AMD demos Bulldozer at Investors conference

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Scali

Banned
Dec 3, 2004
2,495
0
0
Why? He's pointing our that you are not a CPU designer.

Is he incorrect?

In a way he is yes. Chip design was part of my M.Sc. curriculum. While that is not the career I chose to pursue, I am not exactly 'uninformed' when it comes to designing CPUs.
 

Hard Ball

Senior member
Jul 3, 2005
594
0
0
That one is even more uncalled for.
On top of that it is, ironically enough, just your uninformed opinion of me.

Scali;

I think most of us around here respect you as a software engineer, and I have never contradicted you on any previous occasions, since I knew that even if we disagree on some finer technical point, each would still have its merits.

But this is not the case in this thread. The line of reasoning that you took from a simple set of cache sizes to claiming that you know which caches would be able to infer a bunch of other characteristics, including expected latency, well, is simply wrong. There is no other way to put it.

It may look somewhat reasonable to someone not practiced in the area, but it doesn't pass the smell test to anyone who has worked in the field for a period of time. That's what I was simply trying to point out.
 

Hard Ball

Senior member
Jul 3, 2005
594
0
0
So you apparently have some kind of mental model of what realistic designs would be possible today. And you are implying that Bulldozer has to fit in there somehow.
That is exactly what I am doing.

Yes, your assumption is possibly based on a statistical association of cache sizes and latencies of past designs. But that is in no way definitive unless you know the specifics of the uarchitecture. I can certainly suggest a number of design decisions that can buck that trend, easily (with some other tradeoffs, of course).

Whereas a fully associative 2MB cache with somewhere between 8,192 and 32,768 ways of lookup is simply impossible, and far outside the realm of possibility. Every comp E. would know this and agree with this.
 

Scali

Banned
Dec 3, 2004
2,495
0
0
I think most of us around here respect you as a software engineer

And in your world a software engineer couldn't possibly have any knowledge outside of his own little turf, right? Certainly not yours!

But this is not the case in this thread. The line of reasoning that you took from a simple set of cache sizes to claiming that you know which caches would be able to infer a bunch of other characteristics, including expected latency, well, is simply wrong. There is no other way to put it.

I think you need to cool it a little here.
I don't "claim to know", I speculate. I didn't make any actual claims, I just gave a rough ballpark estimate of what I am expecting to come from Bulldozer.

You are trying to make it sound like I gave some exact performance figures... which I clearly didn't. Then you are trying to make it sound like I am pushing these alleged performance figures as absolute facts... which I clearly didn't.

I was just speculating. I don't see anything wrong with that, even if it is on what you feel to be 'your turf'. I certainly don't feel like you have the right to be so condescending towards me.
 

Scali

Banned
Dec 3, 2004
2,495
0
0
Good, then Hardball was not incorrect.

Yes he is.
He claimed I was uninformed, which I'm not. I've probably studied a lot of the same subjects that he did. At the same level that he did (if not higher, depending on which university he attended).
 
Last edited:

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126
Yes he is.
He claimed I was uninformed, which I'm not.

Okay, here's my claim.

You are not a CPU designer in trade or practice. By not not having the years of experience that others that post here have in the field, and you when argue with and constantly belittle them, you make yourself look foolish.

I not only studied programming in school, I did it assembly language 35 years ago. I HAD to know cpu architectures. But you don't see me claiming that I know as much as you about GPU programming just because I have some background in it.

Frankly your behavior here is juvenile and churlish.
 
Last edited:

Scali

Banned
Dec 3, 2004
2,495
0
0
Okay, here's my claim.

You are not a CPU designer in trade or practice. By not not having the years of experience that others that post here have in the field, and you when argue with and constantly belittle them, you make yourself look foolish.

I see people in this thread doing belittling, but I'm not one of them.

It is strange though that I started out in this thread trying to have a technical conversation, and a number of people found it more interesting to discuss me, and mostly in a negative sense.
You should stop doing that. There's no need to make things personal. If my technical arguments aren't solid, you can just attack those. There is never any need to attack a person.

I not only studied programming in school, I did it assembly language 35 years ago. I HAD to know cpu architectures. But you don't see me claiming that I know as much as you about GPU programming just because I have some background in it.

