPUs+/+Processors/AMD+Bulldozer+FX/


----------



## Shane

From those benchmarks,I was expecting Bulldozer to perform much better tbh...i would not pay £230 for a FX-8150 when you can get a i7-2600K for £227.


----------



## linkin

I'm still buying an FX-8120


----------



## maroon1

There are already many reviews for Bulldozer

What I can tell you that FX-8150 is slower than i7 2600 in most multi-threaded benchmarks. I'm really surprised because FX-8150 not only have more cores but also has higher clock speed than a stock i7 2600

Single-threaded performance is horrible. Bulldozer can't match SB. Actually in some cases it is slower than Phenom II.

Not to mention that power consumption of Bulldozer is quite high.

EDIT: Here are more reviews from anandtech, techreport and xbitlab
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21813
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/1
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8150_10.html#sect0


----------



## linkin

You should see all the whinging and whining on OCN, there's like the 300 pages of it in the Bulldozer Blog thread


----------



## Perkomate

Apparently when the 8150 is overclocked, power usage hits above 440 watts. 
That's just unacceptable.


----------



## linkin

Perkomate said:


> Apparently when the 8150 is overclocked, power usage hits above 440 watts.
> That's just unacceptable.









That's for an entire system, not the CPU alone.

More lies spread by butthurt people thinking that BD was supposed to smash SB.


----------



## Okedokey

It was aimed squarely at SB.  It has just been a complete and utter fail. Behold, the Athlon III X8!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CqTU4wVvZL0


----------



## Geoff

AMD fail.


----------



## StrangleHold

Pig with Lipstick. Should have dropped Phenom II to 32nm. and cranked up the ghz. Probably would have performed better and saved them a bunch of money. If they cant get more IPC, then they need to change the name back to ATI and stop making processors.


----------



## jonnyp11

wasn't the phenom ii broken at launch then a few months later it was updated and that one was decent, maybe they can do that again?


----------



## wolfeking

StrangleHold said:


> If they cant get more IPC, then they need to change the name back to ATI and stop making processors.


Overkill. Its just AMDs Netburst. They will come back around soon.


----------



## spynoodle

wolfeking said:


> Overkill. Its just AMDs Netburst. They will come back around soon.



Of course, without Intel's kind of money, can they recover?


----------



## wolfeking

well, we can only hope. They are the only mainstream competition for intel, so I doubt the government will let them just go out (sets up a monopoly situation).


----------



## Compequip

So I've been waiting for nothing??? Guess it's time to start building the SB i5 2500K.  Oh BTW great video of the AMD chip hehe.....


----------



## kennebell347

I will probably go 2600k now.


----------



## linkin

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...sor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-introduction.html

Notice how these guys use an ASRock 990FX board, with the right BIOS for BD support, using 1866Mhz RAM instead of 1333MHz (and CAS9 1333MHz at that! sloooow), that it seems to do better in benchmarks? Notice how it's also not an ES CPU like in the HardwareCanucks review and actually lists a stepping/revision?

A little variety in reviews can make all the difference...


----------



## wolfeking

according to that it actually games a little (like 3% a most) better than a 2600k @ stock settings. That is useful info.


----------



## StrangleHold

wolfeking said:


> Overkill. Its just AMDs Netburst. They will come back around soon.


 
Tired of waiting. Been using AMD since the K6. They were kicking with the Athlon/Athlon XP/Athlon 64. The frist Phenom was a flop. The Phenom II was a big improvement and thought they were back on track. But after waiting for the Zambezi and end up getting this. For the time they have been developing this there should have been no bugs. Its nothing but Phenom I all over again.

I think what happen was, AMD just could not make a processor, they bought out NexGen. The NexGen people developed the K6. Which the Athlon/Athlon XP and Athlon 64 were all updated versions of the K6. Probably by the time the Athlon 64 came out all the NexGen people were gone. 

What do you have left? They came out with the Phenom I. Was nothing but four Athlon 64 Brisbane cores on a die with L3 cache. Really took a brain drain to come up with that. They were on the line so they really put some in research and development to salvage the Phenom and released the Phenom II, which was a good processor. Then they come up with this. Phenom I all over again. Dont really feel like waiting on them any longer. AMD already said that Piledriver is just suppost to be 10% faster, not going to cut it. 

Dont like Intel, but atleast they recovered from the netburst. But it looks like I'm heading to go Intel. Might stick with AMD for awhile if I can get a FX 6100 (Dirt Cheap).

Edit.
I'm just pretty pissed off right now. Might give it a week or two with bios and windows updates it might be half ass.


----------



## jonnyp11

linkin said:


> http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...sor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-introduction.html
> 
> Notice how these guys use an ASRock 990FX board, with the right BIOS for BD support, using 1866Mhz RAM instead of 1333MHz (and CAS9 1333MHz at that! sloooow), that it seems to do better in benchmarks? Notice how it's also not an ES CPU like in the HardwareCanucks review and actually lists a stepping/revision?
> 
> A little variety in reviews can make all the difference...



going by that review i'd take the 8150 over the 2600k for the money, i want to see the same thing but go to the 8120 and the i5 2500k and overclock them both as much as you can safely on the stock cooler since the 8120 is supposed to be almost the same as the 8150 other than the clocks.


----------



## claptonman

It seems to be for gamers, only, if it performs well in games but not anything else. Like I said, until programs utilize all 8 cores, the i7s will win in all other applications.

And wow, 8150 sold out on newegg.


----------



## jonnyp11

yoo bad that it actually performs worse in several games than the 1100t or even the 975be, so that argument can't even really be made  although it's still fast enough that no matter what you'll be getting over 70fps min when it's maxing out, but the i7's wher hitting in the 130's or more when it was doing that on a few games, but then again on deus ex, shogun 2, and f3 or whatever it had the highest scores.


----------



## BurningSkyline

StrangleHold said:


> ...Might stick with AMD for awhile if I can get a FX 6100 (Dirt Cheap).



Minus the stick with part, I have a E5200 right now. I was really hoping these Hex-cores would be good competition for the 2500j.


----------



## spynoodle

linkin said:


> http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...sor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-introduction.html
> 
> Notice how these guys use an ASRock 990FX board, with the right BIOS for BD support, using 1866Mhz RAM instead of 1333MHz (and CAS9 1333MHz at that! sloooow), that it seems to do better in benchmarks? Notice how it's also not an ES CPU like in the HardwareCanucks review and actually lists a stepping/revision?
> 
> A little variety in reviews can make all the difference...


So are you saying that all the other reviews are biased towards Intel due to their lack of optimization, or that the hardwareheaven review is biased towards AMD? If It's the former, then maybe Bulldozer is much better than we all originally thought.


----------



## StrangleHold

BurningSkyline said:


> Minus the stick with part, I have a E5200 right now. I was really hoping these Hex-cores would be good competition for the 2500j.


 
Was hoping the FX 6100 would be a sweet spot. Cause what really uses 8 cores. Overclock it and would bench just as good as a 8 in most. But after these released benchmarks I'm in a burn the house down mode. lol


----------



## linkin

spynoodle said:


> So are you saying that all the other reviews are biased towards Intel due to their lack of optimization, or that the hardwareheaven review is biased towards AMD? If It's the former, then maybe Bulldozer is much better than we all originally thought.



No, I'm just saying that CHV, while being a flagship board, might not be the best choice to do all reviews on.

As I said, a little variety goes a long way.

The fact that some sites tested BD with 1333MHz 9-9-9-27 memory is appalling as well, the boards and CPU support 1866MHz for Christ's sake. Why would you test with slow memory like that? Especially in synthetic benchmarks where it really shows the most difference. I'm keen to know what they tested the Intel systems with regarding memory, I'd be mad as hell if they tested 1333Mhz CAS9 against 2133MHz CAS9.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

If I were you Linkin I would look at the AMD FX-6100 Six-Core Processor.  The Zambezi 8-Core just looks like a power hungry beast.

I am wondering what the Quad-Core Zambezi Processors are going to be like.


----------



## jonnyp11

i say to get that xxmorpheus guy who has a thread about getting over 4.9ghz on his liquid cooled 8150 to run some benches on it then bigfella to run the same benches then we compare ourselves and see how far they apart. but make sure to see their actual full specs and all too not just the numbers alone so we have the whole picture.


----------



## NyxCharon

So, i thought this article was interesting. It's curious how they say it's flagship cpu still can't compete with Intel's.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/10/12/amds-8-core-bulldozer-fx-chips-launch-full-review-round-up/


----------



## spynoodle

Whoever made this has some serious Youtubing skills:
[YT]SArxcnpXStE[/YT]


----------



## kennebell347

theres a lot of stuff done with that video. Call of duty especially.


----------



## jonnyp11

stinks is how this is how it should've gone, and did a couple long years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7OJwraAfOw&feature=related


----------



## BurningSkyline

Please, enough with those hitler videos already 

Any benches for the Hex-Cores floating around? Hell, even the quads? Since the quads are so Cheap I'm curious how they do against the SB i3 chips.


----------



## mx344

haha, i love those hitler videos, never gets old  thx for the post.


----------



## Ankur

Quick question
Just wanted to know whether there is going to be drop in prices in Intel CPUs?
The FX-8120 seems to low in cost compared to what it gives.


----------



## maroon1

Ankur said:


> Quick question
> Just wanted to know whether there is going to be drop in prices in Intel CPUs?
> The FX-8120 seems to low in cost compared to what it gives.



Why would  intel drop the price when they have faster CPU ? 

It is other way around. AMD should drop the price of bulldozer to compete with SB

i5 2500 beats FX-8120 in almost all benchmarks. It even beat FX-8150 in a lot of benchmarks 

Not to mention that sandy bridge has lower power consumption.


----------



## Ankur

maroon1 said:


> Why would  intel drop the price when they have faster CPU ?
> 
> It is other way around. AMD should drop the price of bulldozer to compete with SB
> 
> i5 2500 beats FX-8120 in almost all benchmarks. It even beat FX-8150 in a lot of benchmarks
> 
> Not to mention that sandy bridge has lower power consumption.



I just saw the benchmarks and 2500k seems to beat them.
Hmm. . . I'm not sure which CPU to go for.


----------



## jonnyp11

as of now the 2500k kills the 8150, especially in unthreaded and lightly threaded tasks.


----------



## claptonman

http://blogs.amd.com/play/2011/10/13/our-take-on-amd-fx/

At least they responded to everyone. I'm still not buying, so until they prove this:

"This is a new architecture. Compilers have recently been updated, and programs have just started exploring the new instructions like XOP and FMA4 (two new instructions first supported by the AMD FX CPU) to speed up many applications, especially when compared to our older generation."

is truth, then no dice.


----------



## jonnyp11

well it is true to a degree, i said this before and will say it again, on the anandtech review they contacted amd and found that the win7 scheduler doesn't know how to properly use the bd modules so it doesn't get to turbo or get efficient spreading of the tasks over the modules, while the win8 dev preview does have the scheduling and in the 4 test they ran the bd improved its scores from 4 to 10% over the originals. then if the tasks themselves can't make use of some of the other features that would also hinder the performance, we can't truly see this processor for what it is when half of the things that make it faster can't be used. that is the problem with introducing newer technology. it's like (not sure if this is a good analogy but) putting a crapo transmission on a bugatti veyron.


----------



## StrangleHold

Seems most or maybe all these benchmarks that came out on the 12/13th were still using a pre released ES models. Not retail models. Dont know how much difference there is in the ES and released/final model. But seems pretty bogas to me.


----------



## jonnyp11

i still like this though for all the stuff saying it sucks (from passmark)

Intel Core i7 995X @ 3.60GHz	      10,945 	NA
Intel Core i7 990X @ 3.47GHz	      10,927 	$989.99*
Intel Core i7 980X @ 3.33GHz	      10,603 	$1,021.43**
Intel Core i7 980 @ 3.33GHz	      10,247 	$599.49**
Intel Xeon W3690 @ 3.47GHz	      10,227 	$1,079.99*
Intel Core i7-2600K @ 3.40GHz     9,976   	$427.31**
Intel Xeon X5690 @ 3.47GHz	      9,943   	NA
Intel Core i7 970 @ 3.20GHz	      9,939   	$559.99*
Intel Xeon X5680 @ 3.33GHz	      9,838   	$1,625.00*
Intel Xeon W3680 @ 3.33GHz	      9,833   	$599.99*
Intel Xeon X5670 @ 2.93GHz	      9,214   	$1,442.01*
Intel Xeon E31275 @ 3.40GHz      9,126   	NA
Intel Core i7-2960XM @ 2.70GHz  9,084    	NA
Intel Xeon E31270 @ 3.40GHz      9,084   	NA
Intel Core i7-2600 @ 3.40GHz	      8,955   	$299.99**
Intel Xeon E31280 @ 3.50GHz      8,724   	NA
Intel Xeon E31245 @ 3.30GHz	      8,697   	NA
AMD FX-8150 Eight-Core	      8,681   	NA


----------



## StrangleHold

Well I take back some of what I said about it. Not as good as I wanted, but better then I initially thought.

