Bought an 8 core got a quad

[Dresdenboy]

UltraSPARC T1 CMT design flopped too and was never seen again from them. T2 and forward was SMT based. The reality is simply no CMT designs have ever been successful due to the tradeoffs. Then it doesn't matter who makes it.

1 FPU per 8 cores, 4 threads per core, in-order execution. Hardly a comparable case.

 

[ShintaiDK]

1 FPU per 8 cores, 4 threads per core, in-order execution. Hardly a comparable case.

It was an answer to his post.

However, do you know ANY successful CMT implementations?

 

[Dresdenboy]

It was an answer to his post.

However, do you know ANY successful CMT implementations?

Let's first define "success". Do I have to beat the best competitor in all apps? Do I have to be good in some apps? Did I get back my R&D costs, and then some? Did I reach my goals?

And then I think, you might concentrate too much at isolating one variable if there are many, like (just having fun making lists):

• 32nm process (how good was it compared to Intel's back then)
• narrow individual integer cores
• front end efficiency (I$ associativity problem, AVX decode throughput)
• cache subsystem (WCC, general bandwidths, FPU access to it, L1D size)

And so on. It's surely fun to isolate each individual contribution to overall performance.

 

[AtenRa]

..............

You are wasting your time

 

[zentan]

The FP alone doesnt make a CPU Core, deal with it. The CMT was made for the Server space, where you have multiple threads and high throughput. It was not the right design choice for the Desktop back in 2010-11.

Edit: And we should not forget, you can have the same Integer + FP Throughput disabling Core 1 or Core 2.

Neither should we forget your hypocrisy.In another thread you were justifying comparison between a module and a single SKL-core by matching the number of ALUs/FP cores but didn't acknowledge that module had much more extra resources.It's almost like a salesman's pitch. :thumbsdown:

 

[DrMrLordX]

FX-8150/8350 is quad core with HT and was never different

CMT, not HT. Big difference.

The only proper way to think of an 8320 is to understand that it is 4m/8t . . . four modules, eight threads.

You can never really think of it having four or eight cores. And then there's the problem with the front end, and so forth and so on.

 

[Dresdenboy]

You are wasting your time

I got a good fun/time ratio. And aside from that I refreshed some interesting facts (not posted here).

BTW, since we're talking about a company which is doing thread schedulers in their OS:
http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=74