I haven't claimed to know as much as anyone anywhere.
I am just saying that I'm not completely uninformed on the matter. I have spent time studying it at a respectable level.
 
Last edited:

Hard Ball

Senior member
Jul 3, 2005
594
0
0
And in your world a software engineer couldn't possibly have any knowledge outside of his own little turf, right? Certainly not yours!

Of course I do not think that!

Anyone with the willingness to put time into learning the intricacies of comp arch designs can have a very good understanding of many details of this area, and can make complex and reasonable inference about the available info.

I was only pointing out the line of reasoning that you used regarding caches in this thread, and nothing more. I will certainly entertain and respect your opinion in the future, in software design, or comp arch, if they have good merits.

I think you need to cool it a little here.
I don't "claim to know", I speculate. I didn't make any actual claims, I just gave a rough ballpark estimate of what I am expecting to come from Bulldozer.

You are trying to make it sound like I gave some exact performance figures... which I clearly didn't. Then you are trying to make it sound like I am pushing these alleged performance figures as absolute facts... which I clearly didn't.

I was just speculating. I don't see anything wrong with that, even if it is on what you feel to be 'your turf'. I certainly don't feel like you have the right to be so condescending towards me.

Nothing is really "my turf", it's simply empirical knowledge and logic.

I agree though, our tone got away from cordial pretty quickly, for that I do take responsibility, I shouldn't have come on so strong and caustic in this thread. We should cool it down a bit, nothing personal at all, really.
 

Scali

Banned
Dec 3, 2004
2,495
0
0
I was only pointing out the line of reasoning that you used regarding caches in this thread, and nothing more.

No, I think you did a lot more than that...

I agree though, our tone got away from cordial pretty quickly, for that I do take responsibility, I shouldn't have come on so strong and caustic in this thread. We should cool it down a bit, nothing personal at all, really.

Good, thanks.
And it's nice to know that someone finally takes responsibility.
Moderators always blame me when things get personal, but I never instigate such things, and I try to avoid such situations if possible.
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
26,106
15,232
136
I have been watching this thread, and try to stay out. I am glad all of you seem to "agree to disagree". and are moving on.

This is a you-done-good, and please remember what its like to settle, not belittle,

This is speaking as a moderator.
 

Dark_Archonis

Member
Sep 19, 2010
88
1
0
To everyone saying that we know "very little" with regard's to Bulldozer's cache setup, I have a question to ask you (one which I already know the answer to, but will ask anyways).

When Bulldozer comes out, and if it happens to be the case that Bulldozer's cache setup (and practical function and performance) is extremely similar to Barcelona in terms of associativity, look-ups, etc then what will you people respond with? What will you say? That you were wrong to defend Bulldozer? That you're disappointed AMD did not significantly change the cache systems?

Or will many of you remain silent on the subject?

Based on my experiences over the years on tech forums, I'm guessing many of you will simply remain silent.

Trying to figure out cache balance without knowing about the rest of the architecture is a pretty difficult task. I am guessing that when both products are in the market you'll be able to better asses the answer.

Is it really though? Cache balance is well ... cache balance. Unless AMD has a totally new cache structure or heirarchy that they have so far kept hidden with regards to Bulldozer, I don't see why this is a "pretty difficult" task.

Cache balance, or more specifically cache ratio is a very straightforward topic. Bulldozer's architecture as a whole is not being discussed specifically, but mainly its cache ratio.

If I'm not mistaken Deneb gained on average 5% more performance because of the larger L3. Though it still seems like AMD is behind Intel in terms of their caching/memory subsystem. A higher (3GHz) clocked NB/L3 alone would have added another ~5% extra performance to Deneb. I'm hoping after all the time spent designing BD, and from the lessons learned from K10/K10.5, that AMD can finally produce a CPU that can rival the cache speed/bandwidth/latency characteristics of Intel processors.

My guess is that the biggest surprise we will get with BD is how highly it will clock (+4GHz stock, ~5GHz Air OC).

My guess is that you and others will be wrong and Bulldozer will not match AMD's hype.

Brazos performance is already underwhelming compared to the AMD hype.

