Multitasking, physical core vs virtual cores

[evolucion8]

I hope AMD makes a robust SMT implementation. If it is as good as Intel, it might rival and take the crown, after all, Phenom II X6 isn't far behind of the most powerful Quad Core based i7. The i7 based Hexcore is another story, a high clocked Istanbul should be able to rival it (Too expensive and useless though)

 

[Scali]

I hope AMD makes a robust SMT implementation.

So far SMT is not even on AMD's roadmap.

after all, Phenom II X6 isn't far behind of the most powerful Quad Core based i7.

You realize that you've just compared a 6-core CPU to a 4-core CPU, and the 6-core CPU still came up short?

 

[evolucion8]

So far SMT is not even on AMD's roadmap.



You realize that you've just compared a 6-core CPU to a 4-core CPU, and the 6-core CPU still came up short?

For real? Do the equation. The i7 has four cores with HT which shows a performance boost of up to 50% compared to previous generations. I've never seen Nehalem being twice faster than the fastest Penryn based Quad Core. Phenom II X4 performs too close of Penryn, so adding two more cores to the Phenom II X4 shows a 50% boost in performance.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/6

For what I see, didn't came too short did it? Which proves my point of being 50% faster. There will be tasks that will perform better on Intel, the same goes for AMD. AMD is using 6 REAL cores to compete with 4 real cores and 4 virtual ones, or in a generalist terminology, 8 virtual cores. Which also beats down your way of thinking that doing more threads in flight is better than having more raw power. (IBM processors are another story) Both Intel and AMD approaches are totally different and yet, performs similar.

Anand: "If you're running applications that are well threaded and you're looking to improve performance in them, AMD generally offers you better performance for the same money as Intel. It all boils down to AMD selling you more cores than Intel at the same price point.

Applications like video encoding and offline 3D rendering show the real strengths of the Phenom II X6. And thanks to Turbo Core, you don't give up any performance in less threaded applications compared to a Phenom II X4. The 1090T can easily trump the Core i7 860 and the 1055T can do even better against the Core i5 750.

You start running into problems when you look at lightly threaded applications or mixed workloads that aren't always stressing all six cores. In these situations Intel's quad-core Lynnfield processors (Core i5 700 series and Core i7 800 series) are better buys. They give you better performance in these light or mixed workload scenarios, not to mention lower overall power consumption."

 

[Scali]

Which also beats down your way of thinking that doing more threads in flight is better than having more raw power. (IBM processors are another story) Both Intel and AMD approaches are totally different and yet, performs similar.

I said that it depends on the multithreading scenario.
Which also means that sweeping claims of 'performs similar' are nonsense. In some scenarios one is better, in other scenarios the other is better.

Anand: "If you're running applications that are well threaded and you're looking to improve performance in them, AMD generally offers you better performance for the same money as Intel. It all boils down to AMD selling you more cores than Intel at the same price point.

Yes, this is because Intel has the upper hand and demands a premium for its technology. Purely economics, which isn't really what interests me. AMD just dumps old technology at bottom prices. Not exactly something that a technology enthusiast such as myself can get excited about.
Intel can easily undercut AMD's prices if they want, it just doesn't make business sense.
Thuban is estimated at 904 million transistors. Lynnfield is only 774 million. Without even looking at Intel's more mature manufacturing and economy of scale advantages, it should be evident which CPU is cheaper to make, and thus can be sold at lower prices. HT plays a significant role in this large difference in performance/transistorcount ratio.
AMD on the other hand can't beat Intel's technology, and as such can't get the upper hand in pricing either.
AMD is just way behind, and needs to throw tons of transistors at low prices into the mix, in order to remain 'competitive' (yes, 'competitive').

Applications like video encoding and offline 3D rendering show the real strengths of the Phenom II X6.

Or is it that the other applications show its weaknesses?

 

[evolucion8]

I said that it depends on the multithreading scenario.
Which also means that sweeping claims of 'performs similar' are nonsense. In some scenarios one is better, in other scenarios the other is better.

Obvious, if you ever bothered to read my posts, you would know that I said it.

