LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThe high clock speeds are a concern if it is to make them competitive . The P4 being designed to run at a high clock speed wasn't exactly a good thing now was it. Just how much head room have they left I wonder?
The high clock speeds are a concern if it is to make them competitive . The P4 being designed to run at a high clock speed wasn't exactly a good thing now was it. Just how much head room have they left I wonder?
As I've said, don't pay the clockspeed any attention - Prescott is one bad example of an incredibly long pipeline which needed to be clocked very high relative to other chips of the time in order to be competitive. That chip was also let down by a less than adequate branch predictor though.
Intel Atom also has a relatively long pipeline compared to Core2, but this is to make it more efficient.
Bulldozer has a vastly different architecture so is even less comparable.
Clockspeed is somewhat analgous to engine RPM - quoting engine speed tells you nothing about performance - you could have a 12000rpm redline motorcycle engine with ~100 bhp max power or a 2300rpm V12 Diesel engine producing 1200bhp.
1.)We don't know how far Bulldozer will overclock
2.)Most CPUs are not overclocked so stock performance is more important followed by overclocked performance
Thanks. dont know what Kal's problem was! a simple answer like that is what i was looking for lolOriginally Posted by Jasp
Seeing the same questions again and again makes the thread even harder to read and it becomes self-perpetuating. Just take the time to read the last few pages at least.
As for the questions, like the last time someone asked that, we still don't have a release date or any idea how fast they'll be - if we knew that we'd be making fortunes, either as the best microchip analysts in the world or as the first real crystal ball reader in history. When they come out/send samples for review we'll know
Clock speeds may not be the be and end all, as is obvious from the P4\Athlon XP days, but still they matter and give a good indication of relative performance in the family.
Of course I am hoping they run cool at those freqs, can OC to 5GHz easy, be pretty competitive clock for clock and cost a pittance.
Again, comparing chips based on clock speed is very poor practice, you should be looking at actual performance in areas of interest compared to price. So, would you rather have a CPU that runs at 1GHz, gains 100 points on X benchmark and runs at 140W over one that runs at 3GHz, also scores 100 points but uses 95W? You can't compare CPUs clock for clock when they use completely different architectures; pipeline lengths, instruction decoders, prefetchers, caches, and so on - clock speed is a purely arbitrary scale outside of an architecture. I really don't see how it matters if a hypothetical CPU can overclock to 5GHz when another CPU may perform better at 3.8GHz? Unless it's purely something about reaching that number?
I've not really been following the Bulldozer stuff, but I have to say, I really am amazed that they still aren't out yet! I built a Sandy rig at launch, despite being told by people to 'wait on Bulldozer! It'll be out in a month and if nothing else should drive down SB prices!'. 6 months on, nothing? Really?!?!
Despite the module compactness, it still looks like it's going to be a relative monster of a chip!
http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci/...yayinlandi.htm
There are no dimensions/measurements in that article as far as I can make out from google translate. Hopefully it wont be too large because that wouldn't bode well for prices!
TBH, Llano is bigger than Sandy Bridge and is not too expensive. The same goes with the Phenom II X6 which is huge!
Each Bulldozer module including the 2MB of L2 cache is 30.9MM2 AFAIK.
I estimate the die will be between 250MM2 to 280MM2. The Phenom II X4 is around 258MM2 and the Phenom II X6 around 346MM2.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 23-08-2011 at 02:18 PM.
Semiaccurate state the 8 Core (4 module) bulldozer is 315mm^2
I hope so much that it's as fast or faster per core than Sandy bridge in general.
I suspect it won't be, though. Too many leaks so far suggesting it isn't. Every time in the past AMD had a faster CPU in the making than Intel, there were lots of "leaks" and even outright demonstrations as to how much faster it was.
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
The very early engineering sample leaks (i.e. chips used for components compatibility testing, nowhere near full performance) would have you believe so, but the recent leaks put BD between 2600K and 990X for common benchmarks. And pricing is meant to be on the good side of the 2600K.
By that, I assume you mean the top end BD chips (e.g., FX 8170 and NOT the FX-4100). Otherwise that would be INSANE!!! :OThe very early engineering sample leaks (i.e. chips used for components compatibility testing, nowhere near full performance) would have you believe so, but the recent leaks put BD between 2600K and 990X for common benchmarks. And pricing is meant to be on the good side of the 2600K.
Apparently it was an 8 core/4 module chip, which one I'm not sure.
There are currently 13 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 13 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