I would be shocked if Bulldozer debuts at 4Ghz stock clock speeds.

This era is very much no longer a one-size-fits-all market. Bobcat, Llano, Bulldozer all speak to this reality. We shouldn't really be looking towards bulldozer as some kind of uber cpu that was designed with aspirations to conquer all markets and put a chicken in every pot along the way.

That's assuming each AMD product is exemplary and fits a clearly-defined niche where there is a big-enough demand.

Bobcat from initial benchmarks already seems disappointing, especially given that it's a product debuting years after Atom. Llano will lose to Sandy Bridge in CPU performance, and Bulldozer is likely to lose to Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge in per-core performance.

With Bobcat and Llano specifically, AMD is gambling that consumers don't need (or want) more CPU performance, but they they need/want more GPU performance.

AMD's gamble could be a mistake, and their products may end up being answers to questions that nobody asked.

Do we really have to argue something about we know so little of? Different companies, more so different architectures use cache differently. For example, this arch would appear to give each core 2MB of L2 cache. Thats massive. 8x more than Intel's L2 per full core, and 4x more than module/core. That alone should tell us they are going about this problem differently. The only person that knows anything here is pretty much JF, who cant quite disclose much more info yet. So no need for all the name calling and ignorance.

That is a very daring post you've made there, full of assumptions.

So you're basically claiming that nobody here except JF knows anything, and you are implying that nobody else here is an insider for either company other than JF?

Furthermore, for those of us that are non-insiders, you are claiming that we know very little about the topic at hand, which is IMHO an insulting statement. Many non-insiders here have studied and/or have specialized in CPU architectures for years, if not decades. I think some of these members would also find your statements insulting.

Some of us have seen the Bulldozer slides, and the architecture details and architecture breakdown. Based on current and past CPU architectures, some members here can make accurate guesses on what Bulldozer's potential performance will be, even if they are non-insiders.

Since JF admits to working for AMD, there is a conflict of interest as he may post certain things that are more hype than fact, or more ambiguous than concrete.

Let me guess, did you also believe everything JF said or implied regarding Bobcat?

It's very likely that AMD will compete with SB by releasing higher clocked BD at reasonable prices. One handicap that SandyBridge will have is that every CPU will have an IGP with it, unnecessarily increasing die size (cost), when enthusiasts will use a discrete Graphics card anyways.

... Except that BD won't compete directly with the regular Sandy Bridge products. BD will compete with the enthusiast/server Sandy Bridge E products that will not have an IGP.

How about this instead:

- Bulldozer is not Barcelona
- Sandy Bridge is not NetBurst

Let's all agree on this and move forward. If you've been in in the indsutry long enough then you should know that compaines learn from the past. Both companies learn.

Sandy Bridge is not Nehalem either. Sandy Bridge has quite a few significant changes compared to Nehalem in-fact. Sandy Bridge even has a different L3 architecture with the "ring bus" setup.

Keeping all of this in mind however, Sandy Bridge's L2 and L3 caches are expected to perform and behave similarly to Nehalem in practice. Performance will likely be improved, but they will function in a similar manner to Nehalem.

Correlation does not always equal causation. Just because Bulldozer is a new architecture and a significant change from Barcelona does not mean the cache system will function in a significantly different manner.

99% of the details of BD architecture is never going to be released to the public.

Huh? Of course they will be, especially by the time Bulldozer launches. By Bulldozer's launch, we WILL publicly have a great amount of detail about Bulldozer's architecture.
 

Riek

Senior member
Dec 16, 2008
409
14
76
To everyone saying that we know "very little" with regard's to Bulldozer's cache setup, I have a question to ask you (one which I already know the answer to, but will ask anyways).

When Bulldozer comes out, and if it happens to be the case that Bulldozer's cache setup (and practical function and performance) is extremely similar to Barcelona in terms of associativity, look-ups, etc then what will you people respond with? What will you say? That you were wrong to defend Bulldozer? That you're disappointed AMD did not significantly change the cache systems?

Or will many of you remain silent on the subject?
Based on my experiences over the years on tech forums, I'm guessing many of you will simply remain silent.

