Rumour: Bulldozer 50% Faster than Core i7 and Phenom II.

[SickBeast]

I'm imaging some Greenpeace people clustered around a recently opened package from SickBeast containing a Socket 939 motherboard going "Sooooooo, what is it?"

LOL

You know, it would probably be a good thing to build awareness on this issue. I should probably contact them and let them know about it. The deed is already done when it comes to Socket 939 and it's a travesty IMO.

 

[SickBeast]

wtf, AMD can't make dual imc in their CPU, and basically why right now they can support two type of ram in their CPU is because AMD was a part of JDEC group and they was the one that actually push the DDR3 standard to be close enough to DDR2 standard so they can just make the IMC compatible with both standard (ddr2 and ddr3).

and what the hell amd should do, you all moaning about AMD must increase their IPC but when it require to change socket you get all get mad. you can't get the cake and eat it too you know

Please get your facts straight before you go on a rant against me.

In addition to the Phenom II's pin compatibility, the AM3 memory controller supports both DDR2 and DDR3 memory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenom_II

Why can't they have a dual IMC? If they were able to do it with DDR2 and DDR3, they should have been able to do it with DDR as well. That's great that DDR2 and DDR3 were more similar, however I'm certain that it was technically possible. All that they had to do was leave the DDR memory controller "intact" in the AM2 CPUs with a new DDR2 controller that could be detected by the AM2 chipsets. Then, they would have ensured compatibility with Socket 939. It's trivial IMO. Even I can figure it out and I don't work for them.

If there's only a 3% performance boost by using a Bulldozer with an AM3+ chipset, then you can eat those words.

 

[SickBeast]

You guys were the ones to bring up socket compatibility, knocking AMD for it. All I am saying is that if socket compatibility leads to less boards in landfills, then we are ahead.

The entire discussion is really pointless, because in the market at large, only a very small percentage actually upgrade CPUs, so I don't understand why people are taking a shot at AMD.

Excuses, excuses. Perhaps more people would upgrade their CPUs if their current motherboards would support the latest processors. If you guys can do it for the server market, you could do it for the consumer market as well. The only reason you probably do it for the servers is because the margins on the chips are higher and you want to do everything you can to stop them from going with Intel. IMO you should carry this philosophy over to the rest of your product lines and do the environment a favor while you're at it.

I will be pointing this out to Greenpeace and I will show them how you are simply blowing this off as not a big deal, making lame excuses. :thumbsdown::thumbsdown:

 

[SickBeast]

You know what the sad part is, I can't really switch to Intel because their socket compatibility is worse.

What I think I'm going to do is go over to nVidia and Project Denver. The more time I spend around the computers, the more I like nVidia and their philosophy. They've been like a tiger in a cage when it comes to the CPU market.

 

[GlacierFreeze]

Dude, quit crying over something so insignificant. Damn.

 

[SickBeast]

Dude, quit crying over something so insignificant. Damn.

Have you seen the pictures of the slums in Asia where these motherboards go? These people are dying from cancer so people like you can enjoy a new CPU, all because AMD and Intel got greedy.

I just sent Greenpeace an email. We'll see what happens.

If you guys doubt the greed of the tech industry, look at the printer industry. It costs less to buy a new printer than it does to buy ink for your existing one.

 

[fustercluck]

Hmm...this thread is mighty long. Cliff notes anyone?

 

[SickBeast]

Hmm...this thread is mighty long. Cliff notes anyone?

- there was a rumor that Bulldozer will be 50% faster than current high-end CPUs

- apparently Bulldozer will have 8 integer units and 4 FPUs, with 2 integer units paired with each FPU

- JFAMD from AMD's marketing department has made a few statements, but they've been very vague and it's hard to read too much into them; he's essentially stated that Bulldozer will not target the $1000 market, but it should be competetive in the $100-300 range

- another rumor came out which showed that the Bulldozer is a beast in terms of distributed computing calculations

- Asus came out and announced that many of its current motherboards will be directly compatible with Bulldozer CPUs

- AMD has officially come out and said that they will not be working to enable Bulldozer's compatibility with current AM3 motherboards

- I made a big stink about the environmental implications of AMD failing to support current platforms with their new processors

 

[GlacierFreeze]

Have you seen the pictures of the slums in Asia where these motherboards go? These people are dying from cancer so people like you can enjoy a new CPU, all because AMD and Intel got greedy.

