Can we start calling Bulldozer a 4 core CPU?

[TuxDave]

I wish I could say "Intel Cores, AMD Cores, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!" but no, they are manufactured in Malaysia/Costa Rica, and Germany. :<

Try again.

 

[AtenRa]

Since everyone count cores as they like, i will call the Bulldozer Module a triple core because it has three Schedulers

AMD count as core the Integer Execution Unit (Scheduler + Execution Pipelines) and because each module has two, then the 4 module chips are 8 cores CPUs.

The FPU in the module can execute two 128-bit Instructions of different threads per cycle, it has two 128-bit FMACs.

 

[Tsavo]

The 81xx has 4 cores that can process two threads per core. Call it a module if you wish. Call it Karen that cheated on you with your best friend, but ultimately, the FX-81xx has four cores than can issue two CMT threads per core, and badly.

Carry that down to the FX-6xx and you've got 3 cores that suck at CMT.

The FX-4x is a joke at 1C/2T.

 

[IntelUser2000]

I'd take the methodology that AMD opted for. You can spin something to be good or bad regardless of how you want to call it.

Bulldozer has "4 cores": 2 billion transistor, massive die, low performance per clock 4 core

Bulldozer has "8 cores": 8 of simple cores

I wouldn't call it 4 cores, because there are execution units that can handle a thread completely indepently. You can't do that in any other type of multi-threading.

I bet if Bulldozer performed well, them calling it 8 cores wouldn't be contested by readers here.

 

[bononos]

The 81xx has 4 cores that can process two threads per core. Call it a module if you wish. Call it Karen that cheated on you with your best friend, but ultimately, the FX-81xx has four cores than can issue two CMT threads per core, and badly.

Carry that down to the FX-6xx and you've got 3 cores that suck at CMT.

The FX-4x is a joke at 1C/2T.

No.
The 81xx is better characterized as an 8 core cpu (FX-6xx is 6 core).
The FX-4x has 2 module/4 cores not 1C/2T.

The hierarchy of multiprocessing architectures in terms of transistor real estate is: CMP (multicore), SMT, Hyperthreading. Assuming an app is multithreaded, CMP will offer close to 2x/3x/4x the performance depending on whether there are 2/3/4 cores on the cpu and hyperthreading at the other end of the performance spectrum where the 2nd thread will have to find empty bubbles in the pipeline where it can fit in after the 1st thread hits a roadblock. Bulldozer's cores are quite close to being fully fledged cores by my understanding. The performance of BD however is relatively poor.

 

[tulx]

Can we start calling Bulldozer a 4 core CPU?

You could call it whatever you want all along. Noone cares.
It is what it is, regardless of how you call it.

 

[pantsaregood]

BD is not a glorified quad-core. The FPUs can function as a single 256-bit FPU or two 128-bit FPUs.

BD sucks because the cores suck, not because AMD is calling it something it isn't.

 

[Kristijonas]

Can we just forget about it?
Jokes aside, it's irrelevant how it's called, because AMD has the right to call "cores" whatever they want in their processors. It's their creation - it's their right. It would be different if they started comparing their cores to Intel cores, because that would require standardization. However at this time I don't think they use those words. And we can understand that wording - it's a marketing thing, it really is excusable.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I do not really care how it is called or being marketed. For the people in the know it is pretty much irrelevant but the problem lies within the management.

Vote with your dollar.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

but its gotz moar coars!!!

 

[podspi]

I bet if Bulldozer performed well, them calling it 8 cores wouldn't be contested by readers here.

Yep. If this thing embarrassed the 990X in multithreaded code we'd all be talking about AMD's innovative ways in providing us with more cores.


BD is an 8-core product, because AMD calls it an 8-core product. It's not like any of us is going to get confused and start thinking the 8150 is faster than a 2600K because it has twice the number of cores. BD is an 8-core part with low per core performance, simple as that.

 

[hooflung]

When did the IQ's leave Anandtech. However you want to brand 'core' at the end of the day it comes down to how many threads you can run in hardware at any given time. 8 threads of execution at any given time. Traditionally you can only do that on 1 core. You can simulate it all you want (Intel HT) but at the end of the day you need the schedulers to pull it off.

AMD has built Bulldozer to improve math calculations for integers and simple floating point calculations. Unfortunately it needs a) a lot of megathertz to reach parity with current high end chips or b) programmatic and/or compiler optimizations.

Fortunately in the Server space I think AMD is going to find a clear design win. Anything that Oracle does with Java or any of its Big Iron products for its own Niagara line will bode well for AMD as they are similar it methodology.

Moreover, this will see Bulldozer make life easier for developers and small companies that need commodity virtualization. At this point, arguing over what gets a DVD encoded (or are you breaking the law and doing blue rays eh?) or how much faster than 60fps you can stand to play a game.

Call their core whatever you want. Be as intellectually dishonest as you want with yourself.

 

[Janooo]

When did the IQ's leave Anandtech. However you want to brand 'core' at the end of the day it comes down to how many threads you can run in hardware at any given time. 8 threads of execution at any given time. Traditionally you can only do that on 1 core. You can simulate it all you want (Intel HT) but at the end of the day you need the schedulers to pull it off.

AMD has built Bulldozer to improve math calculations for integers and simple floating point calculations. Unfortunately it needs a) a lot of megathertz to reach parity with current high end chips or b) programmatic and/or compiler optimizations.

Fortunately in the Server space I think AMD is going to find a clear design win. Anything that Oracle does with Java or any of its Big Iron products for its own Niagara line will bode well for AMD as they are similar it methodology.

Moreover, this will see Bulldozer make life easier for developers and small companies that need commodity virtualization. At this point, arguing over what gets a DVD encoded (or are you breaking the law and doing blue rays eh?) or how much faster than 60fps you can stand to play a game.