For what I see, didn't came too short did it? Which proves my point of being 50% faster. There will be tasks that will perform better on Intel, the same goes for AMD. AMD is using 6 REAL cores to compete with 4 real cores and 4 virtual ones, or in a generalist terminology, 8 virtual cores.

Yes, this is because Intel has the upper hand and demands a premium for its technology. Purely economics, which isn't really what interests me. AMD just dumps old technology at bottom prices. Not exactly something that a technology enthusiast such as myself can get excited about.
Intel can easily undercut AMD's prices if they want, it just doesn't make business sense.
Thuban is estimated at 904 million transistors. Lynnfield is only 774 million. Without even looking at Intel's more mature manufacturing and economy of scale advantages, it should be evident which CPU is cheaper to make, and thus can be sold at lower prices. HT plays a significant role in this large difference in performance/transistorcount ratio.
AMD on the other hand can't beat Intel's technology, and as such can't get the upper hand in pricing either.

Old technology, it might not be as advanced as Nehalem, but tell me, which applications can max and will represent a bottleneck in Thuban? Please, for me, I think that software is the one who can't keep up hardware. If you talk about Netburst, then I can believe that's old technology, but calling old technology a processor that can keep up with the latest and greatest of Intel shows the testament of the original K8/K10 architecture. The same goes for the P6 which dates from more than a decade behind.

Hyper Threading plays an important role in multi threaded performance like you stated, because in reality, an i7 750 which lacks of it is barely faster than the previous Penryn Quad Cores. Because AMD isn't putting pressure, Intel just laid down and slowed down the performance improvements between architectures, single threaded performance and IPC didn't improved at all, the small gains that we have now are made by the Turbo technology and some cache tweaks. Thanks to AMD's pressure, Intel made Conroe and Penryn, and thanks to Conroe and Penryn, AMD improved the ill fated Barcelona architecture, late but did, and because of Nehalem, AMD users can enjoy an affordable and öld technology" six core processor which is competitive with Intel CPU's that are twice expensive. I bet a Netburst based Quad Core can't do that...

For the end, economics isn't for you. Now you care of it because AMD's is way behind of it, but you downplayed its importance when nVidia was in the same position with the GT200/G100 era. Talk about biased.

Or is it that the other applications show its weaknesses?

Please, read the review and stop speculating

 

[aigomorla]

There will be tasks that will perform better on Intel, the same goes for AMD. AMD is using 6 REAL cores to compete with 4 real cores and 4 virtual ones, or in a generalist terminology, 8 virtual cores.

Only if you completely ignore this guy:

Otherwise AMD is in a painful beating from that guy in any benchmark you can run.

Sorry Gulftown slaughters AMD period.
No arguement.. no rematch... no contest period.

And theres also a 60W gulftown thats coming out which u can overclock to 4ghz on a TRUE on PASSIVE.

 

[Scali]

For what I see, didn't came too short did it?

If you ignore the fact that it needs a lot more transistors, needs to run at a considerably higher clock frequency, and uses quite a bit more power... what's the point anyway?
The fact that it comes short would be bad enough if the CPUs were evenly matched... but AMD just brought a set of knives to a gunfight.

but old technology that can keep up with the latest and greatest shows the testament of the original K8/K10 architecture.

That view is just incredibly skewed. AMD is completely at Intel's grace. Intel is holding punches by only selling an Extreme Edition 6-core at 32 nm.
Once Intel decides to trickle that technology down to the mainstream, AMD is going to look even more pathetic than they already do, with their brand new sixcores losing to Intel's 2-year old quadcore architecture in every possible way.
Problem is, despite AMD fanboys always crying that the world needs AMD for competition, AMD is not forcing Intel's hand in the slightest, so Intel can sit on their 32 nm and six-core design for a looooong time.
I fully agree that Intel needs competition to force their hand, but obviously AMD is incapable of it, and my patience with AMD has long run out. 4 years is a long time to be a bargain-basement only supplier.

Please, read the review and stop speculating

I'm not speculating, just pointing out that there are two sides to the story. Guess that went over your head again.

 

[evolucion8]

If you ignore the fact that it needs a lot more transistors, needs to run at a considerably higher clock frequency, and uses quite a bit more power... what's the point anyway?
The fact that it comes short would be bad enough if the CPUs were evenly matched... but AMD just brought a set of knives to a gunfight.

Thuban at 3.20GHz uses only 125W, a typical i7 processor consumes 95W, not bad for six cores and being way behind Intel in terms of manufacturing process. Comparing Intel's 32nm six core 980X vs AMD's 45nm six core 1090T.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/10

Intel's Hex Core consumes 20W less at idle and 16W less at full load, what a beating. The only beating that I can see is in performance when they're compared directly. If you compare the same AMD processor with its direct rival, the i7 860/870, the difference is slighly higher. I'm pretty sure that Intel never launched a six core based on 45nm for a good reason..., it would consume more power than the similar AMD's six core..., so two more cores for only 15%/20% more power consumption is a feat for AMD, specially for being 66 times smaller than Intel, and now that AMD launched a 1055T that consumes only 95W, will open the window for a 125W Hexcore SKU of 3.40GHz (If it ever happens)

That view is just incredibly skewed. AMD is completely at Intel's grace. Intel is holding punches by only selling an Extreme Edition 6-core at 32 nm.
Once Intel decides to trickle that technology down to the mainstream, AMD is going to look even more pathetic than they already do, with their brand new sixcores losing to Intel's 2-year old quadcore architecture in every possible way.
Problem is, despite AMD fanboys always crying that the world needs AMD for competition, AMD is not forcing Intel's hand in the slightest, so Intel can sit on their 32 nm and six-core design for a looooong time.

I doubt that Penryn can outperform Thuban where it matters, multi threaded performance. Who's gonna buy a Quad Core for single threading?

I fully agree that Intel needs competition to force their hand, but obviously AMD is incapable of it, and my patience with AMD has long run out. 4 years is a long time to be a bargain-basement only supplier.

I dont think that you wouldn't want Intel to reign everything, otherwise we will pay $300 for a Celeron...

I'm not speculating, just pointing out that there are two sides to the story. Guess that went over your head again.

Please, you can do better than that with your personal jabs, give me your best shot. After all, you are the one who's pissed off dodging my questions and arguments. Pityful...

And I proved you wrong again, look at this review, the i7 920 which is clocked at 2.66GHz and has Hyper Threading is barely faster than the i7 750 which is clocked at the same 2.66GHz and lacks of Hyper Threading. Check all the tests and find one that can show a considerable improvement in performance thanks to Hyper Threading. Like I said before, virtual cores will never match real cores, period.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2832/12

 

[Scali]

Thuban at 3.20GHz uses only 125W, a typical i7 processor consumes 95W, not bad for six cores and being way behind Intel in terms of manufacturing process.

With the exception of the 980X, all Core i7s are 45 nm, just like Thuban. So while AMD is 'way behind Intel', the 'typical i7' doesn't show this difference.

Intel's consumes 20W less at idle and 16W less at full load, what a beating.

The 980X is a WHOLE lot faster though, and STILL it consumes less power.
It's useless even trying to defend AMD here.

I'm pretty sure that Intel never launched a six core based on 45nm for a good reason...,

They did actually, I guess you never heard of Dunnington?

it would consume more power than the similar AMD's six core...,

They have plenty of room for that. Let's say they need 95W for 4 cores, so 6 cores would be 50% more consumption. That would make 142W.
In reality it would be less obviously, since the 50% would not apply to the uncore logic. It would probably not compare unfavourably to AMD's 125W...
And that's not considering the performance difference. Intel could easily remove some cache and lower the clockspeed, which greatly reduces power consumption.

I doubt that Penryn can outperform Thuban where it matters, multi threaded performance.

I was referring to Nehalem obviously, which is about 2 years old by now.

Who's gonna buy a Quad Core for single threading?

Guess that's why the Turbo mode is such a success...

I dont think that you wouldn't want Intel to reign everything, otherwise we will pay $300 for a Celeron...

I think you're in denial if you think Intel doesn't reign everything already.
I suppose AMD's endless lawsuits have finally killed competition completely. Intel is now taking it easy, because if they would actually use their resources to the fullest, they'd waltz all over AMD, and get billion dollar fines month after month.

And I proved you wrong again, look at this review, the i7 920 which is clocked at 2.66GHz and has Hyper Threading is barely faster than the i7 750 which is clocked at the same 2.66GHz and lacks of Hyper Threading. Check all the tests and find one that can show a considerable improvement in performance thanks to Hyper Threading. Like I said before, virtual cores will never match real cores, period.

I don't expect you to understand.

 

[aigomorla]

And I proved you wrong again, look at this review, the i7 920 which is clocked at 2.66GHz and has Hyper Threading is barely faster than the i7 750 which is clocked at the same 2.66GHz and lacks of Hyper Threading. Check all the tests and find one that can show a considerable improvement in performance thanks to Hyper Threading. Like I said before, virtual cores will never match real cores, period.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2832/12

wrong..

Encoding such as cinebench, the HT threads are used as intermediary threads.
Basically the HT threads start up while real cores render, and then go back to the virtual core's work.
The virtual core will then start a new task while the physical core is rendering.

This actually increases rendering time by up to 33% to as much as 50% depending on how fast your processor is overclocked.
HT works better as your processor is overclocked. @ 4ghz, a HT thread is not something to overlook even.
Cinebench has shown this multiple amounts of times to argue.

Evolution, your too pressed sides on AMD to say your neutral.
Were not looking at a $$$ aspect which AMD triumphs on.
Were looking from a straight technology point, and AMD loses on all grounds to intel period.

Nothing you can say will prove AMD = Intel in technology.

Also Intel has had 45nm Octocores.
Dr. Who from Intel Overclocking was flashing the 45nm Beckton processor at the overclocking competition.
You can Ask DMENS who works for intel.
He's the one who told me thats a 45nm.

Intel has brought out Turbo Mode.
Intel Has brought out Tri Channel
Intel has said hello to 32nm
Intel HAS 22nm, still in warehouse.. not public.
Intel has changed platforms to sandy bridge
The first hexcores were from intel.
The first octocores are from intel

AND next years Decacore will ALSO be from intel.

Wheres AMD?

 

[Scali]

Were not looking at a $$$ aspect which AMD triumphs on.

Exactly, and that doesn't mean anything.
Look at linux... it's distributed for free... How can any commercial company compete with that? The price/quality is always better, no matter how poor the quality of the OS is.
Same goes for AMD... as long as they make prices low enough, their CPUs can always win 'best buy' in their pricerange, no matter how slow they are. But who cares? AMD is only active in VERY low priceranges, and it's a suicide move.

 

[aigomorla]

AMD is only active in VERY low priceranges, and it's a suicide move.

I saw this is where u and evolution are not making the same ground on.

Yes if we ignore $$$ then Your a oddball to look at AMD over Intel.

If we factor in $$$.. id think i could buy 3 X6 machines which would probably cost the same as Nadeshiko. My main system.

 

[Scali]

I saw this is where u and evolution are not making the same ground on.

Yes if we ignore $$$ then Your a oddball to look at AMD over Intel.

If we factor in $$$.. id think i could buy 3 X6 machines which would probably cost the same as Nadeshiko. My main system.

But the problem is that people like evolucion always argue like you HAVE to buy the better deal.
What if I don't? Should I also buy the cheapest car that can get me from A to B? Should I also buy the smallest and cheapest possible TV that allows me to watch the shows I want to watch?
No, it doesn't work that way for me. I simply won't buy an X6 because it's 'too cheap'. I will more than happily pay extra to get a considerably faster computer. Money isn't that important. I'm not going to bother about 100-200 euros more. Do you also buy the smallest possible monitor and the smallest possible HDD? And the 'best buy' videocard? I don't. I buy stuff that is 'comfortable'. And when buying a complete system, the cost of the CPU isn't that relevant.
As an enthusiast I know beforehand that I'm not going to get the 'best buy' hardware. The 'best buy' stuff is always in the low-end or possibly lower mainstream. I prefer to walk the line between mainstream and high-end. I don't want the bargain basement stuff.