I just sent Greenpeace an email. We'll see what happens.

If you guys doubt the greed of the tech industry, look at the printer industry. It costs less to buy a new printer than it does to buy ink for your existing one.

That's all fine and stuff but why not just take it to green/recycling forum instead of thread crapping here?

 

[wahdangun]

Please get your facts straight before you go on a rant against me.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenom_II

Why can't they have a dual IMC? If they were able to do it with DDR2 and DDR3, they should have been able to do it with DDR as well. That's great that DDR2 and DDR3 were more similar, however I'm certain that it was technically possible. All that they had to do was leave the DDR memory controller "intact" in the AM2 CPUs with a new DDR2 controller that could be detected by the AM2 chipsets. Then, they would have ensured compatibility with Socket 939. It's trivial IMO. Even I can figure it out and I don't work for them.

If there's only a 3% performance boost by using a Bulldozer with an AM3+ chipset, then you can eat those words.

isn't what all i said was true? So i donno what do you mean with "getting the fact straight".
And like said before they can't use dual IMC is because its waste of silicon and in that time its almost impossible, and the chip will be to big for 90 nm ( it was even hard for them to increase the clock back then) and not to mention it make more expensive to already expensive cpu .

and how do you know it will only have 3% impact on performance? Do you have solid number? Or you just wildly speculating and make it your own fact?

and one tip for me, if you are really want to help the environment then don't throw away your old computer part to garbage, just donate it to someone that need it.

 

[SickBeast]

isn't what all i said was true? So i donno what do you mean with "getting the fact straight".
And like said before they can't use dual IMC is because its waste of silicon and in that time its almost impossible, and the chip will be to big for 90 nm ( it was even hard for them to increase the clock back then) and not to mention it make more expensive to already expensive cpu .

and how do you know it will only have 3% impact on performance? Do you have solid number? Or you just wildly speculating and make it your own fact?

and one tip for me, if you are really want to help the environment then don't throw away your old computer part to garbage, just donate it to someone that need it.

The memory controller takes up a miniscule amount of die space.

The part that you said that wasn't true was when you said that they can't integrate two memory controllers into the CPU. AFAIK AM2 CPUs (and perhaps even AM3 CPUs) have this.

Also, you keep on stating that it's somehow a big deal and hard to do when it's trivial in reality and at most would cause a 1% to 3% performance hit.

Once our environment is destroyed, our CPUs will take a 100% performance hit. D:

 

[CTho9305]

The memory controller takes up a miniscule amount of die space.

The part that you said that wasn't true was when you said that they can't integrate two memory controllers into the CPU. AFAIK AM2 CPUs (and perhaps even AM3 CPUs) have this.

Also, you keep on stating that it's somehow a big deal and hard to do when it's trivial in reality and at most would cause a 1% to 3% performance hit.

Once our environment is destroyed, our CPUs will take a 100% performance hit. D:

I'm all for not needlessly polluting, but you're just being ridiculous. If 1% of people upgrade CPUs in a given socket and it costs more than 1% die area, you're arguably wasting more by building in support for multiple memory interfaces. I would be shocked if more than 1% of people upgrade CPUs on a given motherboard. I don't think I ever have - by the time I would've wanted to, standards had changed enough (AGP, DDR, SATA, etc) that it made more sense to get a newer board too. If there's a performance impact on top of a die area impact, that means your CPU will also spend correspondingly more time in its highest power state, which causes additional pollution over its lifetime (which, for normal people, is multiple years).

 

[SickBeast]

I'm all for not needlessly polluting, but you're just being ridiculous. If 1% of people upgrade CPUs in a given socket and it costs more than 1% die area, you're arguably wasting more by building in support for multiple memory interfaces. I would be shocked if more than 1% of people upgrade CPUs on a given motherboard. I don't think I ever have - by the time I would've wanted to, standards had changed enough (AGP, DDR, SATA, etc) that it made more sense to get a newer board too. If there's a performance impact on top of a die area impact, that means your CPU will also spend correspondingly more time in its highest power state, which causes additional pollution over its lifetime (which, for normal people, is multiple years).