Call their core whatever you want. Be as intellectually dishonest as you want with yourself.

Funny, you mentioned Oracle.
AMD shot them-self in a foot with Oracle.
Many companies will not buy BD due to Oracle DB licensing (per core).
AMD made it much more expensive to buy BD for an Oracle server and it's a no go.
Really smart move AMD.

 

[hooflung]

I work in an oracle shop. I write j2ee code. We write j2ee because we're migrating from mainframe to oracle db. Let me be clear. Oracle licenses are nothing compared to mainframe licenses. Your point is very knee-jerkish.

Furthermore, Java, specifically OpenJDK, should in the future have a lot more multi-threaded jvm performance than the vanilla-free jdk you can get today without having to buy a licensed jvm that has all the bell's and whistles.

Even if it didn't, having 8 cores today on x86 or 16 on a 2-way ... 32 on a 4way tomorrow, means that we could retire the cool threads servers down stairs along with the Sparc IIIi's that still are in production use. The BD's could even run OpenIndiana to retain most of the look and feel. I guarentee you a BD uses less watts for 8 threads than I can get out of a dual cpu Sparc IIIi server.

Oracle may be big and they may be dicks, but at the end of the day I go home and play video games and watch TV. If Oracle makes my life easier, or microsoft, or Apple... it gets me home faster so let them fight it out and license their tech how they want.

 

[sm625]

If BS performed better we'd call it 8 core, right? If it totally kerstomped a 2600k, it would be an 8 core, right? So by that logic bobcat should be called a single core, because it takes 2 bobcat cores to beat one CULV celeron G440 core. In fact it takes more than two bobcat cores to compete with one measely little celeron core: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/celeron-g540-g440_8.html

Perhaps we should call bobcat 1/3 core, since it takes 3 of them to beat a single $37 G440? Clearly this doesnt make any sense. Just like it makes no sense to assign BD its core count based on its performance.

edit: the BS above is supposed to be BD. Freudian slip?

 

[RussianSensation]

I'm annoyed at how AMD is calling Bulldozer an 8 core CPU. The reality of the matter is that it is a glorified quad core.

Not really. Bulldozer is much closer to an octacore than it is to a quad core.

1) SMT/Hyper Threading allows 1 core to handle more than 1 thread, say 2 threads. A single BD core cannot handle more than 1 thread. We have 8 integer cores with a shared front end. Bulldozer is not just a quad core with Hyper threading because we don't have "virtual cores" or 1 core running 2 threads.

2) Each core has its own instruction scheduler, L1 cache, Data TLB. Each core also has its own load/store logic too (i.e., instructions are fetched, decoded and fed to the cores from a shared asset, but each core keeps it&#8217;s own data, and keeps it close.)

3) You have a shared floating unit/shared front end. But while AMD's Stars cores have 128-bit FP unit, the FP unit in BD can compute 2x 128-bit #s per clock. "The shared scheduler means there is a single central arbiter that can make sure things are &#8216;fair&#8217; to both cores, but if one core doesn&#8217;t use an FP instruction that clock, the other core can use twice the resources it is usually allowed to"

Source

The shared design may not actually be all that bad. I think the main flaw with bulldozer is that each of the cores is just too weak. If they improved IPC of each of those cores by say 20-25&#37;, the CPU would fly and obliterate a 2600k in multi-threaded apps.

 

[-Slacker-]

You can call it whatever you want.

But ... BUT ... THAT'S ILLEGAL!

 

[LoneNinja]

To me claiming Bulldozer is only a quad core is no different than the fools with hyperthreaded Pentium 4s that claimed they have a dual core because there are 2 threads. Also reminds me of the fool who thought his Core I7 had 8 cores and the only way to produce a 6 core chip was to disable cores from an 8 core die.

Besides those FPU units function as either a single 264bit unit or 2 individual 128bit units, depending on work load.

 

[GrumpyMan]

So if I take off the metal plate I would see 4 physical cores or would I see 8?

 

[Idontcare]

So if I take off the metal plate I would see 4 physical cores or would I see 8?

Neither. You will be staring at a piece of silicon wafer that comprises the backside of the structural substrate used to create the CPU in the fab.

All the exciting stuff is on the other side of the chip, which is planted face-down into the part of the CPU package down where the pins come out.

 

[GrumpyMan]

Ah, I see. Thanks.

 

[Ferzerp]

I see a lot of "It's 8 core!" claims but not once has anyone reconciled how they can call it 8 core when executing a second thread (or even enabling the capability to execute a single thread) causes such a performance hit to the first thread. If it's 8 core, what's running on one or the other makes no difference. It will not slow down the other "core". (ignoring if you starve the IO)

In practice is does. It does not perform like 8 discrete cores.

 

[Idontcare]

Ah, I see. Thanks.

You gave up too quickly!

...if you were to remove that piece of silicon, grind off a few microns of copper wire mesh and carbon-doped glass insulator, you'd be looking at something like this:

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-FX8150-8Core-Processor-Review-Bulldozer-Has-Landed/?page=2

(you'll have to write the letters on it yourself though )

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

The problem is that if you look at it like a 4-core/8-thread CPU it's even worse. It has more than twice the transistors as the 2600K, almost double the power consumption when both are overclocked and overvolted, and it's still slower.

 

[Edrick]

The problem is that if you look at it like a 4-core/8-thread CPU it's even worse. It has more than twice the transistors as the 2600K, almost double the power consumption when both are overclocked and overvolted, and it's still slower.

If AMD called BD a quad core, then at least they can say their quad is somewhat close to Intel's quad. As it stands now, their 8 core is getting beat by Intel's quad.

But I agree with everyone else here. This is more of an 8 core than it is a quad core. But AMD can call it whatever they like. It doesn't change the performance.