So your reason to complain about bulldozer is because something has not been told yet and you assume it to be just like the previous design for no apparent reasons? So are you going to admit your mistake when bulldozer does have a different cache design or are you going to remain silent? Based on my previous experiences on tech forums, I'm guessing you will remain silent.

This is just the reverse from what you said and remarkable it can be applied perfectly. So aren't you a bit of a hypocriet?

My guess is that you and others will be wrong and Bulldozer will not match AMD's hype.

Brazos performance is already underwhelming compared to the AMD hype.

I would be shocked if Bulldozer debuts at 4Ghz stock clock speeds.
Ha yes, Brazos is so bad it actually is faster multithreaded than the fastest Atom available, much faster single threaded then the fastest atom available, better graphics than an additional chip atom requires to do anything graphical wise and has a lower idle power consumption than those parts... What a fail!!!

Maybe Bulldozer is over hyped, that is your opinion. For me is will depend where the hype will be one release of benchmarks. The current hype is little lower ipc/core but higher performance for multithreading apps. So nothing out of the ordinary in hype i believe.


Bobcat from initial benchmarks already seems disappointing, especially given that it's a product debuting years after Atom. Llano will lose to Sandy Bridge in CPU performance, and Bulldozer is likely to lose to Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge in per-core performance.

With Bobcat and Llano specifically, AMD is gambling that consumers don't need (or want) more CPU performance, but they they need/want more GPU performance.

AMD's gamble could be a mistake, and their products may end up being answers to questions that nobody asked.

So Atom is already years on the market thats true, yet it underperforms dramatically. Bobcat from initial benchmarks whipes the floor with Atom, only thing Atom offers is HT which makes it more or less competitive in heavily threaded programs. yet it does nothing on the responsive side...
llano nor SB is released yet so don't talk about slower, faster. What we do know is that SB ipc will be higher and llano gpu will be faster. What we don't know is the clockspeeds of the cpu's related to the powerconsumption.. which is again the needed thing to say something valid about them. llano can be a breakthrough for notebooks for AMD, in that case it would be a success.
Can't say anything useful about what people wants, that is the job of the marketing department. At least SB is also increasing oncore gpu performance, so i would expect people to want better gpu capabilities. Just not sure how much.

That is a very daring post you've made there, full of assumptions.

So you're basically claiming that nobody here except JF knows anything, and you are implying that nobody else here is an insider for either company other than JF?

Furthermore, for those of us that are non-insiders, you are claiming that we know very little about the topic at hand, which is IMHO an insulting statement. Many non-insiders here have studied and/or have specialized in CPU architectures for years, if not decades. I think some of these members would also find your statements insulting.

Some of us have seen the Bulldozer slides, and the architecture details and architecture breakdown. Based on current and past CPU architectures, some members here can make accurate guesses on what Bulldozer's potential performance will be, even if they are non-insiders.

Since JF admits to working for AMD, there is a conflict of interest as he may post certain things that are more hype than fact, or more ambiguous than concrete.

Let me guess, did you also believe everything JF said or implied regarding Bobcat?

... Except that BD won't compete directly with the regular Sandy Bridge products. BD will compete with the enthusiast/server Sandy Bridge E products that will not have an IGP.

Yes, many things about BD haven't been told yet... one important factor is the clockspeed... so how are you estimating its performance? yes you don't. Everything else is just "running around the cattle".

BD will compete with SB. we don't know which flavour will take on which flavour. But we do know that BD will be released between SB and Ivy, thus competing with SB. How BD will be positioned on the client side is something for which we don't have much information at hands. Again listing your own comments: "That is a very daring post you've made there, full of assumptions." You should listen to your own advice ones in a while.


Sandy Bridge is not Nehalem either. Sandy Bridge has quite a few significant changes compared to Nehalem in-fact. Sandy Bridge even has a different L3 architecture with the "ring bus" setup.

Keeping all of this in mind however, Sandy Bridge's L2 and L3 caches are expected to perform and behave similarly to Nehalem in practice. Performance will likely be improved, but they will function in a similar manner to Nehalem.

Correlation does not always equal causation. Just because Bulldozer is a new architecture and a significant change from Barcelona does not mean the cache system will function in a significantly different manner.

