Cinebech fx 6300 "3 Cores, 6 Threads"

[comicsansms]

Cinebench is saying that my six core amd fx 6300 has 3 cores and 6 threads.

Why is this? Is this a bug?

[REX.exe]

It only has 3 PHYSICAL cores.

[cheeze_tartz]

Cinebench is not wrong

[Kamina]

That's how windows reads it now. It's 3 modules and 6 cores.

[comicsansms]

That's how windows reads it now. It's 3 modules and 6 cores.

But why does windows see it like that?

[The Official Czex]

But why does windows see it like that?

 

It only has three physical cores.

[Br3tt96]

But why does windows see it like that?

Let me put it this way. The cpu shows as 3 logical cores, but each core runs like two. It's confusing, but works.

That's one of the reasons why I hated my old fx-6300. It was crappy

[SkywardKkalox]

That CPU has 3 physical cores on the die and +3 logical/digital "cores" that are named threads.

[Kamina]

But why does windows see it like that?

Sometimes to do with performance issues and how it handled threads.

[Br3tt96]

That CPU has 3 physical cores on the die and +3 logical/digital "cores" that are named threads.

I've never understood it a 100%, but what you're saying is, that's it's a super crappy knock off version of Hyperthreading?

[Sam Z Man]

I've never understood it a 100%, but what you're saying is, that's it's a super crappy knock off version of Hyperthreading?

AMD module system blows hyperthreading out of the fucking water.

[PineappleHolidays]

I've never understood it a 100%, but what you're saying is, that's it's a super crappy knock off version of Hyperthreading?

Immagine it like your head and arms,

there are two arms per head, whereas intel has one arm and "extra fingers" per head

Not the best analogy

[SkywardKkalox]

I've never understood it a 100%, but what you're saying is, that's it's a super crappy knock off version of Hyperthreading?

more or less. It's basically a less efficient hyperthreading.

[Br3tt96]

AMD module system blows hyperthreading out of the fucking water.

It might, but I don't see the benchmarks to prove it. You have to overclock an amd balls to the walls compete with intel. Go back and look through the cinebench scores

[Sam Z Man]

It might, but I don't see the benchmarks to prove it. You have to overclock an amd balls to the walls compete with intel. Go back and look through the cinebench scores

I'm not saying that it beats Intel's CPU's in performance because it doesn't.

But AMD's version of "hyperthreading" is miles ahead of intel hyperthreading when it comes to actually being able to be used in situations.

A AMD module performs so much more like 2 individual cores then a hyperthreading core ever could.

[Sam Z Man]

Immagine it like your head and arms,

there are two arms per head, whereas intel has one arm and "extra fingers" per head

Not the best analogy

I like the idea but a better way to describe it is like this.

Intel Core= One arm feeding one head.

Intel Hyperthreading Core= Two arms feeding one head.

AMD module= Two heads getting fed by there own arm that eat from the same plate and go to the same stomach.

[harrynowl]

Quite a lot of misinformation in this thread...

 

more or less. It's basically a less efficient hyperthreading.

Technically it's more efficient. CMT has a die space investment unlike SMT (Hyperthreading). But the performance scaling is ~80% whereas Hyperthreading is around 20%. CMT would be a pretty good implementation if AMD were capable of producing a high performance core in the first place.

 

I've never understood it a 100%, but what you're saying is, that's it's a super crappy knock off version of Hyperthreading?

No. This is a CMT implementation. Hyperthreading is SMT. They are very different ways of achieving greater multithreaded performance with reduced/no die space investment compared to implementing a full core.

 

That CPU has 3 physical cores on the die and +3 logical/digital "cores" that are named threads. 

It only has 3 PHYSICAL cores.

It has 3 full core implementations and each core has an extra ALU (integer) cluster. CMT is a physical implementation not a software implementation like HT.

 

Cinebench is saying that my six core amd fx 6300 has 3 cores and 6 threads.

 

Why is this? Is this a bug?

Well if you were to run Windows 7 without SP1 it'd show as 6 cores 6 threads.

 

The issue they were having is the task scheduling was broken as Bulldozer isn't what we'd call a true 6 core, as there are not 6 full cores, there are technically 3 full cores and each full core has some doubled resources (they call these cores modules).

 

 

So you have your full performance; it's not a bug or anything.

[Dabombinable]

Quite a lot of misinformation in this thread...

 

Technically it's more efficient. CMT has a die space investment unlike SMT (Hyperthreading). But the performance scaling is ~80% whereas Hyperthreading is around 20%. CMT would be a pretty good implementation if AMD were capable of producing a high performance core in the first place.

 

No. This is a CMT implementation. Hyperthreading is SMT. They are very different ways of achieving greater multithreaded performance with reduced/no die space investment compared to implementing a full core.

 

 

It has 3 full core implementations and each core has an extra ALU (integer) cluster. CMT is a physical implementation not a software implementation like HT.

