It sounds almost like the PS3's Cell processor to me, but kind of backwards. Maybe an advanced clocking system that utilizes highly overclocked speeds on specific cores when others are inactive? A sort of advanced turbo boost. I wouldn't think you would need an entire core for that though. Sounds pretty cool, though.what do they mean 9th controlling the other
So instead of splitting the pipeline it has two separate pipelines? Guessing that's going to give performance close to multiple physical cores. I would think that would make a major handicap on clock speeds, wouldn't it? You could probably overclock it easily to significantly higher speeds if you disable the multithreading. Probably would be great for if you don't need more than a couple threads.I have no idea what they are talking about, link would be nice!
The first Bulldozer desktop will be called Zambezi. Suppost to be a 4/8 and 8/16 core, because each core has two 128-bit FMAC with two sets of pipelines. Hyperthreading on steroids.
So instead of splitting the pipeline it has two separate pipelines? Guessing that's going to give performance close to multiple physical cores. I would think that would make a major handicap on clock speeds, wouldn't it? You could probably overclock it easily to significantly higher speeds if you disable the multithreading. Probably would be great for if you don't need more than a couple threads.
In technical terms....bulldozer uses the exact opposite of what hyperthreading is.I have no idea what they are talking about, link would be nice!
The first Bulldozer desktop will be called Zambezi. Suppost to be a 4/8 and 8/16 core, because each core has two 128-bit FMAC with two sets of pipelines. Hyperthreading on steroids.
The first cpu's to market will be 8 core processors (with four bulldozer modules, so its not a true 8 core, somewhat of a pseudo 8 core).
Pretty sure that has changed. At first I think people thought a module was going to be counted by AMD as 2 cores. So two modules would be a 4 core.
Pretty sure that has changed and AMD is counting a module as a single core.
Think of each twin Integer core Bulldozer module as a single unit
I took that to mean that my assumption was correct and 4 Bulldozer cores meant 4 Bulldozer modules
link
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2881
I would highly doubt that, considering the fab that will be making bulldozer chips isnt even operational yet AFAIK.I heard it from some guy who claims to know a guy who has a chip (works for AMD or something) who let that info slip in a convo... And regreted it immediately cause hes under a NDA..
So saying that... It could all be BS... But you never know... It does sound interesting... And why is it 128bit... Some people have suggested that the 9th core is a dedicated single thread app core... but I dont think that really makes sense...
I would highly doubt that, considering the fab that will be making bulldozer chips isnt even operational yet AFAIK.
Having the actual chip may not be right lol. Ill have to go re read, perhaps it was just "in the know lol"
ES chips
Thats what he said lol...
But yeah like I said, could all be BS, who knows. Just thought Id share.
Well.... you already chose X58, right? I would have to say AM3. Supposedly AM3 will support Bulldozer, which is supposed to be a lot faster than Nehalem. It depends, though. If you don't need anything faster than the i7 then you might want X58. If you want to upgrade in the future, though, since Intel is coming out with socket 2011 you'll be out of luck. You might just want to get an AM3 mobo with a Phenom II X6. Honestly, I would choose neither at this point. You may as well wait half a year until the next generation of processors by Intel and AMD come out, so we can see for sure which is the better choice. For me personally, I don't need a upgrade. I'm not a gamer, and my C2Q gives me plenty of performance to spare. I don't need an upgrade until my computer can't run VB and the cheapest version of Windows that still gets updates. Up until last year I was running a Pentium III 800MHz. I seriously needed an upgrade.So which platform is worth investing in now? The i7 and X58 or Phenom and AM3?
Well.... you already chose X58, right? I would have to say AM3. Supposedly AM3 will support Bulldozer, which is supposed to be a lot faster than Nehalem. It depends, though. If you don't need anything faster than the i7 then you might want X58. If you want to upgrade in the future, though, since Intel is coming out with socket 2011 you'll be out of luck. You might just want to get an AM3 mobo with a Phenom II X6. Honestly, I would choose neither at this point. You may as well wait half a year until the next generation of processors by Intel and AMD come out, so we can see for sure which is the better choice. For me personally, I don't need a upgrade. I'm not a gamer, and my C2Q gives me plenty of performance to spare. I don't need an upgrade until my computer can't run VB and the cheapest version of Windows that still gets updates. Up until last year I was running a Pentium III 800MHz. I seriously needed an upgrade.
Link to one of the articles about it here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20010470-64.htmlI am more excited about Sandy Bridge than I have been about any product that the company has launched in a number of years.