And the 8core AMD is actually a shared design also.
so you are both wrong in the way you state it.
If you replace cores by threads however he is right.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Fudzilla: Bulldozer performance figures are in
Page 50 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
- Status
And the 8core AMD is actually a shared design also.
so you are both wrong in the way you state it.
If you replace cores by threads however he is right.
frozentundra123456
Lifer
Actually, we were able to make up our own passwords, but they had to meet certain criteria as to length, different types of characters, etc. Ours also expired after a short period, maybe 90 days or even less. I dont remember for sure. Anyway, what I did was leave the bulk of the password the same, but just increment a numerical component each time I made a new password. For instance, 10xxxxxxxx to 11xxxxxxxx to 12xxxxxxxx, etc.
I kept expecting the computer to say not enough characters were being changed, but it never caught on.
frozentundra123456
Lifer
I cant imagine any good security system doing this. We are only able to enter I believe it is 5 attempts before the system locks up and you have to call an administrator.
We are also forced to use IT provided encrypted flash drives, and if the wrong password is entered more than a certain number of times over the life of the drive, the data is automatically overwritten.
Last edited:
I sure do hope that this "feature" is built-in in the hardware to make this at least a bit sensible (it won't stop any determined hacker but at least you couldn't just create a binary copy of the drive and work on that)
This has only been said what, 3 times before in this thread?
When you try to break into a encrypted laptop trough brute-forcing the password, you do not do it by repeatedly typing the password into the prompt. You extract the encrypted files from the laptop, and try to decrypt them using your own software (which obviously does not have any limits on attempts), on (lots of) entirely different machines. With a fast proc, you can easily get tens of thousands of attempts per second on a *single* computer, and well, if there is anything actually valuable on the laptop, AWS is cheap, and cpu time on illegal botnets is even cheaper.
Yes, I know that. The only difference is that if you salt the password, it makes it more difficult to attack. Of course, if the machine you have needs to be able to authenticate without a network connection, it has to store the salt on the machine, meaning that given enough time, it would be possible to find the salt, especially if you knew that it was there.
You don't get the basic idea that the salt isn't secret do you? Just go read the truecrypt documentation, we'll be waiting.. (I mean how do you think this should even work if the salt wasn't stored at a fixed, documented position - the client software has to find the salt as well when decrypting the drive)
@Tuna-Fish: Umn.. thanks for completely agreeing with me? That's basically what I said, doesn't stop any determinate person but at least makes it a bit (not much, you basically just need another similar usb stick) harder.
Last edited:
No, I get that. The only way it would work is if the attacker was not aware that that the salt existed at all or if it were difficult to determine where it's located. Assuming that they have complete access to the machine, it wouldn't be difficult to find out where it's at eventually.
The only other alternative is something like TPM, where you store the salt in the physical hardware. This has it's own set of disadvantages, but if you want the data to be as safe as possible.
Then again . . .
(http://xkcd.com/538/)
lol 🙂
Don't force it, get a bigger hammer. (Murphy)
Arachnotronic
Lifer
Bulldozer shippin' in a week, folks! http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2011/08/26/amd-bulldozer-to-ship-within-the-next-week/1
Doesn't matter in regards to rainbow tables which was his point.
3DVagabond
Lifer
While I understand their reasoning (not saying I agree with it) for wanting to call modules one core with 2 threads instead of 2 cores, they need to come off of their high horse and realize all they will do is create confusion. They will be stating specs per module as per core, for example. Then, of course, they will blame AMD for the confusion they create by being obstinate.
Might as well credit ZDNet, which was bit-techs source. 🙂
frozentundra123456
Lifer
Anyone familiar with this site?? Is it reliable?
The entire article seems kind of vague and also sort of sounds to me like a PR blurb for AMD.
Which chips are shipping, server or desktop, how many, shipping to whom? And the part a week "or so" could mean anything.
Cogman
Lifer
no, he was saying that a strong salt makes a weak password strong even from brute force attacks. Yes, salt kills rainbow tables, but it doesn't affect brute force/dictionary attacks.
Davidh373
Platinum Member
Read the article did we?
"Zambezi will use Globalfoundries’ 32nm SoI (silicon on Insulator) manufacturing process, which is no surprise, and each die is said to measure a hefty 315mm2. Server and workstation versions of Bulldozer CPUs should ship in September."
It said "within' the next week or so," not "It will be shipping next week." So everyone keep your panties on. We could still be waiting a month to see numbers from the SERVER version.
What Clive wrote however makes me nervous. He was comparing Bulldozer's "cores" to HT. Hopefully we aren't still dealing with four physical cores and 8 threads...
Avalon
Diamond Member
Well, from the looks of the design it has 4 FP cores (1 per module) and 8 integer cores (2 per module), so depending on your workload, it'll either be more like a quad core or more like an octo core.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
Let's recall 1 more time why Athlon XP+, Athlon 64 and Athlon X2 processors were so successful for AMD : None of which revolved around their dominance in encryption/decryption, audio conversion or video rendering performance. Simply stated, in each of these cases, AMD delivered faster performance per clock / watt for tasks most people care about.
Why does this matter the most?
- People who build desktops for games care about performance per clock since it directly impacts gaming performance (this is esp. true since AMD does not have a node-process manufacturing advantage over Intel)
- AMD has already tried competing on price with Athlon II X4 and Phenom II processors and it clearly didn't work in either securing strong profit margins or regaining market share. So following the same strategy will not work.
- People who buy laptops care about performance / watt since in mobile computing this allows for the perfect balance of mobility and performance
Until AMD can release a more efficient processor with faster performance per core, they won't make any significant dents in the consumer marketplace. Delivering more slow cores will only help in the server and professional markets.
For this upcoming launch, I am looking at performance / core, IPC and energy consumption as the 3 most important metrics. With mobile computing now surpassing desktop sales, these 3 metrics are even more critical than ever. Sure, 8 "slow cores" may be good enough to gain 3-4% market share for niche consumers, but if AMD intends to recapture its glory days, it has to be superior in all 3 of these other metrics vs. Phenom II. I hope they deliver!
Why does this matter the most?
- People who build desktops for games care about performance per clock since it directly impacts gaming performance (this is esp. true since AMD does not have a node-process manufacturing advantage over Intel)
- AMD has already tried competing on price with Athlon II X4 and Phenom II processors and it clearly didn't work in either securing strong profit margins or regaining market share. So following the same strategy will not work.
- People who buy laptops care about performance / watt since in mobile computing this allows for the perfect balance of mobility and performance
Until AMD can release a more efficient processor with faster performance per core, they won't make any significant dents in the consumer marketplace. Delivering more slow cores will only help in the server and professional markets.
For this upcoming launch, I am looking at performance / core, IPC and energy consumption as the 3 most important metrics. With mobile computing now surpassing desktop sales, these 3 metrics are even more critical than ever. Sure, 8 "slow cores" may be good enough to gain 3-4% market share for niche consumers, but if AMD intends to recapture its glory days, it has to be superior in all 3 of these other metrics vs. Phenom II. I hope they deliver!
Last edited:
A very tiny segment of AMD's or Intel's clients.
Let me guess, you have never been to Best Buy and have never observed people going for laptops ... right? The vast majority of these people couldn't tell the difference between a keyboard and a mouse and you think they care for 'performance', 'mobility' or other silly things like that? Just between you and me, don't tell anyone: they care about green pieces of paper with dead presidents on them, specifically the lack of these when shopping for laptops. Some are also looking for 'cool' when they buy products, specifically Apple 'cool'.
How do you explain Apple then? They never made Macs even close to performance to HP/Dell PCs/laptops yet their sales are going up and up and up while everyone else sinks. How do you explain that the iPhone that is 18+ month old, slow single core processor yet it outsells much faster dual core cell phones? Could it be that the majority of consumer don't know/care about performance if a computing product offers good speed already? Apple is the perfect example where computer speed is irrelevant as long as the machine can do what most people need (read: they don't care about enthusiasts). And even a 4 year old Phenom II or Core 2 Duo or Quad can do that. So why do these people need a super duper Bulldozer again?
Oh gosh, someone get on the batphone and call AMD's new CEO and warn them of their mistakes. I mean, AMD focusing on the professional and server market instead of the continually dwindling 'enthusiast' market ... why do they do that?! 😕 It can't be money right? They should focus on a niche market and be 'cool' instead of ... you know, silly things like ... making money?
Critical to whom? You? Part of a minuscule market segment? I guarantee you, Joe Average going into Future Shop doesn't care about anything other than price and 'cool' factor (see my Apple point).
Ah yes, Bulldozer has to cure cancer, save the environment and achieve world peace. Just a silly question: what if AMD doesn't care about recapturing its 'glory'. What if all they want to make processors that their clients like and want to buy? What if AMD doesn't give a rat's ass about some 'enthusiasts' on some random interwebs forum? You are deluding yourself if you think that the 'enthusiast' market is all that. It's nothing more than a tiny drop in the bucket for either Intel or AMD.
frozentundra123456
Lifer
When I first got into computers, I was a great fan of AMD. So dont take this post as coming from an intel fanboy.
But I just cant understand the people who keep defending AMDs outdated CPU architecture and delays in bringing new chips to the market. It is amazing how many excuses are made for AMD-- Intel cheated, they are the price/performance leader, their CPUs are "good enough", they are competing in the server market, no they are computing in the low end market, they have better graphics, etc.
Some of these points have some validity, put at some point you have to put out a chip that is competitive on performance per clock and per watt. And it would be nice if they could get it out on time too.
But I just cant understand the people who keep defending AMDs outdated CPU architecture and delays in bringing new chips to the market. It is amazing how many excuses are made for AMD-- Intel cheated, they are the price/performance leader, their CPUs are "good enough", they are competing in the server market, no they are computing in the low end market, they have better graphics, etc.
Some of these points have some validity, put at some point you have to put out a chip that is competitive on performance per clock and per watt. And it would be nice if they could get it out on time too.
ed29a, obviously AMD is doing something very wrong if their profits are no where near what they used to be. Intel still has AMD beaten badly in marketshare, particularly in the higher priced offerings where the margins are better. Your point about average Joes buying computers ignores the fact that OEMs also need to pick which processors are going into their computers. While computers with AMD processors aren't that rare, you see far more computers with Intel processors in them. The profits of Intel vs AMD really do speak for themselves.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
