AMD's Bulldozer

[Valentin N]

Hey all

AMD's Bulldozer, which is similar to Intel's Sandy Bridge, will be coming out on the market somewhere in April. The socket is called for AMD3+ and the new cpu will perform 78% better than the current AMD Phenom II x6.

The new CPU will be 4-cores cpu or 6 and each will core will have 2MB Level Cache 2 and 8MB shared Level Cache 3 for about. the name code will be Zambezi

Looks promising.

source

Wikipedia

 

[Valentin N]

RE: AMD's Bulldozer

The initial family of AMD's FX-series microprocessors based on Bulldozer micro-architecture will include four models with eight, six or four cores and 95W or 125W thermal design power (TDP).

The first breed of AMD FX8000, FX6000 and FX4000 currently known under Zambezi code-name will completely support all the advantages that the Bulldozer micro-architecture is supposed to bring, including new Flex FP floating point processing unit. The new chips in maximum eight-core configurations are projected - by AMD's internal documents - to offer roughly 50% performance improvement over Phenom II-series microprocessors in multimedia applications.

The primary family of AMD FX-series central processing units (CPUs) will feature two eight-core models, one six-core flavour as well as a quad-core version. The chips will support dual-channel DDR3 1866MHz memory, will support Turbo Core dynamic acceleration technology and will come in AM3+ form-factor and will have 125W and 95W TDP. The second "wave" of Bulldozer chips will also include four microprocessors and will improve performance of the initial breed of CPUs.

This is looking good and promising for AMD and something I would put my hands on if it has a better price than i7. 16MB as total Cache is very good.

source

 

[Valentin N]

RE: AMD's Bulldozer

AMD "Bulldozer" Interactive Series - Introduction

 

[jamescv7]

RE: AMD's Bulldozer

Will Your Motherboard Be Compatible With Bulldozer? We Find Out

AMD’s Bulldozer may not arrive until this summer if the rumors are true, but board makers such as MSI are already guaranteeing that some of its current AM3 boards will work perfectly fine with AM3+. With AMD long saying that Bulldozer would not work with AM3, how is this possible? To find out, I made a few calls to get the skinny on how MSI, Gigabyte and others are enabling support for the upcoming Bulldozer chip.

Link

 

[Valentin N]

RE: AMD's Bulldozer

Will Your Motherboard Be Compatible With Bulldozer? We Find Out

AMD’s Bulldozer may not arrive until this summer if the rumors are true, but board makers such as MSI are already guaranteeing that some of its current AM3 boards will work perfectly fine with AM3+. With AMD long saying that Bulldozer would not work with AM3, how is this possible? To find out, I made a few calls to get the skinny on how MSI, Gigabyte and others are enabling support for the upcoming Bulldozer chip.

Link

Gigabyte does have offical report from AMD that Bulldozer will work on them. I don't know about ASUS.

 

[Shadow Death]

RE: AMD's Bulldozer

Gigabyte, ASUS, and ASrock all have AM3+ boards available. I believe the report now is the first release of Bulldozer will be AM3 while later on they will supply AM3+ boards.

It's interesting how the new architecture works actually. On the quad core processors they have 2 modules, each sharing cache between them.

Based on the information provided by AMD during its annual Analyst Day in November 2009, the Bulldozer chip code-named Zambezi (which belongs to Orochi family, according to the firm) will feature eight x86 processing engines (cores) organized in pairs (called a "module", which is invisible to the OS). The cores of a module share a floating point unit with two 128-bit FMAC units and two 128-bit integer SIMD units, and a L2 cache. Multiple modules share a L3 cache as well as an Advanced Dual-Channel Memory Sub-System (IMC - Integrated Memory Controller). Bulldozer is designed for higher memory level parallelism. AMD also states that the new CPU will feature “Extensive New Power Management Innovations”. The new chips that belong to Bulldozer’s family will also support “Advanced Vector Extensions” (AVX) that supports 256-bit FP operations.

 

[Valentin N]

RE: AMD's Bulldozer

Gigabyte, ASUS, and ASrock all have AM3+ boards available. I believe the report now is the first release of Bulldozer will be AM3 while later on they will supply AM3+ boards.

It's interesting how the new architecture works actually. On the quad core processors they have 2 modules, each sharing cache between them.

Based on the information provided by AMD during its annual Analyst Day in November 2009, the Bulldozer chip code-named Zambezi (which belongs to Orochi family, according to the firm) will feature eight x86 processing engines (cores) organized in pairs (called a "module", which is invisible to the OS). The cores of a module share a floating point unit with two 128-bit FMAC units and two 128-bit integer SIMD units, and a L2 cache. Multiple modules share a L3 cache as well as an Advanced Dual-Channel Memory Sub-System (IMC - Integrated Memory Controller). Bulldozer is designed for higher memory level parallelism. AMD also states that the new CPU will feature “Extensive New Power Management Innovations”. The new chips that belong to Bulldozer’s family will also support “Advanced Vector Extensions” (AVX) that supports 256-bit FP operations.

