FX-6300 3 cores?

[spwath]

Er...

It says that there are 3 cores, but 6 logical processorys.

I thought it had 6 cores...

 

[zsanfusa]

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1784395/amd-fx6300-shows-cores.html

[Unhelpful]

 

It has 3 bulldozer modules, each of which count as 2 cores. Although I'm not 100% sure thats whats happening here.

[BloodWithIce]

the amd bulldozer architecture is different from most traditional architectures for cpus. 

it puts 2 cores inside 1 module, as opposed to 1 core per module. This makes the 2 cores fight each other for resources, making they far less efficient. (to give a analogy, its like giving a complex math problem to 2 students in which requires a pen and paper to figure out. there is only 1 sheet of paper and 1 pen to use between both students, and they are fighting over the use of it) 

so the fx6300 has 6 cores 3 modules and 6 threads. its would be essentially a 3 core cpu with 6 threads. it works similar how intel has hyperthreading in which it gives 2 threads per core. Except intels hyperthreading is software based, where as the bulldozer is hardware based since there are physical cores. So its far better then hyperthreading. 

the reason windows sees it as a 3 core processor, is because windows 8 was designed that way. It includes the amd bulldozer patch already. (it was a patch for windows 7, but automatically included in 8). What that patch does is make windows see the bulldozers modules as cores. 
so a fx4300 is seen as a 2core/4thread cpu, fx6300 is seen as a 3core/6thread cpu and a 8350 is a 4core/8thread cpu by windows. 
this actually increases the performance of the cpu by about 8-12%.

Source: yahoo

[spwath]

AMD uses two physical integer core per module.

 

It has 3 bulldozer modules, each of which count as 2 cores. Although I'm not 100% sure thats whats happening here.

SO does that mean its not really a true 6 core?

 

the amd bulldozer architecture is different from most traditional architectures for cpus. 

it puts 2 cores inside 1 module, as opposed to 1 core per module. This makes the 2 cores fight each other for resources, making they far less efficient. (to give a analogy, its like giving a complex math problem to 2 students in which requires a pen and paper to figure out. there is only 1 sheet of paper and 1 pen to use between both students, and they are fighting over the use of it) 

so the fx6300 has 6 cores 3 modules and 6 threads. its would be essentially a 3 core cpu with 6 threads. it works similar how intel has hyperthreading in which it gives 2 threads per core. Except intels hyperthreading is software based, where as the bulldozer is hardware based since there are physical cores. So its far better then hyperthreading. 

the reason windows sees it as a 3 core processor, is because windows 8 was designed that way. It includes the amd bulldozer patch already. (it was a patch for windows 7, but automatically included in 8). What that patch does is make windows see the bulldozers modules as cores. 

so a fx4300 is seen as a 2core/4thread cpu, fx6300 is seen as a 3core/6thread cpu and a 8350 is a 4core/8thread cpu by windows. 

this actually increases the performance of the cpu by about 8-12%.

Source: yahoo

OH ok. So its less cores than a quad core with hyperthreading.

[flibberdipper]

Seems normal to me. My Sempron when it was unlocked was 1 core and 2 logical processors.

[qwertywarrior]

AMD uses CMT instead of SMT like intel

 

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/the-myth-of-cmt-cluster-based-multithreading/

[Enderman]

This is why Linus calls AMD cores 'half cores'

[Unhelpful]

 

AMD handles cores differently than Intel. Intel does physical cores and logical cores, whereas AMD does (in this scenario) modules. The FX-6300 has 3 bulldozer modules, each bulldozer module KIND OF has two cores. Don't worry about it too much, I think what you are seeing is normal. The 6300 is a nice CPU.

 

If anything I said is incorrect then please tell me. I am less experienced with this topic than I would like to be.

[FireFox]

the amd bulldozer architecture is different from most traditional architectures for cpus. 

it puts 2 cores inside 1 module, as opposed to 1 core per module. This makes the 2 cores fight each other for resources, making they far less efficient. (to give a analogy, its like giving a complex math problem to 2 students in which requires a pen and paper to figure out. there is only 1 sheet of paper and 1 pen to use between both students, and they are fighting over the use of it) 

so the fx6300 has 6 cores 3 modules and 6 threads. its would be essentially a 3 core cpu with 6 threads. it works similar how intel has hyperthreading in which it gives 2 threads per core. Except intels hyperthreading is software based, where as the bulldozer is hardware based since there are physical cores. So its far better then hyperthreading.