 

[aigomorla]

But the problem is that people like evolucion always argue like you HAVE to buy the better deal.
What if I don't? Should I also buy the cheapest car that can get me from A to B? Should I also buy the smallest and cheapest possible TV that allows me to watch the shows I want to watch?

This is more of a product of upbringing, so you cant really discriminate on this.

Example.. i have friends who buy nothing but floor level processors.
They can easily afford EE processors like me, but they just dont.
They like the upgrade route every year instead of every 2-3 yrs like normal people.

I am an Oddball so no one should ever place ground me on, unless you too are an odd ball.

Anyhow i more like ATI then AMD.
Seems like ATI has been taking care of AMD's lackness.
SO i am hoping more from ATI then AMD.

 

[Scali]

This is more of a product of upbringing, so you cant really discriminate on this.

Example.. i have friends who buy nothing but floor level processors.
They can easily afford EE processors like me, but they just dont.
They like the upgrade route every year instead of every 2-3 yrs like normal people.

Yea, I guess that is exactly the thing.
I like to spend a few bucks extra here and there because I know it will give me that extra leap in performance that means I can use my PC for 1-2 years longer.
If I buy the cheap stuff all the time, I screw myself over twice:
1) I don't get the comfort of the extra performance.
2) I need to upgrade much quicker, so effectively it's not a better buy in the long run.

Another problem I have... since I am already in that higher-end, I CAN'T upgrade to the 'best buy' stuff. Eg, I bought a Core2 at release. It took AMD *years* to come up with CPUs that were actually faster than mine in the first place. Before Phenon II, AMD simply wasn't an option because any CPU from them would actually be a downgrade, not an upgrade.
The same scenario occurs today for people who bought a Core i7. Why would they even care about X6? It's not going to give them a faster system than what they've already had for over a year.

 

[aigomorla]

The same scenario occurs today for people who bought a Core i7. Why would they even care about X6? It's not going to give them a faster system than what they've already had for over a year.

Now your ignoring another element in why amd brought out the X6.

Once again it was for value.
So the current X4 owners could get the extra power in the X6.
Its not to shake intel, or make them worry.

AMD has quality, at a price ratio which just rapes intel.
That is there strong point.
There going cost basis, vs performance basis.

In the amd Model as i showed, 1 980X will buy 3 X6s. 1 980X will lose to 3 X6.

Your looking at 6 vs 18.

Now if you dont worry about efficiency, and floor space, the AMD system is a better buy.

 

[Scali]

Now your ignoring another element in why amd brought out the X6.

No, I was arguing why people not necessarily need to go for the 'best buy', remember?
I never argued that AMD is the 'best buy' (which would be about as retarded as trying to argue that AMD is equal or better than Intel technologically).

AMD has quality, at a price ratio which just rapes intel.

Yes, but that is purely Intel's choice.
They could easily annihiliate AMD on price/performance. All the technological ingredients are in place. They just prefer to let AMD live and get higher profit margins on their products.
I just hate it that people can't understand that. It makes perfect sense for Intel...and it also makes perfect sense for their customers. 'Best buy' isn't that important.
Money is only important to those who don't have it. Poor students, jobless people etc. Not the average consumer or business.
And that is why AMD's 'strong point' has never made them profitable. While they may appeal to some people's sentiments by being the 'good guy' offering cheap products and all, AMD has the worst business history of any company that hasn't gone bankrupt. AMD can't go after the profitable markets. The only quarterly results where they don't present net losses is when they have gotten a big sum of money from an Intel lawsuit or from some Arab investors. It's not on their own merit. They're not making any money.

Basically I'm sick and tired of AMD and all those people defending them on all these forums with the same poor half-baked arguments, not getting the bigger picture. We KNOW that AMD has the better pricing. Who cares?
The bigger picture is simple:
AMD doesn't have a good technological basis to work from, and their roadmap doesn't look very promising. AMD also doesn't make any money, so investing in R&D in an attempt to get out of the rut they've been stuck in since Core2 is impossible.

 

[evolucion8]

Basically I'm sick and tired of AMD and all those people defending them on all these forums with the same poor half-baked arguments, not getting the bigger picture. We KNOW that AMD has the better pricing. Who cares?
The bigger picture is simple:
AMD doesn't have a good technological basis to work from, and their roadmap doesn't look very promising. AMD also doesn't make any money, so investing in R&D in an attempt to get out of the rut they've been stuck in since Core2 is impossible.

