AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

[Terbinator]

I was working on the premise the 'E' parts will be used in workstations or have an equivalent Xeon part, although your suggestion makes sense.

[watercooled]

Something else I've just thought of - Intel will be waist deep in it if the current trend of moving high-performance apps on to GPUs continues. Especially since they scrapped larrabee. Yes, Intel do make GPUs but they are nothing compared to the computing behemoths from the likes of Nvidia and AMD. Personally I can see CPUs and GPUs becoming more combined - as it stands GPUs are still designed for graphics but I can see them moving towards more of a computing nature, and hence moving into CPU territory. As I heard someone put it, CPUs might become like a Northbridge, just giving the 'GPU' instructions. I think AMD has the right idea with Fusion, but the GPU and CPU are still two very different things just on the same die. That's my take on it, but when are predictions accurate?

Edit: Found that link: http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...g-monster.aspx

[Terbinator]

Maybe in the desktop space, but they have Knightsbridge for 'true' HPC don't they?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The last Tick actually did not bring much improvement in performance per core. You basically had Gulftown which plonked on another two cores and their associated cache onto a quad core Bloomfield processor.OTH,it meant the die size was smaller although the TDP remained the same.

Then you had the Core i3 which had lower IPC when compared to a Core i5 but was a comparatively much smaller die and had lower power consumption.

Of course,Intel may do things very differently with Ivy Bridge.

Edit!!

Perhaps,Intel will try to beef up the IGP in Ivy Bridge??

[watercooled]

Knightsbridge? I don't recall the name.

Sorry about that, my previous post was a quick observation I got a bit carried away with. Just don't get me started on computing on ASICs and FPGAs! xD

Edit: Sorry, I'm a bit sluggish posting when I'm tired. I don't think Intel will have a choice but to dump a fair amount of resources into beefing up the on-board GPUs. AMD has a huge head-start on them in the GPU game and they're only getting their feet wet with the likes of Bobcat.

[Terbinator]

Then you had the Core i3 which had lower IPC when compared to a Core i5 but was a comparatively much smaller die and had lower power consumption.

The Lynnfield ones or the Clarckdale (?) dual-cores?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The Lynnfield ones or the Clarckdale (?) dual-cores?

I meant the quad core ones.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Like I said in post 68,perhaps Intel will increase the number of EU in their IGP massively. There was also some noise on Semi-Accurate about them putting on-die RAM for the IGP - however that would be a massive change for Tick.

[Terbinator]

My bad, its called Knights Ferry

[watercooled]

Oh yeah I remember that now, but that must have been years ago. I've not heard anything about it for ages so I thought they had just given up on it. This quote from Wikipedia sums up what I heard about the platform:

The chip was to be released in 2010 as the core of a consumer 3D graphics card, but these plans were cancelled due to delays and disappointing early performance figures.[1] Larrabee will now be released as a platform for research and development in computer graphics and HPC.

[1stRaven]

Does anyone know what motherboards are going to be available for this? Looking to see if I should wait for the bulldozer release or if the motherboard options wont be there for what I need, that I go for Intel now.

3 x Pci 16x (At least 8x\8x\4x)
1 x Pci slot
1 x Pci 1x (which if possible, shouldn't effect the bandwidth available on the pci 16x lanes)

Then it all comes down to design such that crossfire graphics cards have enough width for cooling and that the onboard sata ports are not blocked by long cards...

[Terbinator]

Does anyone know what motherboards are going to be available for this? Looking to see if I should wait for the bulldozer release or if the motherboard options wont be there for what I need, that I go for Intel now.

3 x Pci 16x (At least 8x\8x\4x)
1 x Pci slot
1 x Pci 1x (which if possible, shouldn't effect the bandwidth available on the pci 16x lanes)

Then it all comes down to design such that crossfire graphics cards have enough width for cooling and that the onboard sata ports are not blocked by long cards...

The top 990FX is x16/x16 - i know that.

[scaryjim]

Given that the 790FX and 890FX both supported x8/x8/x8/x8, I see no reason to assume that 990FX will support any less than that. The big question will be whether anyone does an AM3+ motherboard with a PCI slot: a lot of manufacturers are phasing them out now...

[Terbinator]

Do PCI-e > PCI bridge device not exist?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It looks a Sandy Bridge-EP server CPU engineering sample has appeared on Ebay:

http://www.techpowerup.com/145220/LG...r-on-Ebay.html

So basically Sandy Bridge E seems to be already dead in the water if Ivy Bridge is launching a few months afterwards. So basically the mainstream CPUs will have faster cores and the higher end server CPUs will have faster cores and more of them.

The Moose is smelling something fishy here and it ain't an Elk!!

[Terbinator]

It looks a Sandy Bridge-EP server CPU engineering sample has appeared on Ebay:

http://www.techpowerup.com/145220/LG...r-on-Ebay.html

So basically Sandy Bridge E seems to be already dead in the water if Ivy Bridge is launching a few months afterwards. So basically the mainstream CPUs will have faster cores and the higher end server CPUs will have faster cores and more of them.

The Moose is smelling something fishy here and it ain't an Elk!!

It looks like a classic stalling tactic which Nvidia used with Fermi to reduce sales of the HD5000 series. Hopefully this is not the case but if it is then it is pathetic.

I'm confused. Nvidia were trounced by ATI