Legit is using a retail and it doesnt really do that bad.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/1/


----------



## Troncoso

jonnyp11 said:


> i still like this though for all the stuff saying it sucks (from passmark)
> 
> Intel Core i7 995X @ 3.60GHz	      10,945 	NA
> Intel Core i7 990X @ 3.47GHz	      10,927 	$989.99*
> Intel Core i7 980X @ 3.33GHz	      10,603 	$1,021.43**
> Intel Core i7 980 @ 3.33GHz	      10,247 	$599.49**
> Intel Xeon W3690 @ 3.47GHz	      10,227 	$1,079.99*
> Intel Core i7-2600K @ 3.40GHz     9,976   	$427.31**
> Intel Xeon X5690 @ 3.47GHz	      9,943   	NA
> Intel Core i7 970 @ 3.20GHz	      9,939   	$559.99*
> Intel Xeon X5680 @ 3.33GHz	      9,838   	$1,625.00*
> Intel Xeon W3680 @ 3.33GHz	      9,833   	$599.99*
> Intel Xeon X5670 @ 2.93GHz	      9,214   	$1,442.01*
> Intel Xeon E31275 @ 3.40GHz      9,126   	NA
> Intel Core i7-2960XM @ 2.70GHz  9,084    	NA
> Intel Xeon E31270 @ 3.40GHz      9,084   	NA
> Intel Core i7-2600 @ 3.40GHz	      8,955   	$299.99**
> Intel Xeon E31280 @ 3.50GHz      8,724   	NA
> Intel Xeon E31245 @ 3.30GHz	      8,697   	NA
> AMD FX-8150 Eight-Core	      8,681   	NA




I'm still waiting for more than one sample from passmark. A single person can easily skew the tests and throw the numbers off the actual value. Once they get a few on there and come up with an average, we'll get a better idea of how it stacks up


----------



## linkin

http://translate.google.com/transla...2+translate&hl=en&biw=1472&bih=848&prmd=imvns

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...ew-(4)-!exclusive!-Excuse-for-1-Threaded-Perf

Rather interesting. Seems an updated BIOS or software patch is needed to show true performance.


----------



## mx344

^yeah, that is interesting, its was roughly doubled in performance.


----------



## jonnyp11

where was it doubled? and also what was the point of disabling half the cores, to demonstrate the benefits of the shared resources? i mean when they disabled the other resources it gave the remaining ones access to more resources (mainly caches) so obviously it will do more than the 2 module 4 core, although seeing the benchmarked benefits is interesting.


----------



## StrangleHold

jonnyp11 said:


> and also what was the point of disabling half the cores, to demonstrate the benefits of the shared resources? i mean when they disabled the other resources it gave the remaining ones access to more resources (mainly caches) so obviously it will do more than the 2 module 4 core, although seeing the benchmarked benefits is interesting.


 
Windows doesnt know how to distribute threads to Bulldozer/Zambezi yet. It will have higher performance if say, its running 4 threads if each thread is run one module each. Instead on all 4 on 2 modules. Windows just distributes threads on any open core.


----------



## jonnyp11

i posted that on the first day, it was on the last page of the anandtech review, and also they did 4 benches on win8 which does know some about bulldozer and got anywhere from a 4 to a 10% increase i think it was.


----------



## StrangleHold

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ex-A...rformance-on-Lack-of-Fine-Tuning-227816.shtml


----------



## Perkomate

Here's to hoping they give intel a run for their money in the lower end of the market, so we see some lower prices and better technology released. It would be nice if this BIOS really does help a lot.


----------



## kennebell347

I bit the bullet and went Intel. Asrock P67 Extreme4 Gen3 motherboard and i5 2500k. I cant rely on AMD working out the issues.


----------



## spynoodle

No wonder single core performance sucks: The whole point of a module was to provide a combination of great singe-threaded and multithreaded performance. If the threads are basically being distributed by a mentally disabled monkey (Windows 7), then the whole point is ruined. Really, Microsoft, really? I wonder if Bulldozer performs better in Linux.


----------



## linkin

From what I've seen, it does. I'm ordering an FX-8120 from newegg this week


----------



## spynoodle

linkin said:


> From what I've seen, it does. I'm ordering an FX-8120 from newegg this week



I want to see some SuperPi the minute you get it. 

Edit: or maybe I don't: http://www.pureoverclock.com/printer.php?action=review&id=1376&page=14


----------



## linkin

FX doesn't natively support x87 is why SuperPi results suck, though I will happily do wprime


----------



## StrangleHold

SuperPi runs FPU x87 instruction set and is completely useless.


----------



## CdnAudiophile

What a fail from AMD. 4 years for this?? It doesn't even beat the current Sandy Bridge. It also uses a ton more power OC'd. There is no reason to get this unless you already had a AMD3 motherboard.

HardOCP did an excellent review:
http://hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review/1


----------



## Ankur

Quick question, compared to the Sandy Bridge CPUs does the Bulldozer perform less because there are no programs or benchmarks that couldn't utilize the 8 cores?

Other way around, is a program that needs assuming 8 cores is test on both Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge then will Bulldozer perform higher?


----------



## maroon1

Ankur said:


> Quick question, compared to the Sandy Bridge CPUs does the Bulldozer perform less because there are no programs or benchmarks that couldn't utilize the 8 cores?
> 
> Other way around, is a program that needs assuming 8 cores is test on both Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge then will Bulldozer perform higher?



Cinebench 11.5 can take advantage of 8 cores, yet i7 2600 beats it in that benchmark

From what I seen i7 2600 is better than FX-8150 in most multi-threaded benchmarks. There is only few cases were FX-8150 wins

As for single-threaded performance, Bulldozer is very weak. In some cases it is weaker than Phenom II, despite the clock speed advantage of Bulldozer


----------



## Shane

maroon1 said:


> As for single-threaded performance, Bulldozer is very weak. In some cases it is weaker than Phenom II, despite the clock speed advantage of Bulldozer



I wonder why its performance is poor on single-threaded 

Shame really because i was looking forward to Bulldozer for my next possible upgrade,Unless i can get a very good deal on a Sandybridge Cpu + motherboard i might just wait for Ivy Bridge.


----------



## jonnyp11

Nevakonaza said:


> I wonder why its performance is poor on single-threaded



cuz the win7 scheduler is retarted when it comes to bd since it hasn't been updated, so it's throwing stuff everywhere so it can't use its turbo when it could. Also nothing is programmed to use the 2 or 3 new technologies they introduced with it, so there's another problem.




linkin said:


> From what I've seen, it does. I'm ordering an FX-8120 from newegg this week



Have fun man, and from what i saw, apparently it is fairly easy to hit 5 or so ghz on 4/6 cores D), just not on 8 (), so for gaming that would pull it up alot.


----------



## spynoodle

linkin said:


> FX doesn't natively support x87 is why SuperPi results suck, though I will happily do wprime


I see.... are you running Windows 8 or Linux on any partition? If so, then it would be really interesting to see a single-thread WPrime benchmark (if it exists, I've never tried WPrime) on an OS that can utilize Bulldozer well. Or, better yet, a quad-thread WPrime benchmark.


----------



## linkin

http://quinetiam.com/?p=2356

Registry fix = 40% performance boost!!


----------



## StrangleHold

linkin said:


> http://quinetiam.com/?p=2356
> 
> Registry fix = 40% performance boost!!


 
I've heard that AMD and Microsoft are talking about who will provide the patch. If it will be a microsoft patch or a new AMD processor driver. Wish they would make up there mind and just get it out. Windows just doesnt know what to do with a module. The pisser about it, this should have been took care of long before the release.


----------



## linkin

StrangleHold said:


> I've heard that AMD and Microsoft are talking about who will provide the patch. If it will be a microsoft patch or a new AMD processor driver. Wish they would make up there mind and just get it out. Windows just doesnt know what to do with a module. The pisser about it, this should have been took care of long before the release.



It should have been done, yeah. I guess they couldn't really delay release any more though...

Still, nice to know that when I order mine the driver/fix could be out already.

Slightly off topic: Did you know that Phenom II CPU's and windows vista/7 still have the TLB bug fix enabled by default, even when the Phenom II doesn't have the bug? I disabled it with a little program... I tested with wprime before and after and I got a lower time


----------



## StrangleHold

linkin said:


> It should have been done, yeah. I guess they couldn't really delay release any more though...
> 
> Still, nice to know that when I order mine the driver/fix could be out already.
> 
> Slightly off topic: Did you know that Phenom II CPU's and windows vista/7 still have the TLB bug fix enabled by default, even when the Phenom II doesn't have the bug? I disabled it with a little program... I tested with wprime before and after and I got a lower time


 
Never knew that. I know at first it was a bios update, but killed Phenom I performance.


----------



## CrazyMike

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Is the FX8150 the maximum processor that they are coming out with? I thought they were going to have a higher one?

If this is true, looks like i will be buying it sooner than what i thought


----------



## linkin

> I see a lot of finger pointing and questioning...
> Here is my current understanding:
> 
> In the past we have seen CPU drivers for windows (mostly XP, and mostly AMD.) This is NOT what is occurring here, its not some weird issue with the processor causing it (although it kind of is)
> 
> What is happening is this: The FX 8xxx series of processors has 4 cores, each core with TWO integer pipelines, effectively granting two processor cores for the price of one. (not "hyperthreading" effective, but almost literally additional core effective.)
> This is all fine and dandy, except that when Windows (or Linux) goes to issue work to a core in the processor, it picks the core with the least load, and distributes things using a task scheduler. The problem here is that when a single pipeline on a bulldozer core is being utilized both cores are effectively "in use" even though Task Manager sees the cores appropriately, the task scheduler does not. This isn't really anybody's fault, but rather an oversight.
> Standard CPU design from a by-the-book standpoint would never add a second integer pipeline to a single core. So nobody ever really thought to code a task scheduler that worked in that situation. So basically, AMD thought outside the box, and Windows got confused.
> 
> Oh not to mention that if the scheduler tries to run non-integer work on one of the integer only threads, the CPU returns an error and the command is re-queued and has to sit in line waiting to be executed again. Basically its a scheduler issue, and could definitely cause some HUGE impact in synthetic benchmarks and normal use. And even more issues in a cluttered server environment.



Quote from OCN regarding the issue in the link I posted before.


----------



## jonnyp11

CrazyMike said:


> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> 
> 
> Is the FX8150 the maximum processor that they are coming out with? I thought they were going to have a higher one?
> 
> If this is true, looks like i will be buying it sooner than what i thought



there is an 8170 and i think one or 2 others (not 8 cores) coming out in the first quarter of next year.

*I just can't wait to see what Bigfella's response to this new info will be *


----------



## linkin

> My understanding is that BD has 8 INT and 8 128bit FP cores (I.e. 1 of each for each core). Does this mean 16 max instructions at once?
> 
> Each module however has 4 256bit FP cores.
> 
> So if you are using all 4 256bit cores then maximum instructions is 12.
> 
> Therefore BD should be able to run between min 12 and max 16 instructions per cycle.
> 
> I bet windows is only running max 8 and not correctly with all the other CACHE associated issues.
> 
> So 40% could very well be plausible.
> 
> What ya think?



Another OCN quote.


----------



## mx344

^interesting reads...Hope


----------



## claptonman

I really hope a new update or BIOS update fixes this. I'm not getting my hopes up, but we'll see. Not believing anything without proof.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

StrangleHold said:


> SuperPi runs FPU x87 instruction set and is completely useless.



This needs to be repeated again and again.  I do not know why so many people think the program Super-Pi is an accurate measurement of processing power.  It is not.


----------



## spynoodle

If this 40% stuff is true, then I'm beginning to wonder..... could Intel have struck a deal with Microsoft to intentionally cripple Bulldozer at its release? It obivously helped give Bulldozer a bad rap. Most geeks gave up on BD after reading the first round of reviews.


----------



## Troncoso

spynoodle said:


> If this 40% stuff is true, then I'm beginning to wonder..... could Intel have struck a deal with Microsoft to intentionally cripple Bulldozer at its release? It obivously helped give Bulldozer a bad rap. Most geeks gave up on BD after reading the first round of reviews.



Those aren't real geeks. Bulldozer just released. There is know way to be certain of just how capable it is.

Real geeks wait til they know the facts.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

spynoodle said:


> If this 40% stuff is true, then I'm beginning to wonder..... could Intel have struck a deal with Microsoft to intentionally cripple Bulldozer at its release? It obivously helped give Bulldozer a bad rap. Most geeks gave up on Bull Dozer after reading the first round of reviews.



I doubt it.  Look at the problems Intel had with Sandy Bridge when it was first released.  I think the software problems with Socket AM3+ will be worked out in time.


----------



## spynoodle

2048Megabytes said:


> I doubt it.  Look at the problems Intel had with Sandy Bridge when it was first released.  I think the software problems with Socket AM3+ will be worked out in time.



Now that you mention it, I forgot about the Sandy Bridge problems. In the long run, I guess it didn't really affect Intel much. Hopefully the same will happen to AMD.

However, the difference between AMD's problem and Intel's problem is that Intel's was entirely their own fault. For AMD, Microsoft can be partially to blame.


----------



## linkin

It probably didn't hurt Intel much because they're a larger company, and the fact that most AMD fanboys don't crawl out of the woodwork to troll people about launch issues


----------



## wolfeking

linkin said:


> fact that most AMD fanboys don't crawl out of the woodwork to troll people about launch issues


I believe that is the curse of Intel. Your mad because you overpaid, so you must attack the budget company. 

As for the Zambezi issues, Give it some time to be worked out. Either AMD or Microsoft, or both will have a fix out soon.


----------



## jonnyp11

ha, i just though what if they both come out with patches and they counteract each other and end up making it suck more, that would be hilarious other than the wasted time and all that went into it.


----------



## StrangleHold

I think its hurts AMD alittle trying to be the first out with new technology against Intel, instead of just going for faster IPC. Some has helped them but some has hurt them. Being the first has hurt research and development on IPC. Intel has been satisfied being second and just work on IPC in a way to over shadow AMD progress and then in a year or two quietly do the same thing. They realize they cant keep up in just IPC after a point, then just incorporate AMD ideas. If it wasnt for AMD, Intel would still be making really fast 32 bit single cores.