 

Not entirely, hyperthreading is actually hardware as well

[spwath]

AMD handles cores differently than Intel. Intel does physical cores and logical cores, whereas AMD does (in this scenario) modules. The FX-6300 has 3 bulldozer modules, each bulldozer module KIND OF has two cores. Don't worry about it too much, I think what yo uare seeing is normal. The 6300 is a nice CPU.

OK.

[Lazmarr]

IIRC it was actually part of a bug fix for windows 8 as AMD ffx cpu's had problematic performance. Microsoft's solution, that has seemed to work so far, was to use the intel HT for the FX CPU's.

I can try and hunt down the article for it too

[Faa]

IIRC it was actually part of a bug fix for windows 8 as AMD ffx cpu's had problematic performance. Microsoft's solution, that has seemed to work so far, was to use the intel HT for the FX CPU's.

I can try and hunt down the article for it too

No lol, when SMT (HT) came out back somewhere in 2004 orsomething (yes single core cpu with ht pentium 4's) Windows had issues with it, MS fixed it with a patch. They had to do the same for Bulldozer. You're not re-using what you used for SMT for CMT.

[vm'N]

the amd bulldozer architecture is different from most traditional architectures for cpus. 

it puts 2 cores inside 1 module, as opposed to 1 core per module. This makes the 2 cores fight each other for resources, making they far less efficient. (to give a analogy, its like giving a complex math problem to 2 students in which requires a pen and paper to figure out. there is only 1 sheet of paper and 1 pen to use between both students, and they are fighting over the use of it) 

AMD's bulldozer architecture feature the core technology called CMT. CMT is basically duplicating certain parts of a core. In bulldozer and piledrivers case we are talking about duplication of the ALU cluster. In reality the module is the actual physical core. It is only in certain workloads that these two ALU cluster (what people mention as AMD's bulldozer "cores") will be fighting over resources. It would mostlikely be heavy AVX workloads or heavy memory workloads. In these cases the CMT architecture will bottleneck, and course these "cores" to fight over resources. However in most workloads, these "cores" can work without interferings. The reason of these "cores" bad performance is more related to that each ALU cluster ("cores") only feature 2 ALUs and 2 AGUs, compared to haswell which feature 4 ALUs and 4 AGUs per ALU cluster.

 

so the fx6300 has 6 cores 3 modules and 6 threads. its would be essentially a 3 core cpu with 6 threads. it works similar how intel has hyperthreading in which it gives 2 threads per core. Except intels hyperthreading is software based, where as the bulldozer is hardware based since there are physical cores. So its far better then hyperthreading. 

The FX 6300 is actually a 3 CMT core processor. Featuring 6 threads, two per CMT core.

SMT also requires hardware configurations. Not all architectures can feature SMT. CMTs threads are far from physical cores.

You cannot directly compete CMT against SMT. They are in use for different purposes. CMT is to be spaceeffecient and increase throughput. SMT is in use to increase throughput and be powereffecient. CMT is dead technology. AMD is abandoning it in favor of SMT.

[Faa]

 CMT is to be spaceeffecient

This is something I'm wondering here, how exactly is it space-efficient? Couldn't they just make one alu cluster instead of two and get the same performance? That wouldn't make it CMT anymore I assume.

[Lazmarr]

No lol, when SMT (HT) came out back somewhere in 2004 orsomething (yes single core cpu with ht pentium 4's) Windows had issues with it, MS fixed it with a patch. They had to do the same for Bulldozer. You're not re-using what you used for SMT for CMT.

Damnit Faa, go back to talking about something you know about....oh wait you don't know about anything -_______-

To enlighten you so you can learn something Basically when the FX CPU's were first released the schedulers on Windows weren't able to communicate with the CPU correctly and so the same tasks were being caught up on multiple 'Cores'. Instead of having to completely optimize for the FX cpu's, and spend more money, microsoft found out that intel HyperThreading paths were very similar to the way FX cpu's handle multiple workloads and used that with some minor changes instead

 

Edit: That first line was a bit mean

[Sintezza]

Still, the FX6300 is a 6 core.

