erek
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 11,062
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fact is this is false, because it's an 8 core Integer with shared FP 2 by 2. Not sure how Windows treats that because of Windows limitations but Linux may say otherwise. Means your OS will work as an 8 core because data treatment and integers make the core on CPUs. But justice has decided it's 4 core.
The speed has never been the spec used to count the number of cores.Theory can be argued either way; AMD's 'modules' look quite a bit like an SMT2 core from Intel or AMD's own Ryzen. The bigger challenge for Bulldozer was that AMD declared their modules to be comprised of two 'cores', yet each of these modules were slower than the single-threaded cores on the CPU architecture they were meant to replace.
One can understand being a bit miffed about AMD selling a shiny new 'eight-core' CPU that is slower than the quad-core CPU it replaced.
They settled because they didn't want to create bad publicity when they launched new products that had nothing to do with their older one. However, AMD was right. There were 8 cores, not 4.it's not a 4 core.
again there is still no legal definition because amd settled the case.
Bulldozer was a wait to cheat people out of performane
saying 8 core but only getting 4 cores of performance in FPU ( and thne the FPU was pretty bad as well)
dont care what marketing gimmicks say when a task that can scale linearly with threads doe no longer scale linearly with threads its because you don't have the core to pack it
in FPU heavy process the "8 core*" cpu show same scaling ability as a cpu with 4 cores and SMT but at least Intel only sold those as 4 cores and not market as 8
Integer different story. that's why it get convoluted. on integer heavy process the cpu scaled like an 8 cores
so yeah its kinda both 8 and a 4 core depending on the instructions/part of the cpu yoi are using
the idea was good. but they marketed as it best situation which leaves ppl with a bad taste in their mouth
P.S.
this is just as easy to test as SMT is with affinity. take 5 minuttes to show it
however if recent windows 10 1909 ryzen patch is also applied to FX we should see speed improvemtns
if not there is still project mercury to overcome the bulldozer lthread conflicts and get more game performance
in short:
Calling it 8 core is over prommising
calling it 4 core is not giving it enough praise
is both at the same time 8 core integer. 4 core FP
Thatwhat the CMT design was all about
I think without Bulldozer we wouldnt have chiplets at least not yet. I think that failure led to the incredible ryzen.
Last amd I had before Ryzen 1st gen was phenom ii 965 be and way before that was Athlon 64 and before that was probably something I forgot about but definitely first amd was 486 dx4-100mhz.
I've had intel between those gaps.
So I never experienced the bulldozer line simply because it came out when I was on a good Intel platform. I think my 3930k at the time.
No, it wasn't. It never cheated anyone. Anyone who read reviews at the time knew what they were getting.
This is barely English, but it appears to be wrong from what I can tell. The FPU has nothing to do with whether or not the processor is an 8 core or a 4 core. FPU's have often been entirely separate or not part of a CPU design at all. There is no legal or technical definition where a CPU core has to have an integrated or paired FPU to be considered a full CPU core. It was a bad design, but calling it an 8-core CPU isn't over promising. Giving a CPU any amount of cores does not by itself promise anything.
That's speculative at best. I don't know that I agree with it either. There is no lineage between Ryzen and Bulldozer beyond Ryzen coming after the latter chronologically. I'd say that at the very least, this does not have to be the case. That is, there is nothing specifically in Bulldozer that necessarily lead to AMD coming up with Ryzen. That's like saying the Pentium 4 lead to the Core 2 micro-architecture. There is literally nothing in the design carried over. In fact, the Core 2 was based on the Pentium Pro's P6 microarchitecture. The only thing that influenced the Core 2's design to be better was Netburst sucking so bad. Multi-die chip designs date back to the 1970's in IBM bubble memory. The Pentium Pro had a separate cache die and so on. The modern "chiplet" isn't something that belongs to AMD alone. The point is I don't think Bulldozer has a damn thing to do with it beyond sucking bad enough to force AMD to regroup and do things differently.
At the current time this DPU releases no CPU in the consumer market haved had cores with missing FPU parts for decades. That we once had no FPU with a core back in the early 32bits days of a 386sx does not really apply to todays expectation to a CPU sold today
Rver since the 486 the FPU has been includrf in the "core so ever since multiprocessor existed the FPU unit was part of the core
CMT design isolated that and gave a single FPU unit behind 2 integer units. So 2 threads had to share thesame FPU unit just as if it was only 1 core per each 2 core said on the box.
That the design that how AMD built it. but in te box it did not say "hey we changed the common percepetion or core by removing half of he FPU units.
If they had been honest with the marketing it would have had to be a problem.
You can argue that in fact there has never been a "core" with no FPU units as when the term came around with multicore. They all had FPU units behind each INT unit.
AMD is the only one in the consumer market to my knowledge that did this kind of under delivering.
They put Themselve in a hard position with this hybrid design of 8 INT units wit only 4 FPU units.
but the fact remain these CPU could not scale to more than 4 cores when it came to FPU
Also:
AMD does not promise with review are showing. i cant go to AMD and say hey this site tested you cpu to give me ex amount of performance.
What AMD promises is what is on the box when I buy the product
review are not a free pass to play loosey gossey with terminology
Theory can be argued either way; AMD's 'modules' look quite a bit like an SMT2 core from Intel or AMD's own Ryzen. The bigger challenge for Bulldozer was that AMD declared their modules to be comprised of two 'cores', yet each of these modules were slower than the single-threaded cores on the CPU architecture they were meant to replace.
One can understand being a bit miffed about AMD selling a shiny new 'eight-core' CPU that is slower than the quad-core CPU it replaced.
Imagine if AMD just flat out bought reviews and journalists to cover up bad news about their products.
AMD wasn't deceitful, it's an 8 core processor with 4 shared FPUs.
The weak single-threaded performance is from the small cores.
It was a perfectly fine 1080p gaming processor that could do a lot at once
and that's how they marketed it.
I still have a Bulldozer and Piledriver in service.
They were a lot of fun to play around with back in the day and they're still solid CPUs (4.6/4.8 GHz @ 1.45v since I bought them).
No huge security nightmares like Meltdown, either.
I love it when people talk about bought reviews. I've certainly seen questionable opinions in certain industries. It would seem to be ripe in some of them, but I've never encountered it myself.
I haven't seen any prominent ones that couldn't be attributed to poor methodology. Producing good reviews is really very hard work that not everyone is cut out for; there's a reason I never tried to get into it myself despite having an interest and an aptitude for the technology.
I think people forget how difficult it is to rigidly test something and then to follow the numbers despite where their preconceptions started them. Whole branches of philosophy have been created to figure out how to do that successfully.
This is true. I ran tests on the Linux kernel. In Linux it was comparable to Sandy bridge and in many tests it would beat it if you considered cache sizes during complication. The main problem that chip had was its cache was tiny and slow. Many things such as games are very cache sensitive and there was no way to fix that. But if things stayed in cache then performance was actually ok. TDP sucked though.If I remember there were some highly customized workloads or maybe it was custom Linux Kernels that really allowed the FX line to blaze! The chips showed massive potential when coded for properly. But no way was Microsoft going to change their entire empire for one silicon iteration.