AMD64-Intel uses it now
Onboard memory controller-Intel uses it now
First true dual core- Intel is now
First true quad core-Intel is now
Hypertransport- Now intel uses QuickPath
Module- No doubt Intel will follow in the long run and drop Hyperthreading.


----------



## jonnyp11

really a module seams more like amd copying intel and adding the pipelines and 1 or 2 other things, which i'm pretty sure they're even working on, that's just an obvious step up from ht'ing


----------



## StrangleHold

jonnyp11 said:


> really a module seams more like amd copying intel and adding the pipelines and 1 or 2 other things, which i'm pretty sure they're even working on, that's just an obvious step up from ht'ing


 
You seem to miss the point and concept totally. Then kinda drift off in left field lost wandering around.


----------



## jonnyp11

no i got you but i was pointing out that a module really is the next step up from hyperthreading, so in that amd is improving intel's idea. So intel will use something similar to a module but not only because amd has done it but the fact that it is the most obvious step forward after hyperthreading.


----------



## mihir

Newegg Zambezi Review.



> Pros: It came in a pretty tin, $19 next day shipping got it to me in a flash.
> 
> Cons: The tin was inside plastic wrapping, despite that it was opened and the AMD secure label seal was BROKEN. This shipped from the warehouse in NJ, I could also see a fingerprint on my chip. This make the second thing this month from Newegg that came to me opened, what gives?
> 
> Other Thoughts: I honestly just expected more from AMD. After all the hype, benchmarks, comparisons, and even the FX comic that mocked Intel, I expected more.
> 
> I am a streamer, I run x-split on 8meg UP internet. This CPU simply cannot handle the load. I don't know what's going on, I have it paired with a 2gb 6950 on the latest drivers. I am experiencing poor frames even though CPU usage never gets above 60%. Poor optimization AMD?


----------



## linkin

mihir said:


> Newegg Zambezi Review.



The current problem with Zambezi is that windows is ignorant to the architecture and loads 4 threads to 100% and the other 4 to 50% resulting in about 60% utilisation. Either fixed by a software patch by MS or a CPU driver by AMD. Or both. As well as updated software to take advantage of the architecture.


----------



## Okedokey

linkin said:


> The current problem with Zambezi is that windows is ignorant to the architecture and loads 4 threads to 100% and the other 4 to 50% resulting in about 60% utilisation. Either fixed by a software patch by MS or a CPU driver by AMD. Or both. As well as updated software to take advantage of the architecture.



That's been overstated, as windows 8 shows only a 4% improvement. The issue is hardware related to high cache latency - to keep tdp under control - just poor design. Amazing that the faildozer has 2billion transistors and fails to compete with SB which has around 700 million -66% less lol


----------



## wolfeking

your assuming that windows 8 has a driver or update that works. Its faster on all processors, so it is doubtful that it does have a fix.      PLease take the intel fanboyism and shove it till they have a fix out for BD.


----------



## Okedokey

wolfeking said:


> your assuming that windows 8 has a driver or update that works. Its faster on all processors, so it is doubtful that it does have a fix.      PLease take the intel fanboyism and shove it till they have a fix out for BD.



You noob.  Its a change in the kernel.  Its been confirmed relating to the scheduler.


----------



## wolfeking

ok, and schedulers can be changed or moded via drivers. Either way, until they have a fix out, please just drop the fanboyism and gloating.


----------



## Okedokey

The issue is mainly the L1 and L2 cache latency, this is a design error, no driver will fix this mate so don't get your hopes up


----------



## jonnyp11

now, we won't know that till it's out and we can try for ourselves, so untill then, as he said (slightly moddified), go shove it ya fanboy


----------



## Okedokey

We do know because it is out kid


----------



## just a noob

Bulldozer's been quite a flop considering how hard they been pimping it, AMD is already dropping the prices.


----------



## ScottALot

just a noob said:


> Bulldozer's been quite a flop considering how hard they been pimping it, AMD is already dropping the prices.



Yeah... sad day. I still think they deserve credit for coming up with the idea for dual-core modules in CPUs, that was a really ingenious idea. I think the problems with Bulldozer are due to some poor hardware optimization, not purely a lack of performance potential.


----------



## jonnyp11

bigfellla said:


> We do know because it is out kid



talking 'bout the patches or drives bigfanboy


----------



## Perkomate

jonnyp11 said:


> talking 'bout the patches or drives bigfanboy



Too late. The damage has already been done. Most consumers who care about this sort of stuff have seen the bencehs, and made their descision not to go with AMD. Patches and updates will not change concieved notions. End of.


----------



## Aastii

Perkomate said:


> Too late. The damage has already been done. Most consumers who care about this sort of stuff have seen the bencehs, and made their descision not to go with AMD. Patches and updates will not change concieved notions. End of.



Looks at Fermi

Looks at original Intel 6 series chipset

Looks at AMD Phenom CPU's

hmm, yea, people won't understand that things can be updated and fixed 

The only people that know about Bulldozer are enthusiasts and they will keep up to date with technology. If this miracle BIOS update and Windows 8 (at release, don't go basing everything on a beta...) really does boost performance considerably then people will know and will see Bulldozer as the better option performance wise


----------



## Perkomate

Aastii said:


> Looks at Fermi
> 
> Looks at original Intel 6 series chipset
> 
> Looks at AMD Phenom CPU's
> 
> hmm, yea, people won't understand that things can be updated and fixed
> 
> The only people that know about Bulldozer are enthusiasts and they will keep up to date with technology. If this miracle BIOS update and Windows 8 (at release, don't go basing everything on a beta...) really does boost performance considerably then people will know and will see Bulldozer as the better option performance wise
> 
> 
> More related to the thread
> 
> http://thefrogman.me/post/11613923536



actually, i did make a boo-boo. What I meant is that it's gonna take a lot of an increase to win back public opinion.


----------



## jonnyp11

really the public has no clue and will just say what's the best deal and buy it, if they see 8 cores they think sick and buy. ask around random people and they would take a 8150 over a 25 or 2600k without a thought.


----------



## mep916

jonnyp11 said:


> go shove it ya fanboy





jonnyp11 said:


> talking 'bout the patches or drives bigfanboy



What's next? bigfatsloppyhead? 

He's twice your age and a VIP. Please don't reply to him, or anyone else, with this grade school BS. Thanks.


----------



## Benny Boy

http://semiaccurate.com/2011/10/17/why-did-bulldozer-underwhelm/


----------



## Troncoso

jonnyp11 said:


> really the public has no clue and will just say what's the best deal and buy it, if they see 8 cores they think sick and buy. ask around random people and they would take a 8150 over a 25 or 2600k without a thought.



False. A majority will choose anything made by Intel because that's the only name they've heard.

Working at Best Buy, 90% of people who walk in, prefer an "Intel". When asked why not AMD, they just say "I've never heard of them"


----------



## 2048Megabytes

At least AMD still has Socket FM1 if Socket AM3+ turns out to be a flop.  The numbers on the AMD A8-3850 Llano (2.9 gigahertz) Quad-Core Processor beat all the Phenom II processors I do believe.

Edit: The AMD A8-3850 beats all the Phenom II Quad-Core processors.


----------



## mihir

Troncoso said:


> False. A majority will choose anything made by Intel because that's the only name they've heard.
> 
> Working at Best Buy, 90% of people who walk in, prefer an "Intel". When asked why not AMD, they just say "I've never heard of them"



I second that.
Majority of the people who ask me what computer they should go for, prefer Intel or Nvidia. 
And they think of AMD just as a newbie company or second rate company.


----------



## Aastii

Perkomate said:


> actually, i did make a boo-boo. What I meant is that it's gonna take a lot of an increase to win back public opinion.



Not at all, it will take an increase enough to make it more powerful than the 2500 and 2600k, and what do you know, you have yourself a new top chip that is priced very nicely.



mihir said:


> I second that.
> Majority of the people who ask me what computer they should go for, prefer Intel or Nvidia.
> And they think of AMD just as a newbie company or second rate company.



I always educate my customers or people I advise that AMD is just as credible both in the CPU and video card market and a lot of the time where AMD would be the better choice for one, the other or both, they will go down that route


----------



## mihir

Aastii said:


> I always educate my customers or people I advise that AMD is just as credible both in the CPU and video card market and a lot of the time where AMD would be the better choice for one, the other or both, they will go down that route



Same here(except I have friends instead of customers), they also have weird theories like since apple uses intel and an xyz brand used amd that makes apple better than xyz .Haha.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

I have been sold on AMD ever since 2003 about.  I bought a system with an AMD Athlon XP single-core processor and I loved it.  It was a great upgrade over the Intel 700 megahertz processor we previously owned.


----------



## Troncoso

Aastii said:


> Not at all, it will take an increase enough to make it more powerful than the 2500 and 2600k, and what do you know, you have yourself a new top chip that is priced very nicely.
> 
> 
> 
> I always educate my customers or people I advise that AMD is just as credible both in the CPU and video card market and a lot of the time where AMD would be the better choice for one, the other or both, they will go down that route



I try, but there are a lot of stubborn people in the world. Like, No matter how hard I try, I can't convince some people that Lenovo is a good brand until I associate them with IBM.

Then there are the people who have their "tech guys" tell them what to buy. A lot of them say not to buy AMD...makes me wonder how qualified these guys are.

Oh oh, and my favorite "No way I'm getting AMD again. I got a AMD one time and it didn't work good"


----------



## jonnyp11

sometimes i just hate people when they're like that, when i talk to someone like that i just end up walking away before i get really pissed since they refuse to believe anything new


----------



## kennebell347

Troncoso said:


> I try, but there are a lot of stubborn people in the world. Like, No matter how hard I try, I can't convince some people that Lenovo is a good brand until I associate them with IBM.
> 
> Then there are the people who have their "tech guys" tell them what to buy. A lot of them say not to buy AMD...makes me wonder how qualified these guys are.
> 
> Oh oh, and my favorite *"No way I'm getting AMD again. I got a AMD one time and it didn't work good*"


I have had 3 AMD processors and just went Intel. Never will I do AMD again. My Asus g53 laptop is Intel and I am now running a 2500k. Have not had ONE blue screen or any failure yet with the Intel chips. Every one of my AMD setups would blue screen every few days no matter what I did.

I am not very happy with my crossfire setup either. Drivers are garbage. I have a friend running SLI 580s and he has zero issues. Driver issues were a problem with my 5870 also.


----------



## Troncoso

kennebell347 said:


> I have had 3 AMD processors and just went Intel. Never will I do AMD again. My Asus g53 laptop is Intel and I am now running a 2500k. Have not had ONE blue screen or any failure yet with the Intel chips. Every one of my AMD setups would blue screen every few days no matter what I did.
> 
> I am not very happy with my crossfire setup either. Drivers are garbage. I have a friend running SLI 580s and he has zero issues. Driver issues were a problem with my 5870 also.



What did you have your AMD CPU's in? AMD is just as reliable as Intel, it's rarely the processor that's even the issue whenever you have problems.


----------



## StrangleHold

Well three things are wrong with Bulldozer/Zambezi. One is the L1/2 cache are slow. I dont see any way to correct it without a major stepping or not until Piledriver. Second window does not know what a module is. Considering this has been in development for 4 years, thats unbelievable. The third thing is when there is 4 or less threads, a thread should have been able to run on both sets of pipelines on a module.

And a fourth reason.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...x_AMD_Engineer_Explains_Bulldozer_Fiasco.html


----------



## 2048Megabytes

So Deneb and Thuban architectures are better than Zambezi?  Is Llano architecture design the same as Thuban that can run off DDR3 1866 memory?


----------



## kennebell347

Troncoso said:


> What did you have your AMD CPU's in? AMD is just as reliable as Intel, it's rarely the processor that's even the issue whenever you have problems.



My triple core phenom was in a Biostar board if I remember correctly. My 955 was in a Gigabyte MA790XT-UD4P board. The 965 was also in the Gigabyte board.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

kennebell347 said:


> My triple core phenom was in a Biostar board if I remember correctly. My 955 was in a Gigabyte MA790XT-UD4P board. The 965 was also in the Gigabyte board.



I have had nothing but good experiences with AMD minus one motherboard.  It was a cheap Foxconn motherboard that had problems.  It had nothing to do with the AMD processor.

I've owned many desktop Advanced Micro Devices processors:

Athlon XP 2200+ Single-Core 
Athlon 4000+ Single-Core
Athlon 4600+ Dual-Core
Phenom 9550 Quad-Core
Phenom II 940 Quad-Core
Phenom II 945 Quad-Core


----------



## kennebell347

I was just stating my experience. I thought the blue screens and weak overclocking were the norm. Until I went Intel.


----------



## StrangleHold

2048Megabytes said:


> So Deneb and Thuban architectures are better than Zambezi?


 
I wouldnt say that. AMD can do improvements to the Zambezi. It just has faults in the design that should have been worked out before it was released. From what it looks like AMD just didnt have the resources in research and development to pull off Bulldozer as they once wanted it to be. The Deneb/Thuban is pretty much tweaked as far as it can go. 

Kinda like the same that happen with Phenom I. Where it should have performed like the Phenom II. I would say they can get better performance with Bulldozer with a few bios/Driver/Patch updates. Then probably a new stepping later on. But my guess Piledriver will perform close to what they wanted Bulldozer to be at the start. Kinda funny they will call it Piledriver, did not want it to be a rerun to call it Bulldozer II.