I am still curious if that will beat intel's HT-tech cpu. To put it simple Bulldozer doesn't share their level 1 like its done in HT and that will have great impact on the performance. While a HT-tech cpu will only 114% (normal cpu is 100%) up bulldozer will have 184%. But this only theory and if the price is nice I will definitely buy an AMD Bulldozer when if it's not as strong as i7.

Lets not forget that OS and other application needs to accept AVX in order to make use of it.

Offtopic

---

Actually I would take 2x of the new Opteron 8/12 core (6000 series) (if I not wrong it already has bulldozar inside), nice gpu and install Windows 7pro and there I have a monster computer.

---

Regards,
Valentin N

 

[Shadow Death]

RE: AMD's Bulldozer

I don't really see not sharing L1 cache as being a hindrance. They noted that they were trying to tie 2 cores together without bottlenecking each which is why it has as many pipelines as it does. I think this is also the reason for independent L1 cache. A core won't have to wait until the other is finished to use or share it.

I see shared L1 Cache as having your own personal Bank teller at the bank, while everyone else has to wait in line to talk to one, you get to go straight to the front. It would be like you and someone else having your own cellphones but you both share the same line. You have to wait on them to finish before you can make a phone call.

 

[Valentin N]

RE: AMD's Bulldozer

I have read at softpedia that they won't cost that much (180-320$) and if the performance is nice AMD will rock the house ^^. Btw have you read my little thread how Intel are marketing their cpu? (I think it's called intel something)

Regards,
Valentin N

 

[Shadow Death]

RE: AMD's Bulldozer

Probably, AMD is notorious for under cutting Intel on prices.

 

[Ashleysisco]

RE: AMD's Bulldozer

AMD new eight-core bulldozer processor named "Zambezi" is priced at $320 and runs flawlessly if Galaxy GT430 1 gig ddr3 Video cards are used with it. This places it squarely in the range of Intel's unlocked Core i7-2600K.:idea:

 

[Valentin N]

RE: AMD's Bulldozer

Hey all

AMD's Bulldozer, which is similar to Intel's Sandy Bridge, will be coming out on the market somewhere in April. The socket is called for AMD3+ and the new cpu will perform 78% better than the current AMD Phenom II x6.

The new CPU will be 4-cores cpu or 6 and each will core will have 2MB Level Cache 2 and 8MB shared Level Cache 3 for about. the name code will be Zambezi

Looks promising.

source

Wikipedia

This looked one the papper but reviews show that its older brother Phenom can in some cases be better, espacially when it comes to single threaded
application. in multi it was head to head to i5 and i7.

After seeing the tests that toms hardware and xbitslabs did, I realize that intel are better. i5 costs for about 200$ that deliever power at 95W as max (xlabs measured 60 as max, Intel 3000 uses 10 or more Watts), compared to bulldozer that can use up to 130W with no gpu integrated.

Tests

---

Xbits
Tom's hardware

 

[Hungry Man]

RE: AMD's Bulldozer

A disappointing release.

 

[Valentin N]

RE: AMD's Bulldozer

A disappointing release.

true. Didn't they make any benchmark before.... AMD has to come with something more innovative. If Intel makes cpu modules with HT they will rock the house. one module would be 4 threads.

I have adviced people to take amd but I am not convinced of that anymore. Intel give monster cpu at the same price and crushes amd like never before. AMD's new cpu has 8 cores and intel has 4 physical and 4 logical.

Even the performance/$ and performance/W is on intels side.

The next thing we will see is intel mobile cpu clean the floor with bulldozer.

I wish for better results from AMD

 

[Hungry Man]

RE: AMD's Bulldozer

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_fx8150_cpu_review/12

What on earth are they doing? The numbers imply something monumental. It marmalises the Intel on clock speed, cache and number of cores, yet the results show that even the i5-2500K beats it in nearly every test, and the i7-2600K annihilates it to such a degree it's embarrassing. How AMD have the cheek to compare it to an i7-980X in pricing terms is frankly beyond us. If a i5-2500K can make this look merely average, the i7-980X would make it look like something from the stone-age.

 

[Shadow Death]

RE: AMD's Bulldozer

I believe you guys are all making a mistake by selling it short. Everywhere I read, "it's a disappointment", "it sucks". Tomhardware is and always has been known for being biast in their benchmarks. They always reflect whoever they want to win.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/14

Disappoint these benchmarks. >.>

Seriously, you benchmark a chip and leave it running at 3.6GHz when it uses turbo core technology? If it's a standard feature friggin use it in your benchmarks. These guys overclocked it 400MHz past it's default turbo core frequency of 4.2GHz and it blows the doors off the i7 2600K in all multithreaded benchmarks.

This is why I stopped reading PCworld, PCgamer, and MaximumPC

 

[Valentin N]

RE: AMD's Bulldozer

I believe you guys are all making a mistake by selling it short. Everywhere I read, "it's a disappointment", "it sucks". Tomhardware is and always has been known for being biast in their benchmarks. They always reflect whoever they want to win.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/14

Disappoint these benchmarks. >.>

Seriously, you benchmark a chip and leave it running at 3.6GHz when it uses turbo core technology? If it's a standard feature friggin use it in your benchmarks. These guys overclocked it 400MHz past it's default turbo core frequency of 4.2GHz and it blows the doors off the i7 2600K in all multithreaded benchmarks.