 

FX6300 is basicly an 8 core, but they disabled one of the four modules, and thats making it a 6 core.

 

It has 3 active modules with 2 physical cores per module.

Not 1 core and a Software based Thread like intel.

[dragoon20005]

^^ this

 

short and simple

 

which I like

[Faa]

 Instead of having to completely optimize for the FX cpu's, and spend more money, microsoft found out that intel HyperThreading paths were very similar to the way FX cpu's handle multiple workloads and used that with some minor changes instead

Lol really? It took MS 3 months to release that patch >.> Don't criticize me for knowing nothing when you're literally clueless, not being able to provide a source for your bold claims.

 

It has 3 active modules with 2 physical cores per module.

ALU clusters aren't cores. It's just a triple core with CMT just like 4770k being a quadcore with SMT and the 4670k a quadcore with SMT disabled. A 6 core has atleast 6 front-ends but you have 3 here. The fully fully true 6 core are the phenoms, Intels extreme things like 3930K, 980x etc. 

 

 

Not 1 core and a Software based Thread like intel.

SMT isn't software based, the instruction pipeline, lapic and registers are doubled. Enabling or disabling it through microcode doesn't make HT a piece of software

[Sintezza]

Oh no there goes all the bla bla bs again...

Its just a 6 core and of story.

 

searching for a facepalm

[Faa]

Oh no there goes all the bla bla bs again...

 

searching for a facepalm

As usual you classify the facts as BS. Seen you earlier claiming that the 8350 is faster than the 4790k and denying any evidence that works in AMD's disadvantage.

Whats marked in orange aren't cores, theyre integer clusters. Move the integer cluster which you call a "core" somewhere else, it wouldn't work without its front-end. Move the complete module somewhere else, it would work because the module is the core. Just like VM'n said, CMT is duplicating resources which AMD is doing here. In case you are wondering AMD has 4 alu's per module or in your world 2 per "core". Haswell has 4 ALU's per core, [sarcasm]I'll call the 4670k from now on a true octacore because you told me that the 6300 is a fully true 6 core and the 4770k is a sixteen-core.[/sarcasm]

[Lazmarr]

 

Lol really? It took MS 3 months to release that patch >.> Don't criticize me for knowing nothing when you're literally clueless, not being able to provide a source for your bold claims.

 

ALU clusters aren't cores. It's just a triple core with CMT just like 4770k being a quadcore with SMT and the 4670k a quadcore with SMT disabled. A 6 core has atleast 6 front-ends but you have 3 here. The fully fully true 6 core are the phenoms, Intels extreme things like 3930K, 980x etc. 

 

 

SMT isn't software based, the instruction pipeline, lapic and registers are doubled. Enabling or disabling it through microcode doesn't make HT a piece of software

 

I found the articles I read;

Techpowerup

AnandTech

Toms Hardware "dual-core modules have performance characteristics more similar to SMT than physical cores, so the company is looking to detect and treat them the same as Hyper-Threading in the future."

[Kamina]

It's normal, that's how windows reads them now because of how it wants to spread its tasks across threads. As long as it says the right amount of logical processors that are operating, then there is nothing wrong with it.

[Faa]

 "dual-core modules have performance characteristics more similar to SMT than physical cores, so the company is looking to detect and treat them the same as Hyper-Threading in the future."

Thats something Logan could have BS'ed from the back. The performance characteristics of SMT are nowhere the same as CMT. You'd be nearly always a performance gain guaranteed with CMT and with SMT not. The performance from SMT scales from a loss up to 100% and averagely you'd see a 20-30% gain.

[Lazmarr]

Thats something Logan could have BS'ed from the back. The performance characteristics of SMT are nowhere the same as CMT. You'd be nearly always a performance gain guaranteed with CMT and with SMT not. The performance from SMT scales from a loss up to 100% and averagely you'd see a 20-30% gain.

If you read the article, you would've realised that that was a direct quote from Arun Kishan a software design engineer at Microsoft, not Logan.