AMD - Piledriver chitchat

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

still drives me a bit nuts that the modues are classed as 2 cores and not threads (as you put).

Surely it will be no different WRT stacking as BD (which was 4 IIRC)

Technically speaking it is 16 integer cores,and 8 floating point units. The problem is that in FP heavy code it performs more like an 8 core CPU as a result.

[Terbinator]

The french review has gone. What was the jist of it?

[Biscuit]

Technically speaking it is 16 integer cores,and 8 floating point units. The problem is that in FP heavy code it performs more like an 8 core CPU as a result.

Thats kinda my point, its not a full CPU core. Its almost like the terminology needs to be revisited really as it is a bit misleading in this way for the untrained buyer.

The french review has gone. What was the jist of it?

seemed to be almost at i5 level, traded some blows but overall just lost out i think. I didnt see the power figures though.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Thats kinda my point, its not a full CPU core. Its almost like the terminology needs to be revisited really as it is a bit misleading in this way for the untrained buyer.

In the past,cores used to be mostly for integer operations with an FPU in addition to it,so AMD are correct in that sense. However,from a marketing perspective it makes more sense to call something like an FX8150 a quad core,as a lot of applications for PCs are FP heavy. In supercomputers,IIRC, a lot of FP heavy code is taken care of by the co-processor cards used,with the CPUs primarily for integer operations. However,it seems software is licensed by the number of cores used.

Hence,why AMD are better off using the FPU number as a core number. It makes more sense from a marketing perspective.

seemed to be almost at i5 level, traded some blows but overall just lost out i think. I didnt see the power figures though.

They are here:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1318860/v...#post_18425176

Load power consumption is on-par with a Phenom II X4 955BE with lower idle power consumption.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Pricing is up:

http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Compo...er+FX+-+AM3%2B

[Biscuit]

In the past,cores used to be mostly for integer operations with an FPU in addition to it,so AMD are correct in that sense. However,from a marketing perspective it makes more sense to call something like an FX8150 a quad core,as a lot of applications for PCs are FP heavy.

Hence,why AMD are better off using the FPU number as a core number. It makes more sense from a marketing perspective.

Dont you contradict yourself here?

The fact that there can be this much discussion on the matter tends to suggest im correct in thinking the terminology needs to be reconsidered.

[KeyboardDemon]

Dont you contradict yourself here?

The fact that there can be this much discussion on the matter tends to suggest im correct in thinking the terminology needs to be reconsidered.

I'm not sure I see the contradiction. In the first quote he said that the FX8150 should be considered a quad core, in the second he said you should count the FPUs as the core number, the FX8150 has 4 shared FPUs, hence the quad core, or am I missing something (again)?

[watercooled]

Both quotes say FPU count is the better number to use?

Edit: Beaten to it.

[Biscuit]

yep sorry, having a dopey moment x(

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Another review:

http://extrahardware.cnews.cz/recenz...ghz-amd-do-hry

[Terbinator]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/t...-fx4300-tested

Seems a lot more positive than Hexus' review.

[Biscuit]

That Czech review is extremely thorough! I like their charts too, when you hover over a bar it gives you relative percentages which can be quite useful.
All in all its a great improvement for AMD and definitely a step in the right direction. For some users this a really powerful chip, especially for the price!
Looks like steamroller could be the one to really threaten Intel as an all-rounder though, as long as TSMC and/or GF can get their manufacturing processes down in size and power use
Not enough for me though, I'm going away for a while but when I get back, it's pretty likely I'll be switching to Intel. Gaming performance and power use under load are the main things that matter to me and AMD are still just enough behind to make an upgrade to Intel more worthwhile.

Overclocking results seem disappointing so far, anyone read a review where they managed to get 5+ stable yet?

[Terbinator]

They need to knock out some more choice 95W parts like they did with the ever so short run of 8120s.

[shaithis]

The whole debate over "how many cores?" isn't strait-forward....and like many things in computing, it depends on what you are using it for.

Really liking the looks of these chips, Intel has a bit more competition across the entire range now.

[Biscuit]

The whole debate over "how many cores?" isn't strait-forward....and like many things in computing, it depends on what you are using it for.

Hence why i am saying terminology needs to be revisited, its quite confusing on AMD chips IMO, and although no expert, im more clued up than most of the people who will be buying them.

[DanceswithUnix]

In the past,cores used to be mostly for integer operations with an FPU in addition to it,so AMD are correct in that sense. However,from a marketing perspective it makes more sense to call something like an FX8150 a quad core,as a lot of applications for PCs are FP heavy. In supercomputers,IIRC, a lot of FP heavy code is taken care of by the co-processor cards used,with the CPUs primarily for integer operations. However,it seems software is licensed by the number of cores used.

Hence,why AMD are better off using the FPU number as a core number. It makes more sense from a marketing perspective.

Most workloads make only a small use of the FPU, so sharing it makes a lot of sense. With a typical binary each core will essentially see its own FPU as the out of order scheduler should be able to work around any mild contention. This only breaks down for the sorts of bulk floating point code that graphics cards should eat up. If there are decisions between FPU operations, then there is integer code and branches in the mix and the sharing should work.

My only issue with this is that AMD's drivers are still a long way off letting people run OpenCL GPU code. Perhaps they should have integrated an Nvidia GPU on their silicon, then you could benchmark eg Blender on their APU and it would make sense