This is why I stopped reading PCworld, PCgamer, and MaximumPC

multithreads is not everything and only if all of the cores are in use then it beats i7-2600K. If we had the same amount of cores in i7-2600, intel would blow AMD (They insist of calling it octacore, it would sound better if they called it quadcore-modules.). Bulldozer is not bad but that Phenom II or Athlon II are better just better in some cases and some cases equal to Phenom II. I think Phenom II with X8 would maybe beat bulldozer in.

Bulldozer's strongest quality is multi-threads(all cores in use).

 

[Shadow Death]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the Phenom II's and Athlon II's being better... I had a Athlon II x4 and even pushed it to 3.2GHz and it didn't make much difference. I currently have a Phenom II x4 955 BE that I'm having fun with, it beats out the Athlon II easily but does not compare to the Phenom II x6. The Phenom II x6 is the only CPU in the Phenom II line that really stands a chance right out of the box. AMD said that their intentions were to compete with the i5 2500k and the i7 2600k. For those of us who aren't made of money, we will go with the FX simply because it's cheaper all around to build an AMD rig than it is an intel rig. Price vs buck. Everyone wanted AMD to drop an atomic bomb on Intel with this setup. Intel created "Hyper-Threading" which uses the came core to run multiple threads with one flaw, only 2 pipelines. While one thread is moving through it the other has to wait. That is why the AMD FX beats it is because it has 2 DEDICATED cores per module, each having it's own pipelines. I could explain most of it but to me the reviews tell me that it's still more cost effective to buy the FX 8150. Mostly because the performance gains through overclocking are really good.

 

[Valentin N]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the Phenom II's and Athlon II's being better... I had a Athlon II x4 and even pushed it to 3.2GHz and it didn't make much difference. I currently have a Phenom II x4 955 BE that I'm having fun with, it beats out the Athlon II easily but does not compare to the Phenom II x6. The Phenom II x6 is the only CPU in the Phenom II line that really stands a chance right out of the box. AMD said that their intentions were to compete with the i5 2500k and the i7 2600k. For those of us who aren't made of money, we will go with the FX simply because it's cheaper all around to build an AMD rig than it is an intel rig. Price vs buck. Everyone wanted AMD to drop an atomic bomb on Intel with this setup. Intel created "Hyper-Threading" which uses the came core to run multiple threads with one flaw, only 2 pipelines. While one thread is moving through it the other has to wait. That is why the AMD FX beats it is because it has 2 DEDICATED cores per module, each having it's own pipelines. I could explain most of it but to me the reviews tell me that it's still more cost effective to buy the FX 8150. Mostly because the performance gains through overclocking are really good.

The main problem that I have is that the phenom II is in many ways better. The second problem is the single threaded application. Then I find the performance very poor if it's octa vs quad. if amd would say that it's a quad-core then it would be different Another problem is the watt usage, i5 uses 60-70, where bulldozer almost uses twice the amount of energy.

Wouldn't it have been better if each core had their own fpu scheduler? How would amd then perform.

I hope the next generation will better since I like amd and their products.

 

[MetalShaun]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the Phenom II's and Athlon II's being better... I had a Athlon II x4 and even pushed it to 3.2GHz and it didn't make much difference. I currently have a Phenom II x4 955 BE that I'm having fun with, it beats out the Athlon II easily but does not compare to the Phenom II x6. The Phenom II x6 is the only CPU in the Phenom II line that really stands a chance right out of the box. AMD said that their intentions were to compete with the i5 2500k and the i7 2600k. For those of us who aren't made of money, we will go with the FX simply because it's cheaper all around to build an AMD rig than it is an intel rig. Price vs buck. Everyone wanted AMD to drop an atomic bomb on Intel with this setup. Intel created "Hyper-Threading" which uses the came core to run multiple threads with one flaw, only 2 pipelines. While one thread is moving through it the other has to wait. That is why the AMD FX beats it is because it has 2 DEDICATED cores per module, each having it's own pipelines. I could explain most of it but to me the reviews tell me that it's still more cost effective to buy the FX 8150. Mostly because the performance gains through overclocking are really good.

Stop cherry picking the paper stats and look at the evidence. Valentin N was clearly very much on the AMD side but has changed his view ( I applaud him for that) because of the weight of the results coming from every hardware enthusiasts website on the net. I loved AMD back in the Athlon 64 days and had multiple computers all running AMD but ever since Lynnfield 1156 CPUS (many people will argue even before then) Intels architectures have been far superior on performance per clock and performance per watt. AMD has been using the same CPU design since 2007. Yea Bulldozer might be better suite for heavily threaded programs of the future. but give it a few months and Intel will be unleashing the brand new 22nm Tri-gate transistor Ivy Bridge Architecture pushing AMD behind even further.

Here is two more reviews by Hardware Canucks and Bit Tech.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/1
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/47155-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150-processor-review.html

Cheers
Shaun