And just because it is a new architecture does not mean the cache system will function in the same manner. Or am i reading your post wrong? one person say's it might change and you say it might not change and neither knows what will happen. you are correct by pointing this out though, that a new architecture is not a garantee that some structures will be changed. But you also have to acknowledge that nehalem or SB cache hierarchy might not be best hierarchy for Bulldozer. So even if nothing changes, that might not be a bad thing depending on the structure behind it.

Huh? Of course they will be, especially by the time Bulldozer launches. By Bulldozer's launch, we WILL publicly have a great amount of detail about Bulldozer's architecture.

true by the launch we will know alot of the architecture and the above statement/comments/remarks.thoughts can be answered. Untill then most of those questions are still unknown and one should restrain himself from making comments as if he knew the the truth and the only thruth. (unless it is about something specific that has been disclosed and is written on black and white including the area for which it holds true).
 

JFAMD

Senior member
May 16, 2009
565
0
0
Since JF admits to working for AMD, there is a conflict of interest as he may post certain things that are more hype than fact, or more ambiguous than concrete.

Let me guess, did you also believe everything JF said or implied regarding Bobcat?

First, let me say that the conflict of interest is in posting data that is hype, not truth. If you look at my posts, there have been hundreds of questions about performance being asked, and I have refrained from answering. I am ONLY answering data that is cleared for public consumption, and when the product launches you can actually go back and compare my statements to what was launched to see how it all worked out.

There are actually 2 things that I have posted about bulldozer that are not 100% correct. Both of them have been judged down in order to be more conservative than the truth. After the launch you'll see what they were.

As for bobcat, I am not a client guy, as I have said several times. Not only do I not know much about the product, but I generally don't even respond to that unless it happens to be something that I know and I have already seen it in the press.

Finally, I believe I am the only one from AMD on here who has actually identified themselves as a company representative (someone else used to be but left the company). There is a big difference between working for the company and actually stating it.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,110
59
91
To everyone saying that we know "very little" with regard's to Bulldozer's cache setup, I have a question to ask you (one which I already know the answer to, but will ask anyways).

When Bulldozer comes out, and if it happens to be the case that Bulldozer's cache setup (and practical function and performance) is extremely similar to Barcelona in terms of associativity, look-ups, etc then what will you people respond with? What will you say? That you were wrong to defend Bulldozer? That you're disappointed AMD did not significantly change the cache systems?

Or will many of you remain silent on the subject?

Based on my experiences over the years on tech forums, I'm guessing many of you will simply remain silent.



Is it really though? Cache balance is well ... cache balance. Unless AMD has a totally new cache structure or heirarchy that they have so far kept hidden with regards to Bulldozer, I don't see why this is a "pretty difficult" task.

Cache balance, or more specifically cache ratio is a very straightforward topic. Bulldozer's architecture as a whole is not being discussed specifically, but mainly its cache ratio.



My guess is that you and others will be wrong and Bulldozer will not match AMD's hype.

Brazos performance is already underwhelming compared to the AMD hype.

I would be shocked if Bulldozer debuts at 4Ghz stock clock speeds.



That's assuming each AMD product is exemplary and fits a clearly-defined niche where there is a big-enough demand.

Bobcat from initial benchmarks already seems disappointing, especially given that it's a product debuting years after Atom. Llano will lose to Sandy Bridge in CPU performance, and Bulldozer is likely to lose to Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge in per-core performance.

With Bobcat and Llano specifically, AMD is gambling that consumers don't need (or want) more CPU performance, but they they need/want more GPU performance.

AMD's gamble could be a mistake, and their products may end up being answers to questions that nobody asked.



That is a very daring post you've made there, full of assumptions.

So you're basically claiming that nobody here except JF knows anything, and you are implying that nobody else here is an insider for either company other than JF?

Furthermore, for those of us that are non-insiders, you are claiming that we know very little about the topic at hand, which is IMHO an insulting statement. Many non-insiders here have studied and/or have specialized in CPU architectures for years, if not decades. I think some of these members would also find your statements insulting.