Then sir, you are a troll, as viral as you can get. We need competition, get that in mind if there's any left. AMD is quite competitive in the server market and midrange/low end market. I don't think you can buy a brand new Intel Quad Core processor under $99, Athlon II X4 620, the 635 model offers the 70% of performance of it higher end sibling, the Phenom II X4 955. AMD isn't a holy company, specially with Hector "Satan" Ruiz. I'm certainly sure that if the roles reversed and AMD was the one who had the crown, the same thing would happen, like in the Athlon 64 era. Paying almost $300 for an Athlon 64 3200. . .

PS. My gf is enjoying her Athlon II X4 635 with a decent Biostar motherboard and 4GB of RAM for less than $235, I gave her a HD 3870 and can max her games at 1680x1050, currently playing Lost Planet in DX10 with such resolution and 4x FSAA, min: 28 Max:50 Ave: 38, not groundbreaking but enough for her.

 

[Scali]

We need competition

That's exactly what I said. Try to pay attention:
"I fully agree that Intel needs competition to force their hand, but obviously AMD is incapable of it, and my patience with AMD has long run out."

AMD is quite competitive in the server market and midrange/low end market.

AMD has lost its edge in the server market when Nehalem came out. And I see nothing on AMD's roadmaps that indicate that AMD will ever get an edge in the server market again.
As for the low end market... yes we know, again: WHO CARES?
I want competition in the OTHER markets aswell, but there is none. Currently AMD is only running itself into the ground. When are they going to get their act together?

 

[evolucion8]

That's exactly what I said. Try to pay attention:
"I fully agree that Intel needs competition to force their hand, but obviously AMD is incapable of it, and my patience with AMD has long run out."

Who cares of your patience? Your whining and complaining isn't gonna make Intel give up and AMD becoming the best thing since slice bread, just buy what you need and keep living. While AMD isn't in its best shape, I couldn't find a single person that complained after buying an AMD processor. If you ran out of patience, then buy more in ebay.

And for the competition, Via shall return from the ashes and launch a Cyrix based Octa core that will smoke everything on its path. including Intel's Octa core and Magny Cours

 

[Scali]

just buy what you need and keep living

I wish I could do that, but everytime I say something CPU-related, the AMD gestapo comes after me. If only people could respect other people's choices and opinions...
I shouldn't have to explain myself. You just need to use your brain instead of attacking everyone like a rabid dog, spreading nonsense about things like power consumption and HyperThreading, like you've done in this thread.

 

[aigomorla]

just buy what you need and keep living.

oh please if this statement applied we'd all be communist.

to us Americans... greed turns into need.
Need turns into arrogance.
Arrogance turns into accepted belief.

We dont need all this power on a consumer level.
We need better programers who write machine code direct instead of use a set of open source codes to make a new program.

If we didnt get lazy in programing, im sure all of us wouldnt need anything more then a dual core ever in our life.

The only reason why we need all this high tech hardware is to offset the limited programing capabilities of our new generation.

 

[evolucion8]

I wish I could do that, but everytime I say something CPU-related, the AMD gestapo comes after me. If only people could respect other people's choices and opinions...
I shouldn't have to explain myself. You just need to use your brain instead of attacking everyone like a rabid dog, spreading nonsense about things like power consumption and HyperThreading, like you've done in this thread.

I backed my stuff like the performance gains with Hyper Threading with links. The same thing goes with Power consumption, unless if Anand is lying, I just posted the exact things that he wrote in his review. I never stated that AMD's power consumption were better than Intel. Just that's not much worse like you are painting them.

You were the first with the personal jabs like me "going out of my head" or "I don't expect you to understand" attitude, don't play the smartass attitude and for sure you will not have any issues with members here.

 

[Scali]

We need better programers who write machine code direct instead of use a set of open source codes to make a new program.

I'm an assembly programmer actually

 

[aigomorla]

I'm an assembly programmer actually

then you know first hand on the real benefits of writting a program from scratch vs.. copy and paste.