2048Megabytes said:


> Is Llano architecture design the same as Thuban that can run off DDR3 1866 memory?


 
Its just a die shrink of the Athlon II core with double L2 cache. Not for sure about the memory controller. If its just a updated Deneb controller or a twist of the Bulldozer controller.


----------



## jonnyp11

i just hope they have the updates, and that the profits from the oem sales of the 8150 (although newegg did sell out day 1 so they obviously were selling fast so prophits from that too) and use the money to make a few updates to the 8170 before launch early next year, maybe AMD will let them go in and hand sculpt some of the transistors since apparently automated designing was an issue


----------



## BurningSkyline

It would be nice if They would work on getting all these issues fixed, and Piledriver out around CES 2012. It was a real disappointment to me to see the FX 6100 getting wrecked in benches by Thuban. I'm not giving up on bulldozer though, I would rather buy an AMD product than Intel. I think we all know this probably won't happen, but one can hope.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

StrangleHold said:


> Its just a die shrink of the Athlon II core with double L2 cache. Not for sure about the memory controller. If its just a updated Deneb controller or a twist of the Bulldozer controller.



The AMD A8-3850 Llano Quad-Core Processor marks are pretty impressive to me.  The marks are estimated around the overall same processing power as a Core i7 920 Quad-Core Processor and only running at 100 Watts.


----------



## StrangleHold

2048Megabytes said:


> The AMD A8-3850 Llano Quad-Core Processor marks are pretty impressive to me. The marks are estimated around the overall same processing power as a Core i7 920 Quad-Core Processor and only running at 100 Watts.


 
I dont know. Here the A8 3850 performance is pretty equal to a Athlon II X4 635, both run the same clock speed. Even with the 3850 double L2 cache size.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4448/amd-llano-desktop-performance-preview/2


----------



## mihir

StrangleHold said:


> I dont know. Here the A8 3850 performance is pretty equal to a Athlon II X4 635, both run the same clock speed. Even with the 3850 double L2 cache size.
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4448/amd-llano-desktop-performance-preview/2



Llano might be a good choice for HTPC and coders who want some processing power but do not want to spend on a new GPU.
Any patch released for Bulldozer yet?


----------



## 2048Megabytes

StrangleHold said:


> I dont know. Here the A8 3850 performance is pretty equal to a Athlon II X4 635, both run the same clock speed. Even with the 3850 double L2 cache size.
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4448/amd-llano-desktop-performance-preview/2



There are people questioning these marks.  They are wondering if DDR3 1866 or DDR3 1600 memory was used with the A8-3850 Processor or DDR3 1333.  They do not say what memory was used in the tests.  DDR3 1866 would definitely push the marks higher on the A8-3850 Processor.


----------



## StrangleHold

mihir said:


> Any patch released for Bulldozer yet?


 
Havent heard of one yet.



2048Megabytes said:


> There are people questioning these marks. They are wondering if DDR3 1866 or DDR3 1600 memory was used with the A8-3850 Processor or DDR3 1333. They do not say what memory was used in the tests. DDR3 1866 would definitely push the marks higher on the A8-3850 Processor.


 

The Athlon II can run 1600. It might gain alittle with 1866. Most of the small performance gain is from the die shrink and probably a few tweaks.


----------



## jonnyp11

nothing on updates yet, but anandtech has a piece on the b3 revision in the works, but said since c3 on the phenom ii x4's waited 9 months to not wait for it


----------



## StrangleHold

Ive heard the new models coming out after the first of the year will be B3 stepping.


----------



## jonnyp11

so the 8170 would be b3, makes sense really, and if they get those damn patches out that thing could be killer.


----------



## StrangleHold

From what I understand the B3 is suppost to clock alittle higher and use less wattage. The L1 and L2 cache probably wont be fixed till Piledriver.


----------



## jonnyp11

we can only hope, god from what i've read why the hell would the stupid a$$es at amd make the techs go to an automated transistor builder or whatever, something said it was 20% slower and took 20% more die space too


----------



## BurningSkyline

Even though the 2500k is faster I'm really tempted to buy the 6100 because it is a cheaper platform.


----------



## jonnyp11

might be smarter to get a 1100t for the same, or a 1090t for a little less since a simple multiplier change will make it a 1100t


----------



## StrangleHold

jonnyp11 said:


> we can only hope, god from what i've read why the hell would the stupid a$$es at amd make the techs go to an automated transistor builder or whatever, something said it was 20% slower and took 20% more die space too


 
Its cheaper and faster. But they paid the price going from hand crafting performance parts of the CPU to using automated tools.


----------



## linkin

Clarification: AMD relied more heavily on automated tools for Bulldozer. You don't seriously think a group of people can design an entire CPU with 2 billion transistors? From what I've read, if they put 30% more human effort in it wouldn't have as many bugs, and have better performance. Both Intel & AMD use automated tools to help design, build, and test CPU's/designs.


----------



## StrangleHold

StrangleHold said:


> hand crafting (performance parts) of the CPU to using automated tools.


 


linkin said:


> Clarification: AMD relied more heavily on automated tools for Bulldozer. You don't seriously think a group of people can design an entire CPU with 2 billion transistors?


 
Clarification of what? Did you read what I said above? Who the hell said they hand crafted entire CPU?


----------



## 2048Megabytes

StrangleHold said:


> Havent heard of one yet.
> 
> The Athlon II can run 1600. It might gain a little with 1866. Most of the small performance gain is from the die shrink and probably a few tweaks.



The Athlon II Processors can run DDR3 1600 without overclocking?  What about a Phenom II Socket AM3 without overclocking?

Is AMD is going to keep producing Thuban, Deneb and Regor a little longer since Zambezi is worst?


Edit: I answered one of my own questions.  The ASUS M4A89TD PRO/USB3 Socket AM3 Motherboard runs DDR3 1600 without overclocking.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131655


----------



## StrangleHold

2048Megabytes said:


> Is AMD is going to keep producing Thuban, Deneb and Regor a little longer since Zambezi is worst?


 
I know before the Zambezi release, they claimed Thuban would be discontinued the day Zambezi was released. Just selling out what is left in inventory. My guess is they still will because it would eat into Zambezi sales. Deneb/Callisto was suppost to go at the end of the year. My guess is it will too. The Zambezi is still a smaller die so its more profit for them.

Then the Propus/Rana and Regor some time in the first quarter of next year. I think on those it will depend on how well they can get Llano ramped up. They seem to be still having a problem with the yield rate.


----------



## linkin

StrangleHold said:


> Clarification of what? Did you read what I said above? Who the hell said they hand crafted entire CPU?



Eh don't mind me, been playing too much star wars kotor, with that droid that states things. Clarification, query, etc etc


----------



## 2048Megabytes

StrangleHold said:


> I know before the Zambezi release, they claimed Thuban would be discontinued the day Zambezi was released. Just selling out what is left in inventory. My guess is they still will because it would eat into Zambezi sales. Deneb/Callisto was suppost to go at the end of the year. My guess is it will too. The Zambezi is still a smaller die so its more profit for them.



So we get stuck with an inferior product until AMD fixes Zambezi once Thuban supplies run out.  Hopefully AMD comes out with a fix soon.  I do not want to buy and Zambezi processors until they fix it.  I would rather buy Thuban or the Deneb line of processors.


----------



## spynoodle

StrangleHold said:


> You seem to miss the point and concept totally. Then kinda drift off in left field lost wandering around.


Sigged.

I've still got my fingers crossed for Bulldozer. It's not over until we see a Windows 7 patch.


----------



## StrangleHold

spynoodle said:


> Sigged.
> 
> I've still got my fingers crossed for Bulldozer. It's not over until we see a Windows 7 patch.


 
Better bios support and a windows patch/new AMD processor driver, I would say they will do alittle better. I was pretty pissed when the fisrt benchmarks came out. They are not really all that bad, other then the wattage when overclocked. If they drop the price, I might snatch up a couple of FX 6100 and see what they will do. But at the price now a 1090 is a better deal.


----------



## linkin

Well, if AMD marketed these as beefed up quad cores and not octocores I think we'd have a lot less angry nerds on the internet 

Gotta blame AMD marketing for that one IMO


----------



## StrangleHold

linkin said:


> Well, if AMD marketed these as beefed up quad cores and not octocores I think we'd have a lot less angry nerds on the internet
> 
> Gotta blame AMD marketing for that one IMO


 
I dont think the nimrods at AMD could get it right if they tried. I said before they should have never even used the word Cores. They should have called them modules, like they are. A 4 module with 8 threads/ 3 module with 6 threads and 2 module with 4 threads.


----------



## linkin

StrangleHold said:


> I dont think the nimrods at AMD could get it right if they tried. I said before they should have never even used the word Cores. They should have called them modules, like they are. A 4 module with 8 threads/ 3 module with 6 threads and 2 module with 4 threads.



I agree. Burn the marketing guys!


----------



## jonnyp11

c'mon guys, just cuz they're inferior idiots doesn't mean we gotta go KKK on their arses


----------



## 2048Megabytes

StrangleHold said:


> I don't think the nimrods at AMD could get it right if they tried. I said before they should have never even used the word Cores. They should have called them modules, like they are. A 4 module with 8 threads/ 3 module with 6 threads and 2 module with 4 threads.



I can see a man in glasses looking at the roof and tearing his shirt in half screaming:

"Why AMD?!  Why?!"


----------



## Perkomate

jonnyp11 said:


> c'mon guys, just cuz they're inferior idiots doesn't mean we gotta go KKK on their arses



dude what


----------



## claptonman

So I'm pretty much giving up on bulldozer. What CPU do you guys recommend? I really only play games, never any photoshop or rendering applications. I was thinking the 955 or 965, but then I saw the 960T:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103995

95w, overclockable, (I know the 955 and 965 are too) potentially able to unlock two more cores.

Any opinions? And I have a 212+ for cooling once I decide.


----------



## Russ88765

jonnyp11 said:


> c'mon guys, just cuz they're inferior idiots doesn't mean we gotta go KKK on their arses



/trollpost


----------



## wolfeking

Perkomate said:


> dude what


He was referring to the "burn them" thing posted. The KKK is known (even though it was not as prominent as lynching) for burning negros alive.


----------



## StrangleHold

claptonman said:


> but then I saw the 960T:
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103995
> 
> 95w, overclockable, (I know the 955 and 965 are too) potentially able to unlock two more cores.
> 
> Any opinions? And I have a 212+ for cooling once I decide.


 
Yeap, a good deal for 125 bucks.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

I think the Phenom II 960T Zosma Processor is an excellent choice Claptonman.  Be sure you get a motherboard that supports DDR3 1600 without having to overclock the RAM.


----------



## claptonman

I'm dropping it in the system I have, so yes, its running 1600.


----------



## jonnyp11

wolfeking said:


> He was referring to the "burn them" thing posted. The KKK is known (even though it was not as prominent as lynching) for burning negros alive.



thanks, nobody else ever seen the guys dressed like ghosts with the pointy hoods around a burning cross, not in real life but i actually saw a photo of it hapenning at a photo gallery which only had photos from the past 2 or 3 years, o it still happens just not the killing part. (at least not nearly as often)


----------



## wolfeking

more often than you think. and that is where i plead the fifth.


----------



## jonnyp11

pleading the fifth implies you know more than you should about these racist gatherings. which just got my curiosity poked, never really think of nerdy/geeky black people, wonder how many there are on this sight? (not in a racist way, just wondering)


----------



## wolfeking

bonehead, i think is dark coloured. I am sure there are more.


----------



## spynoodle

Lol, Bulldozer thread has turned into discussion about the racial demographics of forum geeks. Not good news for AMD.


----------



## wolfeking

well, it is the only demographic that we can not tell (other than religion) from the profile. 

But it is pretty well established that BD needs work at the least.


----------



## jonnyp11

wolfeking said:


> bonehead, i think is dark coloured. I am sure there are more.



pretty sure the pic he posted on the pic thread he was a hefty white pale-ish dude, but know it was big white dude.


----------



## wolfeking

oh, well then i am unsure. He types out words, and has the average grammar of one.


----------



## jonnyp11

wolfeking said:


> oh, well then i am unsure. He types out words, and has the average grammar of one.



i'm not sure if you meant like whit or a black guy but either way, u be racist as sh*t in that post, more evidince from the comment about you pleading the fifth meaning you know more about those meatings than you should.


----------



## Troncoso

Guys come on. He probably pled the fifth because this kind of talk isnt really allowed and its OT anyway. You guys could definitely be offending someone


----------



## wolfeking

last OT post here for this anyway. 
I am not an idiot. The 5th amendment says you do not have to testify against yourself. I could not, and would not pull it unless it actually applied.   Johnny was close to right, and thats all I am saying. I have my right to be that way, just as you have the right to not be that way. Its called free will.


----------



## StrangleHold

Free will applies to the choice of being brilliant or stupid. Choose wisely.

Lets get back on track.


----------



## Troncoso

wolfeking said:


> last OT post here for this anyway.
> I am not an idiot. The 5th amendment says you do not have to testify against yourself. I could not, and would not pull it unless it actually applied.   Johnny was close to right, and thats all I am saying. I have my right to be that way, just as you have the right to not be that way. Its called free will.



I didn't call you an idiot.... when people use that phrase out of context of legal matters it normally means they would rather not talk....To me that was smart, cause the conversation didn't need to keep going


----------



## wolfeking

Troncoso said:


> I didn't call you an idiot....