Some of us have seen the Bulldozer slides, and the architecture details and architecture breakdown. Based on current and past CPU architectures, some members here can make accurate guesses on what Bulldozer's potential performance will be, even if they are non-insiders.

Since JF admits to working for AMD, there is a conflict of interest as he may post certain things that are more hype than fact, or more ambiguous than concrete.

Let me guess, did you also believe everything JF said or implied regarding Bobcat?



... Except that BD won't compete directly with the regular Sandy Bridge products. BD will compete with the enthusiast/server Sandy Bridge E products that will not have an IGP.



Sandy Bridge is not Nehalem either. Sandy Bridge has quite a few significant changes compared to Nehalem in-fact. Sandy Bridge even has a different L3 architecture with the "ring bus" setup.

Keeping all of this in mind however, Sandy Bridge's L2 and L3 caches are expected to perform and behave similarly to Nehalem in practice. Performance will likely be improved, but they will function in a similar manner to Nehalem.

Correlation does not always equal causation. Just because Bulldozer is a new architecture and a significant change from Barcelona does not mean the cache system will function in a significantly different manner.



Huh? Of course they will be, especially by the time Bulldozer launches. By Bulldozer's launch, we WILL publicly have a great amount of detail about Bulldozer's architecture.

I say this with all due respect, no intent to offend, but your post absolutely communicates a message that you do not work in a professional capacity in any industry let alone in the semiconductor industry.

Is this correct?

I say this because you seemingly missed just about every point of every post you quoted as you attempted to contradict or disprove them piecemeal wise.

Take Phynaz's post for example...you obviously don't understand what all goes into developing a cpu's architecture and ISA if you don't get the truth behind Phynaz's statement that 99% of all that secret sauce (the details) will never be made public...you appear to be under the impression that the marketing details that are made public in the likes of Anandtech reviews and so on represent THE DETAILS of the architecture...this misperception on your part speaks volumes to which I am addressing.

In a technical sub-forum like this one there is a time to step up and interject your opinion and then there are times when it is best to sit back and absorb some of the info being presented to you.

It is my opinion that you are not absorbing the salient points of the information contained in this thread. Do with that what you will, discard it as misguided unsolicited advice or contemplate it as the constructive feedback it was intended to deliver.
 

Kuzi

Senior member
Sep 16, 2007
572
0
0
I say this with all due respect, no intent to offend, but your post absolutely communicates a message that you do not work in a professional capacity in any industry let alone in the semiconductor industry.

Is this correct?

I say this because you seemingly missed just about every point of every post you quoted as you attempted to contradict or disprove them piecemeal wise.

Take Phynaz's post for example...you obviously don't understand what all goes into developing a cpu's architecture and ISA if you don't get the truth behind Phynaz's statement that 99% of all that secret sauce (the details) will never be made public...you appear to be under the impression that the marketing details that are made public in the likes of Anandtech reviews and so on represent THE DETAILS of the architecture...this misperception on your part speaks volumes to which I am addressing.

In a technical sub-forum like this one there is a time to step up and interject your opinion and then there are times when it is best to sit back and absorb some of the info being presented to you.

It is my opinion that you are not absorbing the salient points of the information contained in this thread. Do with that what you will, discard it as misguided unsolicited advice or contemplate it as the constructive feedback it was intended to deliver.

Thanks for the post IDC. Honestly after reading his one-sided and slightly aggressive replies, I did not even feel like it would be worth it to reply to him, and your post sums up his thoughts and/or mistakes nicely.
 

Kuzi

Senior member
Sep 16, 2007
572
0
0
correct. Everything we know says s2011 will NOT have on-chip GPUs, but all s1155 chips WILL have on-die GPUs.

Yeah but there are a few points to keep in mind here:

1. LGA1155 = Desktop (IGP)
2. LGA2011 = Servers (no IGP?) (Q4-2011?)
3. Initially (Q1/Q2-2011), only LGA1155 CPU's will be available.
4. My post about the SB+IGP handicap only concerns the desktop market. I don't care for the server market :)

If anyone has any corrections to my post, please do so.
 

jvroig

Platinum Member
Nov 4, 2009
2,394
1
81
if you don't get the truth behind Phynaz's statement that 99% of all that secret sauce (the details) will never be made public...you appear to be under the impression that the marketing details that are made public in the likes of Anandtech reviews and so on represent THE DETAILS of the architecture
This is something that I have mentioned a few times already. For those who aren't microarchitecture people, they go into discussions armed only with knowledge of marketing slides / powerpoint presentations, and feel justified brawling in discussions that have become very technical, without even bothering to build up a good foundation of knowledge regarding the topic, such as by going through an entire computer organization book to get an understanding of CPU microarchitecture. It can be quite annoying, but expected in such a public forum.
 
Last edited:

JFAMD

Senior member
May 16, 2009
565
0
0
For those who aren't microarchitecture people, they go into discussions armed only with knowledge of marketing slides / powerpoint presentations, and feel justified brawling in discussions that have become very technical, without even bothering to build up a good foundation of knowledge regarding the topic, such as by going through an entire computer organization book to get an understanding of CPU microarchitecture.

And the one guy on the forum who knows about the architecture -and actually makes the powerpoint slides ;) - is the one saying to wait until both platforms are out before you start to compare.

Fixating on cache ratios to determine which processor will be faster is like looking at the diameter of a piston and declaring a winner.
 

jvroig

Platinum Member
Nov 4, 2009
2,394
1
81
Huh? Of course they will be, especially by the time Bulldozer launches. By Bulldozer's launch, we WILL publicly have a great amount of detail about Bulldozer's architecture.
Even at launch, or well after launch, the real details of the architecture don't get published in its entirety. You do get block diagrams + a few paragraphs of write-ups that are simplified, which are just marketing material + commentary of reviewers such as Anand. That's it. If you want to know the real details of the architecture, then you would be dependent on the manuals/software optimization guides published by AMD and Intel, and both aren't exactly very heavy on their documentation. Sometimes, it is even found that the documentation is not entirely accurate as revealed by testing.

For example, are you aware that even now, there has been little information published about the branch prediction of the i7? Same goes for Deneb's L2 and L3 latency, all info about it are unofficial. AMD's optimization guide is also inaccurate in their branch predictor's misdirection penalty, by about 10-20%.

There are a lot of other examples that can be made, but the point should be clear - if we are to talk about microarchitecture on a level beyond that of marketing slides / powerpoint presentations and block diagrams, most of the information is kept under water like an iceberg.
 

ModestGamer

Banned
Jun 30, 2010
1,140
0
0
Even at launch, or well after launch, the real details of the architecture don't get published in its entirety. You do get block diagrams + a few paragraphs of write-ups that are simplified, which are just marketing material + commentary of reviewers such as Anand. That's it. If you want to know the real details of the architecture, then you would be dependent on the manuals/software optimization guides published by AMD and Intel, and both aren't exactly very heavy on their documentation. Sometimes, it is even found that the documentation is not entirely accurate as revealed by testing.

For example, are you aware that even now, there has been little information published about the branch prediction of the i7? Same goes for Deneb's L2 and L3 latency, all info about it are unofficial. AMD's optimization guide is also inaccurate in their branch predictor's misdirection penalty, by about 10-20%.

There are a lot of other examples that can be made, but the point should be clear - if we are to talk about microarchitecture on a level beyond that of marketing slides / powerpoint presentations and block diagrams, most of the information is kept under water like an iceberg.


Making the job of programming engineers and programming enthuasists that much mroe difficult.

And for what BTW ? AMD and INTEL can both reverse engineer each other products well enough to figure out how to pick their enemy apart.

The people who suffer are those who are trying to work with the hardware in the market place.

Its a stupid practice.

I can understand keeping a lid on comming products, once those products are out though any good reverse engineering firm can figure out what was done.

Just like ford and GM. doesn't take much to reverse anything they do.
 

jvroig

Platinum Member
Nov 4, 2009
2,394
1
81
Its a stupid practice.
For once, I do agree with your sentiments completely. I would personally prefer if such detailed information were not kept in secret.

Unfortunately, "keeping things under their hats" has been a standard practice of companies in practically every industry the world over, so it is not likely to change unless their respective management groups get a change of heart - or a change of paradigm.