Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 80

Thread: AMD FX-4100 Bulldozer

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,575

    Default

    ???

    No, I was saying that the big jumps in CPU complexity happened well before Athlon XP, ie out-of-order execution and superscalar design (which is what allowed everyone to talk about instructions-per-clock rather than clocks-per-instruction).

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    (to the individual execution units after the decoder) before everyone can agree on the terms.
    The good news is that the thread is heading in that direction, but so far it's only talking about integer ALU execution units and not the other execution units (load/store etc..).
    the thread only heading in that direction because I DO HEADING IT INTO that direction!

    because i know the True about the FACE CORE architecture there are many tiny cores inside the "CORE" and the many cores inside the core do the job and emulate a "Core"

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    Please dont tell me that AMD is trying to move towards a "clocks per instruction" model.... That would be bad....

    De-emphasizing ILP was bad enough.

    I dont really like the term IPC, I think ILP is a more adequate term to use for what we are talking about.
    amd go back from 3 interne cores per CORE to an 2 internal core per CORE model,

    and intel is on 4 internal cores per CORE.

    a Core I3 intel cpu do have 8internal cores and a fx4000 do have 8 internal cores.

    amd makes 4 cores out of it and intel 2 cores but intel virtualy split it up with hyperthreating.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    ???

    No, I was saying that the big jumps in CPU complexity happened well before Athlon XP, ie out-of-order execution and superscalar design (which is what allowed everyone to talk about instructions-per-clock rather than clocks-per-instruction).
    in my point of view modern complex designs only matters because of bad software.

    if you build a true-in-order 8core used with good multicore-software it will beat a core i3 and Fx4000 in speed per WATT usage.

    and hell yes the I3 and FX4000 are 8core cpus (but they face a 2 core and 4 core cpu)

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Let's call it a mix of a 4-core and an 8-core CPU. That way we have found a correct term for a lot of CPU's released in the last 5 years.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    I dont mind calling them modules. I just dont like the idea of calling an integer pipe a core. What about the FP pipe then? If an integer pipe is a core, shouldnt the FP pipe be considered a core too?

    I think a core should be considered a complete functional unit, which is what a module is.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    A Core is a single CPU. Period. If the design is so interwoven and shared that it can't be split up without evening out all modules; it's a single core.

    So this AMD is a dual-core CPU.

    Instructions might take more clock cycles to complete the logic operation, but it might be more efficient in that it can do more instructions per clock on avarage.

    What we're discussing is nothing but two identical CPU's that have dual integer modules (I still have to read up about that, will do).

    Given that most desktop stuff doesn't require insane amounts of floats per integers (less than 0.5); it's great and cheap. It's also great and cheap for home servers. Gaming not that much (if you buy the latest GPU's).

    I personally don't like this path, because float is already slower than integer. AMD now cut down the difference even further. This sucks balls. Short term decisions.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    By that definition, then a core on BD is not the same thing as a core on every other x86 architecture being used. On BD a so called core doesnt have a front end, or a FP unit, or a retirement stage, or a cache heirarchy.... No it just does not make any sense.

    A module is a dual processor core. A module is not a dual core processor.. It may seem like semantics to some, but I think it is a very important differentiation.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Floating point is freaking part of the CPU. Given that there are two, it's dual core. Unless you have four cores and two different ones at that.

    The term dual-core was invented for essentialy two CPU's being molten together on one die. In this case it's not any different. Unless it's a six core having four integer and two float cores. But they are not exactly entire seperate, so I'll simply calll this dual core.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    519

    Default

    While some argue about the semantics, I hope others are optimizing software for the architecture

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •