Bulldozer

[TrainTrackHack]

I'm quite hopeful that it'll perform better once operating systems get optimised such that they know to schedule tasks optimally, but I in general tend to stay away from first-generation offerings, good or bad. Phenom II pricing at the moment is awesome, so given the current circumstances I wouldn't consider a BD anyway.

I'm a bit disappointed though, with all the die space they're using, even if they somehow managed to get ahead of Intel in terms of performance with the following releases, it would still be a Pyrrhic victory at best.

 

[StrangleHold]

I'm a bit disappointed though, with all the die space they're using, even if they somehow managed to get ahead of Intel in terms of performance with the following releases, it would still be a Pyrrhic victory at best.

I dont really think the die/transistor size/amount is that big of a deal. In a module set up this is being sold as a 8 core. If they can get the IPC up 10/15% and the wattage down. Then get the scheduler worked out, which will be tricky. Not only how to throw threads around on the cores for the best performance. But that way makes a problem with the way turbo kicks in. If you have 4 threads, you get better performance by running one on each module, but doing that keeps the turbo from kicking in. Got theirself alittle dilemma. Pretty sure thats one reason the scheduler wasnt worked out before the release. For a desktop and you want the best performance out of these. Your going to have to disable turbo and overclock (one reason I think they are releasing all of them as unlocked)

 

[jonnyp11]

maybe, just MAYBE he like Intel because they have better performance? But no, liking a company is being a fanboy apparently.

do you see how he talks about them, he is a fanboy and several others on here have said that too. there is a difference from liking it because of performance and liking it because of brand.

 

[TrainTrackHack]

I dont really think the die/transistor size/amount is that big of a deal. In a module set up this is being sold as a 8 core. If they can get the IPC up 10/15% and the wattage down.

Depends. For now, it doesn't really matter, but if AMD does manage get the performance to a competitive level, Intel can easily just drop prices given how much smaller the SB die is while AMD will struggle to turn profit. And getting the wattage down with that many transistors to power is going to be a nightmare for a good handful of engineers.

If you have 4 threads, you get better performance by running one on each module, but doing that keeps the turbo from kicking in.

That also depends. If they're completely independent, sure, but if they belong to the same application or for any other reason happen to share data, it's most likely a fair bit more effective to have both running on the same module given that the L2 is shared. If they can fix the front-end issues and cache latencies, running a two threads in the same module should have a negligible impact on performance (unless they're both FP heavy... another nasty predicament).

 

[StrangleHold]

Depends. For now, it doesn't really matter, but if AMD does manage get the performance to a competitive level, Intel can easily just drop prices given how much smaller the SB die is while AMD will struggle to turn profit. And getting the wattage down with that many transistors to power is going to be a nightmare for a good handful of engineers.

Good point. Even if they get the performance up and lower the wattage. If Intel starts lower the prices it will make a big hit on AMD profits.

That also depends. If they're completely independent, sure, but if they belong to the same application or for any other reason happen to share data, it's most likely a fair bit more effective to have both running on the same module given that the L2 is shared. If they can fix the front-end issues and cache latencies, running a two threads in the same module should have a negligible impact on performance (unless they're both FP heavy... another nasty predicament).

True, if the module is running 2 threads that share data the impact wont be so bad. I would not want to be the one that has to figure out the scheduler.

Check this out.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865

 

[2048Megabytes]

It is going to be mainly a BIOS fix that is going to try and work out the Zambezi processor problems in my opinion. I wonder how many software engineers are working overtime now to try and get the fix out within a few months?

 

[claptonman]

So question about my new processor, my 960T. In coretemp, speccy, msconfig start up processor tab, and task manager, it shows it as having only 2 cores. But in device manager, it shows all 4 cores. Is this normal? And in BIOS, all 4 cores are enabled. Is this a problem?

 

[2048Megabytes]

So question about my new processor, my 960T. In coretemp, speccy, msconfig start up processor tab, and task manager, it shows it as having only 2 cores. But in device manager, it shows all 4 cores. Is this normal? And in BIOS, all 4 cores are enabled. Is this a problem?

Before you try any of this advice backup all your data to a separate storage device. In Device Manager I would try deleting the device driver for the processor and restarting the computer. If your operating system is still not detecting all four cores I would re-install the operating system.

 

[claptonman]

Before you try any of this advice backup all your data to a separate storage device. In Device Manager I would try deleting the device driver for the processor and restarting the computer. If your operating system is still not detecting all four cores I would re-install the operating system.

Well, windows does recognize all four cores in Device manager and BIOS, but no where else. I will try this, but I want to wait for other opinions to make sure.

 

[jonnyp11]

go to the task manager and under the processes tab right click on whatever program and make sure that the affinity is set on all 4 cores, otherwise the scheduler doesn't allow the program access to the unchecked cores.

 

[StrangleHold]

Does it show as a 4 core in Device Manager and Task Manager. Have you tried to unlock it as a 6 core yet?

Probably what you need to do is. Go into msconfig. Under the boot tab, click advanced options. Then where it says Number of Processors-uncheck it, click ok then reboot.

 

[Troncoso]

Why is this in the bulldozer thread???

 

[claptonman]

I didn't want to clutter the forum with another thread. I'll try that next time I'm on.

 

[StrangleHold]

The pisser about the whole thing is. AMD could have made a 4/6/8 core Deneb/Thuban at 32nm. Even made tweakes to it. It would have been faster at single and multi threaded. Plus a smaller die and cheaper to make. Put this piece of crap off till it worked right and everybody would have been better off.

 

[linkin]

http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865

Rather interesting. Probably going to pick one up once they drop in price.

These results couldn't be much more definitive. In every case but one, distributing the threads one per module, and thus avoiding sharing, produces roughly 10-20% higher performance than packing the threads together on two modules. (And that one case, the FDom function in picCOLOR, shows little difference between the three affinity options.) At least for this handful of workloads, the benefits of avoiding resource sharing between two cores on a module are pretty tangible. Even though the packed config enables a higher Turbo Core frequency of 4.2GHz, the shared config is faster.

 

[jonnyp11]

YAY!!!!!!!! AMD is back in the game, still a little behind intel but i want to see these against the 25/2600k's and see how it will stack up now, but those numbers look promising

 

[linkin]

Funny thing is, not a word from AMD or Microsoft about it... not yet, anyway.

 

[SuperDuperMe]

So does this mean Bulldozer is in the game or should i still be looking at thurban

EDIT: for gaming btw

 

[jonnyp11]

for the price i'd still be looking at the 690t zosma, 4 cores at 3ghz black edition, very likely to be 6 cores or at least 5 too and all while running at 95w (well the extra cores will probably require 125w) and all for 125 bucks. although if the increase is enough they finally got the fx-4100 in stock on newegg and it's only 130, 5 more than the 960t

 

[StrangleHold]

http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865

Rather interesting. Probably going to pick one up once they drop in price.

Post 305