I find your stance equally ridiculous so perhaps we should simply agree to disagree.

Don't you work for AMD? I would only expect you to back JFAMD on this anyway, along with their corporate greed.

I've already involved Greenpeace on this so what we discuss here is of little consequece, aside from the fact that now two people from within AMD have blown off the environment in the name of greed.

1 to 3% of performance is not going to have a meaningful impact on performance. Heck, raise the threshold of when the CPU goes into a CNQ state if you're that concerned about it. Most of the time CPUs are idle anyways, making the 3% meaningless.

 

[wahdangun]

The memory controller takes up a miniscule amount of die space.

The part that you said that wasn't true was when you said that they can't integrate two memory controllers into the CPU. AFAIK AM2 CPUs (and perhaps even AM3 CPUs) have this.

Also, you keep on stating that it's somehow a big deal and hard to do when it's trivial in reality and at most would cause a 1% to 3% performance hit.

Once our environment is destroyed, our CPUs will take a 100% performance hit. D:

i mean two type of IMC in single cpu, and like i said before, why am3 cpu can use ddr2 and ddr3 because the ram is so similar so they can just use one type of imc in their am3 cpu.

Its really hard to design a chip especially a complex one like amd64 hell even intel was forced to cross licence it with their sse3.
Its like seeing drag race it may be look easy but for the driver its need skill and its really hard to do, and every second count.

To be honest you should rant in graphic card forum instead because there are more people upgrade their gpu in every six moth than cpu in two years priod even less for motherboard

 

[CTho9305]

I meant to add, have you ever done memory controller design? Better engineers than me seem to hold analog designers in very high regard. I see no reason to believe it's necessarily easy to get multiple memory interface standards combined in a single design unless a professional electrical engineer tells me it is.

 

[wahdangun]

I find your stance equally ridiculous so perhaps we should simply agree to disagree.

Don't you work for AMD? I would only expect you to back JFAMD on this anyway, along with their corporate greed.

I've already involved Greenpeace on this so what we discuss here is of little consequece, aside from the fact that now two people from within AMD have blown off the environment in the name of greed.

1 to 3% of performance is not going to have a meaningful impact on performance. Heck, raise the threshold of when the CPU goes into a CNQ state if you're that concerned about it. Most of the time CPUs are idle anyways, making the 3% meaningless.

what corporate greed? If amd can they can just launch am3 cpu with completely new socket just like 939 to am2 and you will never complain about this thing. And intel its alot worst even sometimes their lga 775 won't compatible with newer cpu like from intel dualcore to core2duo.

 

[SickBeast]

what corporate greed? If amd can they can just launch am3 cpu with completely new socket just like 939 to am2 and you will never complain about this thing. And intel its alot worst even sometimes their lga 775 won't compatible with newer cpu like from intel dualcore to core2duo.

I complained bitterly about Socket AM2.

There were tons of people begging AMD to release new CPUs for the Socket 939 platform. Why they didn't is a mystery to me.

What I find really sad is that AMD isn't supporting the enthusiast community any more. Perhaps we make up that 1% that upgrades our CPUs, but really, I think AMD should look at us as much more than that. I myself, for example, have specced a number of servers and workstations for several companies and corporations. So that 1% suddenly becomes 15-20%, if not more.

 

[SickBeast]

I meant to add, have you ever done memory controller design? Better engineers than me seem to hold analog designers in very high regard. I see no reason to believe it's necessarily easy to get multiple memory interface standards combined in a single design unless a professional electrical engineer tells me it is.

And you think an electrical engineer is going to see the bigger picture and take all things into account?

I'm an architectural designer by trade. I'm highly educated and have worked on a number of high profile projects both in my own community and on a national level. When management wants to know what to do with our computer systems, they ask me what to do.