I wasn't intending to say you did. I was more of trying to say that I was not one of the pope that uses that to say I don't wanna talk. I only use it in its proper legal context.


----------



## CrazyMike

I don't mean to step on anyone's toes, but i am slight confused. 

I have been trying to follow along in this thread, as i am in the midst of building a new computer. Right now i am caught between getting the new FX8150 and the 2600k. As you can guess, this holds me back dramatically as items depend on my choice (motherboard and such). 

Now as i have been following along, i have been trying to grasp the opinions about the bulldozer. Hard as one topic goes off trail, then the next. Can anyone give me the short version of the cons of the FX8150? I understand that it is not a "true" eight core, as in the traditional sense of having 8 physical cores (this part doesn't bother me). As well as i am confused with the "windows 7 issue" > what is this? lol.

Maybe taking many steps back, but i'm just having a hard time following along lol. 

Thanks


----------



## jonnyp11

the cons of bulldozer, here's the pros, it beat the 2500k on i think 2 or 3 benchmarks and like 3 games, just about it, it sucks atm, there are a few patches in the working for the windows scheduler so it utalizes the cores properly and a bios update too, but it won't make up the gap completely from what they've been saying. really the 8150 loses to the 1100t in most cases, that's what's so sad.


----------



## linkin

I ordered my 8120 from pc case gear today.


----------



## wolfeking

can we expect some hard numbers when you get it?


----------



## jonnyp11

that's what i said a while ago, someone got a 8150 so i said get them and bigfella together and we compare the benches for ourselves so we have a concrete set of numbers, only problem is i can see bigfella cheating/lying to keep intel's precious title of best.


----------



## wolfeking

johnny, we can find concrete Intel #s all over the net. We don't need to worry about a fanboy providing them (this doesn't just include bigfella. There are a lot of Fanboys out there for intel)


----------



## CrazyMike

jonnyp11 said:


> the cons of bulldozer, here's the pros, it beat the 2500k on i think 2 or 3 benchmarks and like 3 games, just about it, it sucks atm, there are a few patches in the working for the windows scheduler so it utalizes the cores properly and a bios update too, but it won't make up the gap completely from what they've been saying. really the 8150 loses to the 1100t in most cases, that's what's so sad.



Maybe i should be more specific. 

Does the FX8150 compare with the 2600K in OC clock range? (as far as i know, they match in GHz. Both OC air cooled at around 5GHz no?)
For multi-tasking, does the FX8150 out perform the 2600k?
Benchmarks: I know the FX8150 has been lacking, but by how much? significant difference?
The Windows scheduler is the only problem? So if a person doesn't use that, should be no problem? (i never do). 

I just take a look at the price difference, if  the FX8150 is close to performing as good as the 2600K, I am willing to lose a little bit. But if there is a substantial difference in performance and overclocking, then go for the 2600K. 

Thanks for your help


----------



## BurningSkyline

CrazyMike said:


> Maybe i should be more specific.
> 
> Does the FX8150 compare with the 2600K in OC clock range? (as far as i know, they match in GHz. Both OC air cooled at around 5GHz no?)
> For multi-tasking, does the FX8150 out perform the 2600k?
> Benchmarks: I know the FX8150 has been lacking, but by how much? significant difference?
> The Windows scheduler is the only problem? So if a person doesn't use that, should be no problem? (i never do).
> 
> I just take a look at the price difference, if  the FX8150 is close to performing as good as the 2600K, I am willing to lose a little bit. But if there is a substantial difference in performance and overclocking, then go for the 2600K.
> 
> Thanks for your help



In Most circumstances the 2600k wins, But I remember seeing the 8150 come ahead of the 2600k in a few benches. But in most reviews the 8150 is slower than the 2500k. The windows scheduler isn't the only problem as far as I know, I heard the L1/L2 caches were slow as well.


----------



## jonnyp11

overall, you'd be better off with a 2500k than a 8150 or 8120, and the 2600k is better than the 2500k, so you think about that, at this point it's just sad how bad it is for something being made for 4 years, but it does show some hope for the 8170 coming q1 of 2012, since it will be running on the b3 stepping not b2 so they can address these problems.


----------



## BurningSkyline

jonnyp11 said:


> overall, you'd be better off with a 2500k than a 8150 or 8120...



Not exactly.


----------



## jonnyp11

did you see the same benches i saw where the 2500k only lost maybe 5 out of the 20 benches and all?


----------



## BurningSkyline

jonnyp11 said:


> did you see the same benches i saw where the 2500k only lost maybe 5 out of the 20 benches and all?



The number of benches isn't what is super important, its what it wins in. If you're going to be working in highly threaded software the 8120 is probably the way to go. At the moment, the 8150 is *VERY* overpriced for what you get, so there really isn't any point to buying it. If you are just going to game on your PC, Go for the 2500k.


----------



## jonnyp11

and i think in threaded apps the t won the majority of them.


----------



## BurningSkyline

jonnyp11 said:


> and i think in threaded apps the t won the majority of them.



No. They were about even.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150fx_8120fx_6100_and_fx_4170,2.html


----------



## jonnyp11

and how much less does the 1100t cost, or even the 1090t since you can just hit the multi up a little.


----------



## mx344

jonnyp11 said:


> and how much less does the 1100t cost, or even the 1090t since you can just hit the multi up a little.



Why is it that, alota time i go to a thread that your in, and I see you getting into an argument with someone


----------



## linkin

Cancelled my order... Gunna wait it out this time. Plus I need a better GPU instead, and 560Ti SLI is looking attractive.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

linkin said:


> Cancelled my order... Gonna wait it out this time. Plus I need a better graphic processing unit instead, and 560Ti SLI is looking attractive.



Smart move.  If you really wanted to buy another processor a six-core Thuban would be a better choice.  But I think you are better off just waiting as I think you have already come to the conclusion.  AMD will work the bugs out of this new technology.  It may take them a year or so to do it though.

Edit: I wonder if AMD will add a "B" label to Zambezi like they did with the Phenom I series years go when they fixed it?


----------



## linkin

The TLB bug heh.

You know the fix is still active in Phenom II CPU's even though they no longer have the bug. Disabling it brings a little performance increase, I'm sure it's good if you're benchmarking. It lowered my time in wprime by 0.1 seconds.


----------



## Perkomate

Apparently there's a new stepping coming.
Also, the FX-8120 and the 6100 just got listed on my usual computer site, at AU$259 and AU$215 respectively. It's a shame, because the 2500K is $229 and out-performs both of them.


----------



## linkin

Yeah. I might have to switch to Intel 

I just bought an Asus HD 6950 2GB DirectCU II so I'm good for a while


----------



## spynoodle

jonnyp11 said:


> that's what i said a while ago, someone got a 8150 so i said get them and bigfella together and we compare the benches for ourselves so we have a concrete set of numbers, only problem is i can see bigfella cheating/lying to keep intel's precious title of best.



No, just.... no. Yeah, he likes Intel, but he has his reasoning at this point. He wouldn't cheat.

Anyways, I think that we should all wait out any purchases until more news comes out on the patch. I still think that BD might have a chance.


----------



## jonnyp11

i was more kidding about bigfella but i also wouldn't put it past him the way he talks half the time.


----------



## paulcheung

CrazyMike said:


> Now as i have been following along, i have been trying to grasp the opinions about the bulldozer. Hard as one topic goes off trail, then the next. Can anyone give me the short version of the cons of the FX8150? I understand that it is not a "true" eight core, as in the traditional sense of having 8 physical cores (this part doesn't bother me). As well as i am confused with the "windows 7 issue" > what is this? lol.
> 
> Maybe taking many steps back, but i'm just having a hard time following along lol.
> 
> Thanks



If I understand what I have read so far, the FX8150 actually has 8 cores in 4 modules, the problem is that 2 cores are built in one module that shared a pipeline and FPU, also the caches, I think that made a bottle neck.

It seems AMD work backward, Intel try to tell the OS it has two core instead one core using hyperthread, and AMD tell the OS one core instead two core by share the pipeline. 
Please correct me if I am wrong. I wonder if I have the chance to make back my money on AMD shares in the next ten years???
Cheers.


----------



## Perkomate

jonnyp11 said:


> i was more kidding about bigfella but i also wouldn't put it past him the way he talks half the time.



maybe, just MAYBE he like Intel because they have better performance? But no, liking a company is being a fanboy apparently.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

I'm quite hopeful that it'll perform better once operating systems get optimised such that they know to schedule tasks optimally, but I in general tend to stay away from first-generation offerings, good or bad. Phenom II pricing at the moment is awesome, so given the current circumstances I wouldn't consider a BD anyway.

I'm a bit disappointed though, with all the die space they're using, even if they somehow managed to get ahead of Intel in terms of performance with the following releases, it would still be a Pyrrhic victory at best.


----------



## StrangleHold

hackapelite said:


> I'm a bit disappointed though, with all the die space they're using, even if they somehow managed to get ahead of Intel in terms of performance with the following releases, it would still be a Pyrrhic victory at best.


 
I dont really think the die/transistor size/amount is that big of a deal. In a module set up this is being sold as a 8 core. If they can get the IPC up 10/15% and the wattage down. Then get the scheduler worked out, which will be tricky. Not only how to throw threads around on the cores for the best performance. But that way makes a problem with the way turbo kicks in. If you have 4 threads, you get better performance by running one on each module, but doing that keeps the turbo from kicking in. Got theirself alittle dilemma. Pretty sure thats one reason the scheduler wasnt worked out before the release. For a desktop and you want the best performance out of these. Your going to have to disable turbo and overclock (one reason I think they are releasing all of them as unlocked)


----------



## jonnyp11

Perkomate said:


> maybe, just MAYBE he like Intel because they have better performance? But no, liking a company is being a fanboy apparently.



do you see how he talks about them, he is a fanboy and several others on here have said that too. there is a difference from liking it because of performance and liking it because of brand.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> I dont really think the die/transistor size/amount is that big of a deal. In a module set up this is being sold as a 8 core. If they can get the IPC up 10/15% and the wattage down.


Depends. For now, it doesn't really matter, but if AMD does manage get the performance to a competitive level, Intel can easily just drop prices given how much smaller the SB die is while AMD will struggle to turn profit. And getting the wattage down with that many transistors to power is going to be a nightmare for a good handful of engineers. 



> If you have 4 threads, you get better performance by running one on each module, but doing that keeps the turbo from kicking in.


That also depends. If they're completely independent, sure, but if they belong to the same application or for any other reason happen to share data, it's most likely a fair bit more effective to have both running on the same module given that the L2 is shared. If they can fix the front-end issues and cache latencies, running a two threads in the same module should have a negligible impact on performance (unless they're both FP heavy... another nasty predicament).


----------



## StrangleHold

hackapelite said:


> Depends. For now, it doesn't really matter, but if AMD does manage get the performance to a competitive level, Intel can easily just drop prices given how much smaller the SB die is while AMD will struggle to turn profit. And getting the wattage down with that many transistors to power is going to be a nightmare for a good handful of engineers.


 
Good point. Even if they get the performance up and lower the wattage. If Intel starts lower the prices it will make a big hit on AMD profits. 



hackapelite said:


> That also depends. If they're completely independent, sure, but if they belong to the same application or for any other reason happen to share data, it's most likely a fair bit more effective to have both running on the same module given that the L2 is shared. If they can fix the front-end issues and cache latencies, running a two threads in the same module should have a negligible impact on performance (unless they're both FP heavy... another nasty predicament).


 
True, if the module is running 2 threads that share data the impact wont be so bad. I would not want to be the one that has to figure out the scheduler.

Check this out.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865


----------



## 2048Megabytes

It is going to be mainly a BIOS fix that is going to try and work out the Zambezi processor problems in my opinion.  I wonder how many software engineers are working overtime now to try and get the fix out within a few months?


----------



## claptonman

So question about my new processor, my 960T. In coretemp, speccy, msconfig start up processor tab, and task manager, it shows it as having only 2 cores. But in device manager, it shows all 4 cores. Is this normal? And in BIOS, all 4 cores are enabled. Is this a problem?


----------



## 2048Megabytes

claptonman said:


> So question about my new processor, my 960T. In coretemp, speccy, msconfig start up processor tab, and task manager, it shows it as having only 2 cores. But in device manager, it shows all 4 cores. Is this normal? And in BIOS, all 4 cores are enabled. Is this a problem?



Before you try any of this advice backup all your data to a separate storage device.  In Device Manager I would try deleting the device driver for the processor and restarting the computer.  If your operating system is still not detecting all four cores I would re-install the operating system.


----------



## claptonman

2048Megabytes said:


> Before you try any of this advice backup all your data to a separate storage device.  In Device Manager I would try deleting the device driver for the processor and restarting the computer.  If your operating system is still not detecting all four cores I would re-install the operating system.



Well, windows does recognize all four cores in Device manager and BIOS, but no where else. I will try this, but I want to wait for other opinions to make sure.


----------



## jonnyp11

go to the task manager and under the processes tab right click on whatever program and make sure that the affinity is set on all 4 cores, otherwise the scheduler doesn't allow the program access to the unchecked cores.


----------



## StrangleHold

Does it show as a 4 core in Device Manager and Task Manager. Have you tried to unlock it as a 6 core yet?

Probably what you need to do is. Go into msconfig. Under the boot tab, click advanced options. Then where it says Number of Processors-uncheck it, click ok then reboot.


----------



## Troncoso

Why is this in the bulldozer thread???


----------



## claptonman

I didn't want to clutter the forum with another thread. I'll try that next time I'm on.


