back to article AMD to crank up performance with Bulldozer Opterons

Although AMD won't release its "Bulldozer" PC and server processors and "Bobcat" mobile processors until sometime next year, the company is expected to be the star of the Hot Chips conference at Stanford University later this month. After all, the IT market is always looking ahead, so AMD has to keep talking about its future to …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Thumb Down

And so it begins...

Didn't they need flawless execution?

0
0
Silver badge

XSSXXXXdD Up Processors ... for Cool Red Hot Demonstration Plays

"Didn't they need flawless execution?" ... ScissorHands Posted Wednesday 4th August 2010 23:49 GMT

Is it not delivered in their pipeline of future Ab Fab developments ...... Zwinger Operations. [Neuro Linguistic Programming of Virtual Machinery Assets and Human Resources ...... Practically Essentially Tools and Practical Essential Tools for All to Use to Better Beta MetaDataBase Effect]

0
0

Title (it says it's required)

"If AMD didn't change anything and just moved to a 16-core design from its dual-six design, that alone would yield a 33.3 per cent boost in performance. But adjusting by that 1.8 factor for the shared components means the core count only gives you about 20 per cent more oomph, clock for clock. So the other 30 per cent is coming from changes in the core and clock-speed increases."

Bulldozer is ground up redesign, it is not based on K10 or K8 cores like previous ones, so it can't be counted clock for clock. Architecture is vastly different and comparing it with Phenom would end up like comparing A64 with Prescott, or UltraSPARC T with Power6.

Bulldozer was started in 2005 and planed for 2009 roll-out, but delayed. It has architectural elements of Sun ROCK (like "quasi cores" for example, but Sun wanted 4x4, AMD goes for 4x2 and then two dies) and also has long pipeline like infamous Intel Prescott. So it should yield high clock speeds, but I am not so sure about branch prediction (Prescott missed many clocks due to inefficient pipeline) and power consumption. But I still think that clock for clock performance per core must go up regardless of 1.8 per 2 cores statement. They worked 5 years on the desing, if they mean to Bulldoze intel, chip must be screamer. If they screw this, they are dead.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums