AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

[Biscuit]

Linky

thanks but it starred out the site name :/

[shaithis]

Hmm, wonder why hexus do that?

Its over-clock-3d.net (remove the hyphens)...

[Biscuit]

B3 stepping pretty much only improve the power usage though right?

[kalniel]

B3 stepping pretty much only improve the power usage though right?

The speed a particular processor can run at isn't fixed, it's more like a graph of frequency vs voltage required. If you lower the whole curve in terms of voltage required, then you can increase frequencies within the same voltage window (or offer more efficient chips at the same speed - note how the 8120 is listed at both 125 and 95W).

[shaithis]

[img]http://www.nothingspecial.net/images/****/chris-bdb3.jpg[/img]

FFS.......replace xxx with oc-3d (remove the hyphen).......this is getting annoying......nice to see hexus slowing the flow of information by blocking other sites.....ridiculous.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

AFAIK,the original Phenom II 920 and 940 had issues too as the DDR3 memory controller was not functional. When the AM3 Phenom II processors were released,the B2 steppings tended to be less efficient than the B3 versions too.

[scaryjim]

*sigh* getting seriously confused about the FPU capabilities of bulldozer now: Anand says it's no greater than a quad core PII, whilst Charlie reckons it should be equivalent to an 8 core as the FPU is twice as wide and can handle 2 instructions per clock. The benchies so far favour the former explanation, but all my reading up on the architecture suggests the latter should be correct.

Whatever the issue, AMD need to sort it sharpish. Having great performance in a couple of very specific areas really isn't good enough - perhaps this first round of bulldozer was designed to be server / workstation chips and the retail releases are just a toe in the water to see how the architecture does on the desktop, but if that is the case the answer is it does badly and needs fixing

Although AMD would no doubt argue that Llano is their mainstream desktop platform and most desktop users would be better off with £95 Llano than a SB i5/i7 or an FX-8xxx...

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

You saw the link shaithis posted??

It seems the B2 version has math issues which need fixing with a B3 stepping before Interlagos launches in November.

It makes me think whether desktop users are getting the runts of the litter ATM!!

[kalniel]

You saw the link shaithis posted??

It seems the B2 version has math issues which need fixing with a B3 stepping before Interlagos launches in November.

Why is one guy from Tom's the only person to say so, and why doesn't it even appear in any of Tom's own articles?

Even then, he says it only affects server stuff.

[Biscuit]

it all just sounds like shoe strings to me if I'm honest. If there was going to be any significant performance increase from a BIOS/Patch or the next stepping it would have made bigger news than a couple of randoms mentioning it in a forum.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Why is one guy from Tom's the only person to say so, and why doesn't it even appear in any of Tom's own articles?

Even then, he says it only affects server stuff.

Why don't you go and write to Tom's and ask them then?? The Telegraph could be another place of they don't answer.

BTW,I said Interlagos NOT Bulldozer which IS the server version!

Also,that means if we are getting B2 versions,we are getting the runts which is correct.

it all just sounds like shoe strings to me if I'm honest. If there was going to be any significant performance increase from a BIOS/Patch or the next stepping it would have made bigger news than a couple of randoms mentioning it in a forum.

Just like with the Intel B2 chipset issue which there was noise about before Intel actually reported it??? That was a few weeks after shipping too. A revised stepping is not a BIOS or patch. It means a physical change in the CPU.

[Biscuit]

Just like with the Intel B2 chipset issue which there was noise about before Intel actually reported it??? That was a few weeks after shipping too.

Fair point, i suppose similar things have happened a few times now that i think about it but i still struggle to believe anything other than AMD have just released a complete lemon.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Fair point, i suppose similar things have happened a few times now that i think about it but i still struggle to believe anything other than AMD have just released a complete lemon.

If what that chap said was true,they probably want to get the fixed versions out to companies like Cray pronto. It would also mean they have CPUs with bugs already made,and being rather cynical they might have thought lets offload them to the desktop market. Of course this could all be horse manure.

Anyway,it looks like AMD has responded to the poor reviews:

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

The first part is typical marketing bumpf but the second part is a tad more interesting,especially one sentence.

"Building for the Future

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.

If you are running lightly threaded apps most of the time, then there are plenty of other solutions out there.But if you’re like me and use your desktop for high resolution gaming and want to tackle time intensive tasks with newer multi-threaded applications, the AMD FX processor won’t let you down.

We are a company committed to our customers and we’re constantly listening and working to improve our products. Please let us know what questions you have and we’ll do our best to respond."

Interesting how they don't talk about the FX4100 or Phenom II X4 processors. Being rather cynical again I wonder if they mean Intel quad cores too!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

DH has reported that AMD is looking at TSMC to produce future Bulldozer CPUs:

http://www.techpowerup.com/153567/AM...facturing.html

OTH,I don't think TSMC does any SOI processes ATM and only bulk ones.

This rumour is only from one source and not the sort of rumours from two or three sources.

[Biscuit]

If what that chap said was true,they probably want to get the fixed versions out to companies like Cray pronto. It would also mean they have CPUs with bugs already made,and being rather cynical they might have thought lets offload them to the desktop market. Of course this could all be horse manure.

Even if it is true it doesnt really do any favours for their reputation!

Anyway,it looks like AMD has responded to the poor reviews:

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

The first part is typical marketing bumpf but the second part is a tad more interesting,especially one sentence.

"Building for the Future

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.

If you are running lightly threaded apps most of the time, then there are plenty of other solutions out there.But if you’re like me and use your desktop for high resolution gaming and want to tackle time intensive tasks with newer multi-threaded applications, the AMD FX processor won’t let you down.

We are a company committed to our customers and we’re constantly listening and working to improve our products. Please let us know what questions you have and we’ll do our best to respond."

Interesting how they don't talk about the FX4100 or Phenom II X4 processors. Being rather cynical again I wonder if they mean Intel quad cores too!

But a lot of games still aren't particularly well threaded and therefor they kinda do let you down unless you are GPU limited anyway.

Its daft, its like they are saying 'on these new instruction sets which barely anyone uses yet, we are the first to implement them and they work, so we are awesome'.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Even if it is true it doesnt really do any favours for their reputation!

If they had loads of CPUs with bugs and server customers which need perfectly functional CPUs(they make much more money per CPU here),they could have either not sold them and took a hit or clawed back something. I suspect AMD can't take a hit like that.

But a lot of games still aren't particularly well threaded and therefor they kinda do let you down unless you are GPU limited anyway.

Its daft, its like they are saying 'on these new instruction sets which barely anyone uses yet, we are the first to implement them and they work, so we are awesome'.

I think the whole point that they have implied that their CPU is weak in lightly thread applications which included most games is telling. Its even more telling that they don't mention their own quad cores too.