----------



## StrangleHold

The pisser about the whole thing is. AMD could have made a 4/6/8 core Deneb/Thuban at 32nm. Even made tweakes to it. It would have been faster at single and multi threaded. Plus a smaller die and cheaper to make. Put this piece of crap off till it worked right and everybody would have been better off.


----------



## linkin

http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865

Rather interesting. Probably going to pick one up once they drop in price.



> These results couldn't be much more definitive. *In every case but one, distributing the threads one per module, and thus avoiding sharing, produces roughly 10-20% higher performance than packing the threads together on two modules.* (And that one case, the FDom function in picCOLOR, shows little difference between the three affinity options.) At least for this handful of workloads, the benefits of avoiding resource sharing between two cores on a module are pretty tangible. Even though the packed config enables a higher Turbo Core frequency of 4.2GHz, the shared config is faster.


----------



## jonnyp11

YAY!!!!!!!! AMD is back in the game, still a little behind intel but i want to see these against the 25/2600k's and see how it will stack up now, but those numbers look promising


----------



## linkin

Funny thing is, not a word from AMD or Microsoft about it... not yet, anyway.


----------



## SuperDuperMe

So does this mean Bulldozer is in the game or should i still be looking at thurban

EDIT: for gaming btw


----------



## jonnyp11

for the price i'd still be looking at the 690t zosma, 4 cores at 3ghz black edition, very likely to be 6 cores or at least 5 too and all while running at 95w (well the extra cores will probably require 125w) and all for 125 bucks. although if the increase is enough they finally got the fx-4100 in stock on newegg and it's only 130, 5 more than the 960t


----------



## StrangleHold

linkin said:


> http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865
> 
> Rather interesting. Probably going to pick one up once they drop in price.


 
Post 305


----------



## SuperDuperMe

The 960t isnt available over here, atleast iv not found anywhere that stocks it


----------



## 2048Megabytes

Since the Phenom II 960T is not available, are these parts available where you live?

AMD Phenom II 955 (3.2 gigahertz) 95 Watt Quad-Core Processor - $104
http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=HDX955GM

Thermaltake A4022 92 millimeter Processor Cooler - $15
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835106135

GIGABYTE GA-970A-D3 Socket AM3+/AM3 ATX  Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128521


----------



## jonnyp11

he's in the uk, so he can either look at the 955/65 or a fx-4100. then a 212 and a mobo like that.


----------



## SuperDuperMe

i was going to go 1090t, msi 990fxa, 8gb g.skill ripjaw 1600mhz, and a cheap cooler.


----------



## jonnyp11

go for a gigabyte or asus before msi, they should have them for similar prices, if you can find one for 5 or less mor then grab it.


----------



## SuperDuperMe

they dont have any x16/x16 mobo's for the same price over here


----------



## jonnyp11

how much is the one you're looking at, and remember that x8 only looses less than 10% of performance so x16/x8 and x8/x8 are perfectly fine.


----------



## SuperDuperMe

£100 pretty much


----------



## jonnyp11

actually that seems to be a pretty good deal, go for it man, not too much in a loss of quality but a good gain in specs.


----------



## spynoodle

IMO, patience makes perfect right now. I don't know when a patch will be released, but I still think that Bulldozer has the ability to perform better than Thuban.


----------



## jonnyp11

Well it does in one or 2 spots, but even with the 10-20% then it might barely nudge it out or be equal, there will be no big victory until possibly early next year when they release the B3 stepping on the 8170 and any other cpus along with it.


----------



## BassAddict

jonnyp11 said:


> Well it does in one or 2 spots, but even with the 10-20% then it might barely nudge it out or be equal, there will be no big victory until possibly early next year when they release the B3 stepping on the 8170 and any other cpus along with it.



Do you even know what a "stepping" is?


----------



## jonnyp11

yes, and i meant that when they release the b3 stepping in the next group of the cpus they might be able to add enogh perforance with some tweaks so that it actually is definitively better.


----------



## CrazyMike

BassAddict said:


> Do you even know what a "stepping" is?



I actually don't. I tried to google it, but got some dance moves, pretty sure that's not it. So if you could give me a link or explain (in lame mans terms) what it is, I am curious :good:


----------



## jonnyp11

i was fairly sure before but googled before i replied, and i was correct. But when they originally make a cpu, with no tweaks or modifications just first try, the stepping is A-0, then they will make some small changes and get A-1, and continue on that line. Once they make a larger modification they will move to stepping B-0 or 1, and on like this. I guess you could say it is the like the version of the architecture, so currently we have bulldozer B-2, the next group of cpus out early next year including the 8170 would be on the bulldozer B-3 or C-0/1 stepping or something like that.


----------



## Aastii

CrazyMike said:


> I actually don't. I tried to google it, but got some dance moves, pretty sure that's not it. So if you could give me a link or explain (in lame mans terms) what it is, I am curious :good:



The stepping is the version of the CPU.

The original is A0.

Minor changes will increment the number by 1, so a small change would make it A1, A2, A3 etc.

Major changes to the architecture, whilst still being on the same overall architecture, will increment the letter by one, so A1, B1, C1 etc


----------



## CrazyMike

Thanks guys


----------



## Perkomate

To be honest, I fail to see how a new stepping could radically improve performance, except if there's a B0 stepping released. 
I think, in my own opinion, that Bulldozer is a dud. They should move on and get cracking with Piledriver, or whatever it is.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

Perkomate said:


> To be honest, I fail to see how a new stepping could radically improve performance, except if there's a B0 stepping released. I think, in my own opinion, that Bulldozer is a dud. They should move on and get cracking with Piledriver, or whatever it is.



If AMD's new processor core technology just ends up being worst than Thuban I hope they do not end up doing what Intel did with the Netburst technology.  Intel hung on to the Netburst technology for far too long.  If it doesn't work better, cut it loose AMD.


----------



## BurningSkyline

2048Megabytes said:


> If AMD's new processor core technology just ends up being worst than Thuban I hope they do not end up doing what Intel did with the Netburst technology.  Intel hung on to the Netburst technology for far too long.  If it doesn't work better, cut it loose AMD.



Right now with their roadmap, it sounds like they are. I sure hope not. 

If they could give us 8 true cores with the similar performance to the new intel chips that would be great. 

I'm just going to try to stay optimistic at this point.


----------



## Aastii

I don't see a single reason why performance won't increase when Microsoft get their act together and make Windows understand how to use the processor's technology, considering it is proven Windows can't work out when and how to use each module effectively. Once they have fixed it, I want to see bulldozer's true performance


----------



## jonnyp11

I mentioned this before somewhere else, but I want to see a bench with the affinity set to use the first 2 modules. Then re-run the bench with the affinity set to use every other "cpu." Wouldn't this mean that it would use 1 thread per module, which is what they are supposed to do to get better performance? From my understanding that would at least boost performance, and possibly offer a glimpse to what the patches will give us.


----------



## Perkomate

BurningSkyline said:


> Right now with their roadmap, it sounds like they are. I sure hope not.
> 
> If they could give us 8 true cores with the similar performance to the new intel chips that would be great.
> 
> I'm just going to try to stay optimistic at this point.



Hell, if they even got _close_ to Intel's performance per core, then they could just survive by sticking more cores on a die. 
That's how they've done it so far, isn't it?


----------



## SuperDuperMe

Do we even have a slight inclination as to when a patch will be out?

I like the idea of an 8 core, but i like performance much more , I want bulldozer but i think im going to end up getting thuban :/ So confused!

I just dont know wether to risk it with bulldozer or stay safe with old tech


----------



## BassAddict

mikeb2817 said:


> Do we even have a slight inclination as to when a patch will be out?
> 
> I like the idea of an 8 core, but i like performance much more , I want bulldozer but i think im going to end up getting thuban :/ So confused!
> 
> I just dont know wether to risk it with bulldozer or stay safe with old tech



There is absolutely nothing wrong with Bulldozer.. It has the potential to outperform the 2600K. Microsoft just needs to get the fix out there. 

Why would you go with old tech? Doesn't make any sense to me. This is just a small bump in the road that will be fixed soon.


----------



## StrangleHold

BassAddict said:


> There is absolutely nothing wrong with Bulldozer.. It has the potential to outperform the 2600K. Microsoft just needs to get the fix out there.
> 
> Why would you go with old tech? Doesn't make any sense to me. This is just a small bump in the road that will be fixed soon.


 
You have to be joking. The L1 is smaller and slower. The L2 is slower. Since the L1 is smaller it relies more on the L2 which is slower. The core itself is slower in IPC then the Phenom II.

The Patch does nothing to correct the above problem. Even if the patch corrects the problem with scheduling. It will still be slower then the Phenom II with 1 to 6 threads depending if your comparing it to the Phenom II X4 or X6. This thing is a dud until the L1 and L2 is fixed and the IPC is corrected.


----------



## jonnyp11

StrangleHold said:


> You have to be joking. The L1 is smaller and slower. The L2 is slower. Since the L1 is smaller it relies more on the L2 which is slower. The core itself is slower in IPC then the Phenom II.
> 
> The Patch does nothing to correct the above problem. Even if the patch corrects the problem with scheduling. It will still be slower then the Phenom II with 1 to 6 threads depending if your comparing it to the Phenom II X4 or X6. This thing is a dud until the L1 and L2 is fixed and the IPC is corrected.



what are the chances of those being fixed with the 8170's release since i think it may have been you or one of the other guys that said that the 8170 and the other cpus coming out Q1 '12 were supposed to be on their next stepping.


----------



## StrangleHold

Dont really see a stepping correcting the L1 or L2 problem. Unless they jump up to a C0/1/2 stepping. But I see Piledriver coming out before then.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

StrangleHold said:


> Dont really see a stepping correcting the L1 or L2 problem. Unless they jump up to a C0/1/2 stepping. But I see Piledriver coming out before then.



So Zambezi is a failure when compared to Thuban, Deneb and Rana core processors.  They did worst on Zambezi series when compared to the Phenom I generation it looks like.  

Hopefully AMD will do better on the next series of processors.


----------



## spynoodle

StrangleHold said:


> You have to be joking. The L1 is smaller and slower. The L2 is slower. Since the L1 is smaller it relies more on the L2 which is slower. The core itself is slower in IPC then the Phenom II.
> 
> The Patch does nothing to correct the above problem. Even if the patch corrects the problem with scheduling. It will still be slower then the Phenom II with 1 to 6 threads depending if your comparing it to the Phenom II X4 or X6. This thing is a dud until the L1 and L2 is fixed and the IPC is corrected.



But if each module runs only 1 thread in a 1-4 threaded program, then it would at least be faster than the Phenom II, wouldn't it? Yes, Bulldozer's not that good, but it's not _that_ bad either.


----------



## jonnyp11

not sure what you mean, even on an 8 threaded program the 8150 looses to the 2500k and 2600k a good number of times, sometimes the 1100t i think too. but if you meant what i said before as in making a quad threaded app run on all 4 modules with one thread per module instead of running the 4 threads on 2 modules, then idk, i mentioned this before but nobody commented.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

spynoodle said:


> But if each module runs only 1 thread in a 1-4 threaded program, then it would at least be faster than the Phenom II, wouldn't it? Yes, Bulldozer's not that good, but it's not _that_ bad either.



But why would you buy a Zambezi core when Thuban and Deneb cores processors are better?  Zambezi are more expensive or just the same cost so I would see no reason to buy a Socket AM3+ processor now.


----------



## xxmorpheus

This cpu almost certainly requires a fresh windows install. Games are crashing way too much on 1 gpu with temps in normal operating ranges. Even at stock cpu speed my pc is crashing. I think it needs fresh windows install and clean install of chipset drivers. Ill update this weekend


----------



## jonnyp11

hey can you do what i was saying, un a bench with affinity on the first 4 threads then on every other thread so it's one hread per module to see the increase/difference.


----------



## StrangleHold

2048Megabytes said:


> So Zambezi is a failure when compared to Thuban, Deneb and Rana core processors. They did worst on Zambezi series when compared to the Phenom I generation it looks like.
> 
> Hopefully AMD will do better on the next series of processors.


 


spynoodle said:


> But if each module runs only 1 thread in a 1-4 threaded program, then it would at least be faster than the Phenom II, wouldn't it? Yes, Bulldozer's not that good, but it's not _that_ bad either.


 
I think the problem is, they just didnt have enough money to upgrade the architecture beause it really was developed like 4 years ago. If it came out right after the Phenom I on 45nm, it would have been a killer, but big. They did a trade off between IPC and clock speed trying to over take Intel and didnt get enough of either. I say with newer steppings it will get better on IPC and wattage.

If I was AMD I would have kept my mouth shut, came out with a 32nm Phenom III, to cut teeth on 32nm. And released the Bulldozer under the Piledriver name with corrections on the original design.


----------



## spynoodle

2048Megabytes said:


> But why would you buy a Zambezi core when Thuban and Deneb cores processors are better?  Zambezi are more expensive or just the same cost so I would see no reason to buy a Socket AM3+ processor now.



Well, Thuban is definitely faster per thread, but I would venture to bet that an entire module is faster than a Thuban core. Therefore, in a quad-threaded app, Zambezi would win.


----------



## StrangleHold

spynoodle said:


> Well, Thuban is definitely faster per thread, but I would venture to bet that an entire module is faster than a Thuban core. Therefore, in a quad-threaded app, Zambezi would win.