 

Well if you were to run Windows 7 without SP1 it'd show as 6 cores 6 threads.

 

The issue they were having is the task scheduling was broken as Bulldozer isn't what we'd call a true 6 core, as there are not 6 full cores, there are technically 3 full cores and each full core has some doubled resources (they call these cores modules).

 

 

So you have your full performance; it's not a bug or anything.

That '2 strong threads' always gets me. Its 2 shitty threads, each of which is weaker than my Pentium III Tulatin based Celeron M380 (in regards to IPC, clock for clock a late model Pentium III is extremely close-which says something about how good they are to be competing with AMD CPU's after 10 years of manufacturing)

[harrynowl]

That '2 strong threads' always gets me. Its 2 shitty threads, each of which is weaker than my Pentium III Tulatin based Celeron M380 (in regards to IPC, clock for clock a late model Pentium III is extremely close-which says something about how good they are to be competing with AMD CPU's after 10 years of manufacturing)

Technically both threads are strong (80% scaling) in comparison to a SMT (20% scaling) implementation of adding extra threads. CMT would work if AMD were capable of building a high performance core in the first place.

[Dabombinable]

Technically both threads are strong (80% scaling) in comparison to a SMT (20% scaling) implementation of adding extra threads. CMT would work if AMD were capable of building a high performance core in the first place.

They had them though-at the time Phenom II were keeping pace with the first gen i5's. I think AMD lacks the ability to continually develop high performance CPU's. Back in the Athlon days they kicked the crap out of Intel's Pentium 4. (Its still funny though how my dual Pentium III's outperform a 3.2GHz P4 Nortwood, all while consuming less power).

[harrynowl]

They had them though-at the time Phenom II were keeping pace with the first gen i5's. I think AMD lacks the ability to continually develop high performance CPU's. Back in the Athlon days they kicked the crap out of Intel's Pentium 4. (Its still funny though how my dual Pentium III's outperform a 3.2GHz P4 Nortwood, all while consuming less power).

They lack the budget to keep up with Intel. Intel made a mistake with P68 (NetBurst) that they'll probably never make again. Intel's massive R&D budget can't be matched by a company that's bled money since 2010 and has massively reduced all its teams.

[Sam Z Man]

Quite a lot of misinformation in this thread...

 

Technically it's more efficient. CMT has a die space investment unlike SMT (Hyperthreading). But the performance scaling is ~80% whereas Hyperthreading is around 20%. CMT would be a pretty good implementation if AMD were capable of producing a high performance core in the first place.

 

No. This is a CMT implementation. Hyperthreading is SMT. They are very different ways of achieving greater multithreaded performance with reduced/no die space investment compared to implementing a full core.

 

It has 3 full core implementations and each core has an extra ALU (integer) cluster. CMT is a physical implementation not a software implementation like HT.

 

Well if you were to run Windows 7 without SP1 it'd show as 6 cores 6 threads.

 

The issue they were having is the task scheduling was broken as Bulldozer isn't what we'd call a true 6 core, as there are not 6 full cores, there are technically 3 full cores and each full core has some doubled resources (they call these cores modules).

 

 

So you have your full performance; it's not a bug or anything.

I bookmarked this for the next time this topic comes up again. But I read up on it a month back holy balls you explain it so much better then wikipedia.

Just quick question is my analogy a good way of expressing how they function?

[harrynowl]

I bookmarked this for the next time this topic comes up again. But I read up on it a month back holy balls you explain it so much better then wikipedia.

Just quick question is my analogy a good way of expressing how they function?

I assume you're on about this analogy:

 

I like the idea but a better way to describe it is like this.

Intel Core= One arm feeding one head.

Intel Hyperthreading Core= Two arms feeding one head.

AMD module= Two heads getting fed by there own arm that eat from the same plate and go to the same stomach.

 

They're pretty good, although I found the AMD module one a bit hard to read/understand; but it is a fairly complicated technology.

 

You could tidy it up to:

AMD Modules would be two heads each being fed by their own arm, but they take the food from the same plate.

 

The stomach part isn't necessary in my opinion, each integer cluster (core, whatever people want to call them) still process a different instruction; it just get's it from the same front end (plate).

[Sam Z Man]

I assume you're on about this analogy:

 

They're pretty good, although I found the AMD module one a bit hard to read/understand; but it is a fairly complicated technology.

 

You could tidy it up to:

 

The stomach part isn't necessary in my opinion, each integer cluster (core, whatever people want to call them) still process a different instruction; it just get's it from the same front end (plate).

Thanks, I have always been trying to find the best way to explain how the module system works, but never found a way that suited my liking thanks for the input, you know what your talking about and are very helpful.

[harrynowl]

Thanks, I have always been trying to find the best way to explain how the module system works, but never found a way that suited my liking thanks for the input, you know what your talking about and are very helpful.

Thanks, glad I could help