I have obviously never designed a memory controller, but I'm confident that after a few courses I could do it no problem. I'm honestly in the top 1% of CAD designers in terms of skill; I have no doubt I could convey it into other fields.

The engineer is going to care about efficiency and performance, and that's all. This is where the CEO needs to step in and state that the enthusiast community should be supported, even if it costs 1% of the die space.

 

[Idontcare]

Beast can we knock it off with the thread-derail?

Flaunting one's arrogance whilst admitting to one's ignorance rarely results in a flattering depiction of one's self.

I am an engineer and your assertions regarding what we engineers care about is baseless (by your own admittance) and absurdly inaccurate (my assertion from first-person experience).

If you want to continue your present line of thinking then I strongly encourage you to create a new thread devoted to such a topic. As presented here it is a thread-derail as well as misinformation.

 

[SickBeast]

Beast can we knock it off with the thread-derail?

Flaunting one's arrogance whilst admitting to one's ignorance rarely results in a flattering depiction of one's self.

I am an engineer and your assertions regarding what we engineers care about is baseless (by your own admittance) and absurdly inaccurate (my assertion from first-person experience).

If you want to continue your present line of thinking then I strongly encourage you to create a new thread devoted to such a topic. As presented here it is a thread-derail as well as misinformation.

How is it arrogant when I've probably taken more electrical engineering courses than most college grads who study computer science?

I'm actually friends with an architect who helped invent the lithography process that the CPU manufacturers use to this day to produce microprocessors. You should see his collection of Bentleys!

I'm fine with keeping things back on topic, and I apologize for my comments about engineers. I've just been getting frustrated by the repeated intervention of AMD's own employees trying to debunk what I'm saying.

I would actually be highly interested in your opinion in all this IDC.

 

[Dresdenboy]

I'm actually friends with an architect who helped invent the lithography process that the CPU manufacturers use to this day to produce microprocessors. You should see his collection of Bentleys!

There shouldn't be that many names involved. And working for the car maker group Bentley Motors belongs to, I have to admit that those cars are not the greenest ones we offer.

But to your points:
Is a replaced board + CPU actually environmentally relevant waste? I only know cases, where someone else or the owner himself uses it further for less demanding tasks.

Actually replacing hardware with new hardware, which could deliver more performance/watt should also have some positive effect.

But finally not buying anything new and further using old hw would avoid producing any waste while being less efficient - the machine would have to run much longer for a specific task compared to a new one.

So the best would be to avoid technology at all - including Bentleys.

 

[Kingkazma]

There shouldn't be that many names involved. And working for the car maker group Bentley Motors belongs to, I have to admit that those cars are not the greenest ones we offer.

But to your points:
Is a replaced board + CPU actually environmentally relevant waste? I only know cases, where someone else or the owner himself uses it further for less demanding tasks.

Actually replacing hardware with new hardware, which could deliver more performance/watt should also have some positive effect.

But finally not buying anything new and further using old hw would avoid producing any waste while being less efficient - the machine would have to run much longer for a specific task compared to a new one.

So the best would be to avoid technology at all - including Bentleys.

i totally agree with you sir.
let me ask, should someone keep a Model T forever? or should the person buy a prius?

the answer is not to drive at all.

 

[cantholdanymore]

This type of attitude is arrogant. Perhaps Intel can get away with it because they're #1. If AMD keeps this up they're going to go broke.

I've being reading this thread for the last couple of month and enjoying it very much. I didn't care about trolls but it took a beats for me to create an account.

Beast you're just full of it. JUST S. THE F. UP.

DONATE DONATE DONATE

 

[SickBeast]

I've being reading this thread for the last couple of month and enjoying it very much. I didn't care about trolls but it took a beats for me to create an account.

Beast you're just full of it. JUST S. THE F. UP.

DONATE DONATE DONATE

Welcome to AT. Seeing as you're new I'm going to teach you something about forum equiquette and I'm not going to respond to your drivel.

Well call it "feeding the trolls" here.

 

[Kingkazma]

Welcome to AT. Seeing as you're new I'm going to teach you something about forum equiquette and I'm not going to respond to your drivel.

Well call it "feeding the trolls" here.

not respond... you just did