 
Dont really agree. The Thuban core is just flat out faster on IPC then bulldozer even on a single thread. Anything with 6 or less threads the Thuban will win. It has to beat Thuban using clock speed. The big mistake they made with Zambezi was not to let a single thread run on both sets of pipelines on a module. Zambezi is a four year old architecture and shows. If this came out three years ago it would be a win. If I was AMD, I would not put much more effort in Zambezi, maybe put out a B3 stepping to save some face. But dump all the money in Piledriver and release better IPC and wattage processor and let 4 or less threads run on both sets of pipelines on the modules.


----------



## Okedokey

BassAddict said:


> It has the potential to outperform the 2600K. Microsoft just needs to get the fix out there.



From what i have read, the MS issues equates to about 4% improvement.  Hardly a 2600K performance.


----------



## linkin

Too late now IMO. The damage is already done. These sort of fixes need to be done before release and not after.


----------



## Okedokey

^ this.

The sad thing is that if AMD was able to deliver on its promises we would all have some bloody good talking point 

As it stands however, this is a real game changer.  A small(ish) company like AMD/ATi cannot afford to have a failed architecture.  It costs too much, and with Ivy Bridge just around the corner, I am seriously doubting the impact PD will have too.  

Great chip if you run a server, however this was not the intended consumer so it was a major fail.


----------



## jonnyp11

well they still did sell a good number of them, the first day newegg sold out of i know the 8150, idk bout the 20 or 6100


----------



## Perkomate

bigfellla said:


> ^ this.
> 
> The sad thing is that if AMD was able to deliver on its promises we would all have some bloody good talking point
> 
> As it stands however, this is a real game changer.  A small(ish) company like AMD/ATi cannot afford to have a failed architecture.  It costs too much, and with Ivy Bridge just around the corner, I am seriously doubting the impact PD will have too.
> 
> Great chip if you run a server, however this was not the intended consumer so it was a major fail.



Have you heard the news? AMD has laid off a bunch of staff recently. My guess would be that they're a bit tight for money. If only they had performed to expectations...


----------



## 2048Megabytes

I hope Advanced Micro Devices can recover from this.  I would hate Intel to have a Monopoly on the market again.  Processors prices would probably go up around $50 to $100 more.


----------



## claptonman

Hopefully the people they laid off are the ones responsible for the poor performance.


----------



## Okedokey

This has the potential to take AMD out of the performance race.  My view is unless PD is a performance/dollar champ with a premium enthusiast part, they will stick to low powered mobile technologies.


----------



## Perkomate

bigfellla said:


> This has the potential to take AMD out of the performance race.  My view is unless PD is a performance/dollar champ with a premium enthusiast part, they will stick to low powered mobile technologies.



Their A-series of APUs are pretty good by all accounts. That should keep them going for a while, until they can get it together in the performance desktop segment.


----------



## Okedokey

Its not so much as what they currently have on the market, its the fact they're always playing catch up.  Serious times.


----------



## linkin

Yeah... I really hope they can just get back on track and sort out all these stupid performance/scheduling/cache thrashing/whatever issues... Overclocked power usage is not something that looks pretty either.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

I don't care if AMD is making technology that is not as good as Intel right now.  I just want AMD to get better.  If AMD produces a processor that can give 30 percent better performance than what a Phenom II 980 Processor can do now with less power consumption before 2013 I will be satisfied they are making some strides forward.


----------



## StrangleHold

2048Megabytes said:


> I don't care if AMD is making technology that is not as good as Intel right now. I just want AMD to get better. If AMD produces a processor that can give 30 percent better performance than what a Phenom II 980 Processor can do now with less power consumption before 2013 I will be satisfied they are making some strides forward.


 
They better do it before 2013. Or they will end up being the APU laptop king and in the Desktop low/mid end if you cant afford intel option. If they can get Piledriver performance up atleast 15% and let a single thread run on both sets of pipelines on a module, they might have a come back. Then instead of getting further behind, going ahead a doing a half mode and go down to 28nm instead of getting further behind then they are now trying for 22nm.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> let a single thread run on both sets of pipelines on a module


I doubt that will ever happen. The integer cores are just like the any other x86 cores, they just lack some dedicated hardware, and splitting a single thread across several cores is a nightmare and would require totally revamped, much bigger and probably consequently slower front-end for very little performance gain.


----------



## StrangleHold

hackapelite said:


> I doubt that will ever happen. The integer cores are just like the any other x86 cores, they just lack some dedicated hardware, and splitting a single thread across several cores is a nightmare and would require totally revamped, much bigger and probably consequently slower front-end for very little performance gain.


 
I never said several cores, which would be a nightmare. I said a single thread on a single whole module. The only nghtmare would be with the scheduler when you hit 5 or more threads.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> I never said several cores, which would be a nightmare. I said a single thread on a single whole module. The only nghtmare would be with the scheduler when you hit 5 or more threads.


Well you said a single thread on both pipelines of a module, I assumed you referred to the integer cores... what exactly did you mean?


----------



## StrangleHold

hackapelite said:


> Well you said a single thread on both pipelines of a module, I assumed you referred to the integer cores... what exactly did you mean?


 
You said a single thread over (several) cores. To me a few is 2 or 3 and several is 6 or 7. I said a single thread on a single module. Up to 4 threads on 4 modules.

You said (integer cores are just like the any other x86 cores, they just lack some dedicated hardware) To me is just the opposite, its two sets of pipelines that share 90% hardware. Even the 128bit FP Scheduler can be combined as a single 256bit. The Interger Scheduler and the L1 is the only separated part. There is no reason a single thread could not be run on both sets of pipelines on a module.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> You said a single thread over (several) cores. To me a few is 2 or 3 and several is 6 or 7. I said a single thread on a single module. Up to 4 threads on 4 modules.


I meant several as in "more than one".



> You said (integer cores are just like the any other x86 cores, they just lack some dedicated hardware) To me is just the opposite, its two sets of pipelines that share 90% hardware. Even the 128bit FP Scheduler can be combined as a single 256bit. The Interger Scheduler and the L1 is the only separated part.


I have no idea how that's different - two cores without certain dedicated hardware or two sets of pipelines with certain shared hardware sound more or less the same to me. 



> There is no reason a single thread could not be run on both sets of pipelines on a module.


There is a whole lot of reasons. Regardless of whether you talk about pipelines, integer cores, cores or separate physical CPUs altogether, they're still distinct execution units and the fundamental problems of running a single thread over several execution units remain the same. Data hazards (and at least to some extent the semantic atomicity of x86 instructions) make it pointless to just keep giving more and more pipelines to run a single thread on - AFAIK Bulldozer already has 4 for each integer core, I think that's about the practical limit for an x86 CPU, and I sincerely doubt it quadruples the performance of a hypothetical single-pipeline integer core (in theory, yes, but in practice I'm fairly certain only 2 and sometimes 3 get used for most common workloads). As you keep giving more pipelines for a single thread to run on, you just keep realising smaller and smaller performance gains and an exponentially more complex front-end. There's a reason why we stopped the single-core performance race years ago - it's just much more economical and practical to design a reasonably fast core and have several of of them in a single CPU. The exact same reason applies to any unit within a CPU that is capable of executing instructions, regardless of what you call it. For running a single thread on one module to be viable, the single-threaded performance would have to almost double - something that is, in practice, impossible.


----------



## StrangleHold

hackapelite said:


> There is a whole lot of reasons. Regardless of whether you talk about pipelines, integer cores, cores or separate physical CPUs altogether, they're still distinct execution units and the fundamental problems of running a single thread over several execution units remain the same. Data hazards (and at least to some extent the semantic atomicity of x86 instructions) make it pointless to just keep giving more and more pipelines to run a single thread on - AFAIK Bulldozer already has 4 for each integer core, I think that's about the practical limit for an x86 CPU, and I sincerely doubt it quadruples the performance of a hypothetical single-pipeline integer core (in theory, yes, but in practice I'm fairly certain only 2 and sometimes 3 get used for most common workloads). As you keep giving more pipelines for a single thread to run on, you just keep realising smaller and smaller performance gains and an exponentially more complex front-end. There's a reason why we stopped the single-core performance race years ago - it's just much more economical and practical to design a reasonably fast core and have several of of them in a single CPU. The exact same reason applies to any unit within a CPU that is capable of executing instructions, regardless of what you call it. For running a single thread on one module to be viable, the single-threaded performance would have to almost double - something that is, in practice, impossible.


 
Come on man, what are you trying to prove here? I never said running a thread on both sets of pipelines would give you double performance. That would be impossible. I dont need a history class on core architecture history. Trying to overstate what improvement it would get from what I said isnt getting either of us anywhere. It was just one thing that could have been done to help IPC. But I am at a loss of what your point is here. To me it sounds like your over exaggerating what I said to make some kind of unknown point. I'm sorry I got your panties in a wad!


Anything AMD could have done to improve the IPC would have helped was my point.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> Come on man, what are you trying to prove here? I never said running a thread on both sets of pipelines would give you double performance.


I never said nor implied you did. I merely said that for running a single thread on a module to be worth it, it would have to nearly double the performance. I mean running two threads on one module as it currently is gives you nearly double the performance, but if you were to run a single thread on one module would probably improve the performance of most workloads by only a fraction. Sure, anything AMD could do to boost the IPC at this point would help, I agree with that. But the fact is, if we were to go with the "single thread per module" idea, you'd essentially have to be willing to trade nearly half of the potential throughput for minimal single-threaded performance gains, and considering that massively multi-threaded applications are Bulldozer's biggest selling point that's not something they can afford to do right now. They'd be far better off just improving the slow front-end and fixing the latencies instead of some ad-hoc patch to make the architecture do something it wasn't designed for.



> But I am at a loss of what your point is here. To me it sounds like your over exaggerating what I said to make some kind of unknown point.


My point was the above and the fact that it's not anywhere near as easy as you make it sound like. The hypothetical ability to run a single thread on a module would require major changes in the architecture, not something one just does in a stepping or two. And it's simply not worth it.


----------



## StrangleHold

hackapelite said:


> I never said nor implied you did. I merely said that for running a single thread on a module to be worth it, it would have to nearly double the performance.


 
Double the performance to be worth it! Man your really stretching your point here. It would be worth it if you just got 10% or even less since the IPC sucks.




hackapelite said:


> I mean running two threads on one module as it currently is gives you nearly double the performance.


 
No it doesnt. AMD only claimed that a second thread on a module would get on average at tops 80% compared to 2 full cores. And it fails even on that. Most really got alot less then that. 



hackapelite said:


> but if you were to run a single thread on one module would probably improve the performance of most workloads by only a fraction.


 
Thats all I ever said it would.





hackapelite said:


> But the fact is, if we were to go with the "single thread per module" idea, you'd essentially have to be willing to trade nearly half of the potential throughput for minimal single-threaded performance gains, and considering that massively multi-threaded applications are Bulldozer's biggest selling point that's not something they can afford to do right now. They'd be far better off just improving the slow front-end and fixing the latencies instead of some ad-hoc patch to make the architecture do something it wasn't designed for.


 
If you look at what I said, that is exactly what I said. That they should not waste time and money on Zambezi and maybe come out with a B3 stepping to improve IPC and wattage and drop it. Put most of the money and changes on Piledriver. 



hackapelite said:


> My point was the above and the fact that it's not anywhere near as easy as you make it sound like. The hypothetical ability to run a single thread on a module would require major changes in the architecture, not something one just does in a stepping or two. And it's simply not worth it.


 
As I said above, I never said they should do that with Zambezi. Plus I said that by running a single thread on a whole module would be a scheduling nightmare when you started hitting above 4 threads because of having to shift threads around on the second set of pipelines. My whole point was, since single threaded performance was so bad that anything they could do would be a improvement. Plus I will say again, I never said this should be done with Zambezi.

Your twisting what I said. Your claiming that a module has better performance with 2 threads then it really does. Your underestimating the performance of running a single thread on whole module. Your saying I said it should be done with Zambezi, which I didnt. Claiming I said it sounded easy, where did I say that?

Below is exactly what I said. Seems like your fabricating/twsting what I said just to rant.

I would not put much more effort in Zambezi, maybe put out a B3 stepping to save some face. But dump all the money in Piledriver and release better IPC and wattage processor and let 4 or less threads run on both sets of pipelines on the modules. 

If they can get Piledriver performance up atleast 15% and let a single thread run on both sets of pipelines on a module


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> Double the performance to be worth it! Man your really stretching your point here. It would be worth it if you just got 10% or even less since the IPC sucks.


I think you're really missing my point, and I have no idea what makes you think I'm stretching it. If you have two threads running on a single two-core module, they will perform better than a single thread on a single module doing the same job. That's basically what I'm getting at. I do admit I might have overestimated the performance (as far as I was aware ~70-80% was a realistic figure for most workloads), but there's simply no way to get more performance per watt/silicon/clock out of a single module with this single-thread-on-both-pipelines trick you were talking about.



> No it doesnt. AMD only claimed that a second thread on a module would get on average at tops 80% compared to 2 full cores. And it fails even on that. Most really got alot less then that.


80% of what, a single integer core with a dedicated front-end and caches? If that's the case, it would be more economical to simply drop the other integer core to save die space and get rid of the 20% sharing penalty instead of some let's-make-a-single-thread-run-on-both-pipeline-sets patchwork. I know you said that you weren't talking about integer cores, but since you still haven't clarified as to what you do mean by the "two sets of pipelines" you keep bringing up, I really have no idea what else you could be referring to.



> Thats all I ever said it would.


Alright. I'm reading really, REALLY hard. I can't find it. Where did you say that?



> If you look at what I said, that is exactly what I said. That they should not waste time and money on Zambezi and maybe come out with a B3 stepping to improve IPC and wattage and drop it. Put most of the money and changes on Piledriver.


Again, I'm reading through the discussion between us really hard and I haven't found anything that says this, even in other words. Maybe I'm just really stressed or tired, call me dumb if it makes you feel better, but I just don't see where that was brought up.



> As I said above, I never said they should do that with Zambezi. Plus I said that by running a single thread on a whole module would be a scheduling nightmare when you started hitting above 4 threads because of having to shift threads around on the second set of pipelines. My whole point was, since single threaded performance was so bad that anything they could do would be a improvement. Plus I will say again, I never said this should be done with Zambezi.


I never said it should be done with Zambezi either. And as for the scheduling bit, I really don't know what you mean. The schedulers on the CPU aren't responsible for shifting threads around, that's a responsibility of the OS scheduler. And yes, even though anything will be an improvement, throwing more pipelines at the problem isn't definitely the wisest move. In the time it would take to get your hypothetical 1-thread-2-pipeline-sets concept working they might as well have worked out the latency and starved pipelines instead, which would make much more sense.



> Your twisting what I said. Your claiming that a module has better performance with 2 threads then it really does. Your underestimating the performance of running a single thread on whole module. Your saying I said it should be done with Zambezi, which I didnt. Claiming I said it sounded easy, where did I say that?


I never claimed they should do that with Zambezi. I never said that you said that. Where are you getting this from? And I don't see how I'm underestimating the performance the single-thread-on-module performance either. I was specifically questioning the validity of the idea of running one thread on both sets pipelines (as you refer to them). It's simply not sound. I never did argue against the concept of a single thread per module in general, and if that's how you understood me, my bad, I'm not always the best wielder of words if you will, but that was not my point.



> Seems like your fabricating/twsting what I said just to rant.


Hmm. Every time you pointed out that I claimed you said you never did, I've gone back and read really carefully, and I just have no clue where I've actually made any of those claims. Weird. And no, I'm not just ranting either. I do have better things to do with my time, believe me, when I visit forums it's usually for the purpose of intelligent, productive discussion, not senseless ranting about.



> I would not put much more effort in Zambezi, maybe put out a B3 stepping to save some face. But dump all the money in Piledriver and release better IPC and wattage processor and let 4 or less threads run on both sets of pipelines on the modules.


Neither would I, I absolutely do agree with that. But that's not what we were discussing.



> If they can get Piledriver performance up atleast 15% and let a single thread run on both sets of pipelines on a module


Just out of curiosity and to avoid confusion, what exactly do you mean by "both sets of pipelines"? Are you or are you not referring to integer cores? I've responded to your posts under the assumption that you are since, like I said before, I just have no idea what else you could be referring to and I haven't come across a single source using that terminology. If this is not the case, just tell me what you do mean - I'm aware that my replies may well no longer apply, there would be little point in arguing against something I said that we both know doesn't hold any more.

And what would letting "4 or less threads run on both sets of pipelines on the modules" actually entail? As far as the OS is aware, it's just running a single thread at a time an each integer core. It doesn't have any more granular control over thread scheduling or which pipelines the thread runs on. All pipelines of each integer core just run whatever thread assigned to that core.


----------



## StrangleHold

First of all. You said that I made it sound simple to run a single thread on both sets of pipelines on a module. You said that was something that you cant do with a simple stepping or two. If you were not talking about Zambezi, what is this mysterious unknown processor your talking about? You said you were not talking about Zambezi either? Piledriver hasnt been released yet to make new stepping. Zambezi and Bulldozer is the same processor. So you were talking about Zambezi! I wasnt! 

Then you said that a module should get double the performance or it would not be worth it. Then you said that 70-80% was a more realistic figure. Then you ask 80% of what. AMD claimed that just using around 12% more die space vs. two full cores using a module that it would get around 80% performance of two threads running on a full 2 cores. What do you not get about that?

The point is here, I made two simple statements about what AMD should do with Piledriver, not Zambezi/Bulldozer. I never said that running one thread on a whole module would get a massive performance gain. Since the IPC were so bad they could use anything that could get. You started going on about they could not do it with a stepping or two, which means Zambezi/Bulldozer because its the only processor out to add a stepping too. Then you clain your not talking about Zambezi/Bulldozer.

Then you act like you dont know what I am talking about when I say both set of pipelines on a module because I am not saying integer cores on a module. Which it can be argumentative if you can call them integer cores or not. Which is why I say both sets of pipelines. 

Your just all over the place and I am not going to disscuss this anymore. Its getting in the realm of. Not as simple as a stepping, but your not talking about Zambezi, What processor are you talking about? What do you mean by both sets of pipelines on a module instead of saying integer cores (Above statement). Double performance, but now 80% is more was a realistic figure. Then claiming that a single thread on both would be only a minimum benefit, which I never said that it would be anymore then that. Then seem confused because I said scheduler instead of OS scheduler. I am done with this!


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> First of all. You said that I made it sound simple to run a single thread on both sets of pipelines on a module. You said that was something that you cant do with a simple stepping or two. If you were not talking about Zambezi, what is this mysterious unknown processor your talking about? You said you were not talking about Zambezi either? Piledriver hasnt been released yet to make new stepping. Zambezi and Bulldozer is the same processor. So you were talking about Zambezi! I wasnt!


I wasn't talking about Zambezi. I wasn't talking about any processor in particular. By "can't be done in a stepping or two" I simply illustrated that it's not a quick fix, I didn't imply that you said that they should do it for the next stepping. It's like saying it can't be done in a day or two (and then you jumped at me saying that "I never claimed it could be done in exactly two days", which was NOT my point). And since the idea you presented is just not sound AND would require major changes which require major resources too, I merely suggested that they'd be better off improving other things instead of some weird one-thread-two-pipeline-sets fix.



> Then you said that a module should get double the performance or it would not be worth it. Then you said that 70-80% was a more realistic figure.


"Nearly double" to be specific. I don't think think it's inappropriate to refer to 70-80% as a realistic figure for most workloads as "nearly double". I didn't mean nearly as in "within several percent". Alright, the choice of word could've been bad, but I simply didn't think of a better word for something that's ~3/4 of something just then. The exact percentage isn't relevant as far as the validity of my point goes (unless it's actually consistently lower than 60%, in which case I'm happy to admit that I was wrong on that account - I simply wouldn't have been aware).



> Then you ask 80% of what. AMD claimed that just using around 12% more die space vs. two full cores using a module that it would get around 80% performance of two threads running on a full 2 cores. What do you not get about that?


I do get that. The thing is, though, like I said, your proposed fix is pointless. I'm fairly sure you said that a 10% performance increase would be realistic for this one-thread-two-pipelines fix, which I agree with. But then you'd be using all that extra die space the other core is taking up to run and thread, and the "extra die space" is more than 10%. And it would require a vastly reworked front-end, which would take even more die space and resources. In the end, you'd be making performance increase that can't even be noticed under most circumstances, but even worse performance per silicon, when all that time could've been spent coming up with a better fix. I mean, if you could get ~20% more performance out of an integer core that does not share any components, would it not make more sense to simply drop the other integer core altogether to improve the IPC and make the chip smaller rather than try to force one thread run on both and get a ~10% performance increase?



> Then you act like you dont know what I am talking about when I say both set of pipelines on a module because I am not saying integer cores on a module. Which it can be argumentative if you can call them integer cores or not. Which is why I say both sets of pipelines.


No I don't. I simply wasn't sure and asked for clarification. I already made it clear that I posted under the assumption that you were indeed referring to the integer cores.



> Then seem confused because I said scheduler instead of OS scheduler.


To be fair, you did say "I said that by running a single thread on a whole module would be a scheduling nightmare when you started hitting above 4 threads because of having to shift threads around on the second set of pipelines" in those exact words. It simply doesn't make any sense in context of OS schedulers. If one module appears as a single hardware thread to the OS (which I assume was the idea behind one thread per module), the OS scheduler simply doesn't play any part in which particular pipeline a thread runs on. I have no idea why you think there's a need to "shift threads around the second set of pipelines". And having more than 4 threads has nothing to do with BD scheduling issues. Even then I don't see how this is relevant. My point, in essence, is that trying to make a single thread run on both pipelines is not sound. That's what I originally said. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about Zambezi or Piledriver (or any realistic x86 CPU), trying to make more than one hardware thread run a single software thread is simply not viable.


----------



## StrangleHold

Ok, for the first part.
I take your word for it. But to me saying you cant fix it in a few steppings or in a quick fix would apply for a existing product, not one that doesnt exist yet.

For the third part.
Say we are going with the 10%, we both know thats a guess, it could vary from nothing to more then that. I dont think it would take as much hardware change as you say. Under that considering most of the extra die space was used to start with so it could run 8 threads, then being able to run a single thread on both sets on a module, would be just a benefit.

Fifth part.
There is all kinds of problems with the way it should run threads. Two threads that share alot of data could share a module and not take much of a performance hit at all. If they dont its better to run them on different modules. The OS even has a problem with that, it just looks like a 8 core. It doesnt know what a module is and doesnt even think about what core to run it. Under this, you could run the same benchmark twice and get different performance. Then this problem gets larger if your running more then 4 threads. Add to that the concept if a module was already running a single thread on both sets of pipelines on a module. Thats the nightmare I was talking about.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

I hope AMD drops backwards compatibility on their next Socket and goes with a processor that uses at least 1050 pins.  They can do it at least once.  They haven't done in the AM Sockets since Socket 939.

Hopefully some better processors await Socket AM3+ in the near future before AMD moves on.


----------



## linkin

AMD should bring something like Llano but with Phenom II and six cores with graphics chip to AM3+

Instant success while they fix the suckiness that is Bulldozer.


----------



## StrangleHold

Llano already uses the Ahlon II core at 32nm. Its the same as Phenom II without L3. I doubt they will release a 6 core. The first quarter of the year they are suppost to release the Llano/Trinity with the Piledriver core.


----------



## jonnyp11

StrangleHold said:


> Llano already uses the Ahlon II core at 32nm. Its the same as Phenom II without L3. I doubt they will release a 6 core. The first quarter of the year they are suppost to release the Llano/Trinity with the Piledriver core.



Really??? Sorry if i'm correcting you  (although i do think Trinity is supposed to be on piledriver)







EDIT: Although it is an older article it should be right

"Trinity will be AMD’s first Bulldozer based APU, combining some variation on Bulldozer with some as-yet-unseen AMD GPU architecture. Trinity has already been in AMD’s labs for a few weeks now and will launch in 2012 as the follow-up to Llano."


----------



## StrangleHold

Bulldozer is the name of the architecture. Zambezi is Bulldozer. The new Bulldozer Next/enhanced architecture in desktop will be called Piledriver and the new desktop APU Trinity will use the Piledriver core with out L3 cache. Both are the Next/Enhanced Bulldozer.

Bulldozer and Next/Enhanced Bulldozer is the name of the architecture. Zambezi and Piledriver is the name of the core. Just like Deneb is the name of the core but Phenom II is the name of the processor.

The APU will feature up to four x86 cores powered by enhanced Bulldozer architecture, with a Piledriver core
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...driver_x86_Cores_Radeon_HD_7000_Graphics.html


----------



## jonnyp11

so both zambezi and piledriver are both bulldozers like deneb and thuban are both phenom ii's? i knew piledriver was the next version of zambezi but i thought it would be in another line of cpus, like phenom would be zambezi and piledriver would be phenom ii, which considering that wasn't the phenom launch a failure but phenom ii's were pretty good, hopefully that will happen here.


----------



## StrangleHold

jonnyp11 said:


> so both zambezi and piledriver are both bulldozers like deneb and thuban are both phenom ii's? i knew piledriver was the next version of zambezi but i thought it would be in another line of cpus, like phenom would be zambezi and piledriver would be phenom ii, which considering that wasn't the phenom launch a failure but phenom ii's were pretty good, hopefully that will happen here.


 
Well there is alittle more to it then that.

Back to the start
AMD came out with the Barcelona architecture. The desktop was called Phenom and the quad core cores name was the Agena. The architecture is Barcelona, The desktop CPU name itself was Phenom and the core itself is called Agena.

Next came I guess what you could call the Barcelona Next/+/Enhanced, what ever you want to call it architecture. The Desktop CPU name itself is called Phenom II and the quad cores core name is Deneb, the X6 core cores name is Thuban.

Next came the Bulldozer architecture. The desktop CPU name itself is FX and the cores core name is Zambezi

Next will come the Bulldozer Next/+/Enhanced architecture, what ever they end up calling it. The Desktop CPU name was to be called Komodo, but I think they have changed it to Vishera, but who knows they could end up calling it the FX II. The cores core name will be Piledriver


----------



## jonnyp11

Love how complicated they make that part and how simple their chipset names have been at least since the 700's. But if i remember correctly didn't the original phenom launch with issues like these? looked it up quick and it had speed issues and a bug, and was later fixed, ironically the original phenoms seem to have been on the B2 stepping also, and B3 was much better. in this case, i'm hoping history is an indicator of what is in our future.


----------



## StrangleHold

It had a TLB erratum occur. In the L3 cache, two arbiters would try to overwrite the same data and the thing would lockup. It was really nowhere near being a big problem on a desktop CPU. It would mostly just happen on the server CPU side. But it was only reported in test and never happen in real time. A big stink came out about it and AMD released a bios update to fix it, even though it never happen. The fix if you enabled it would kill performance up to 20% and it wasnt really even needed. But they released the B3 stepping about 3 months later that fixed it and plus could get alittle more clock speed.


----------

