Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Ryzen vs FX?

I know Ryzen is way better than the FX series but main question what is the difference between a CCX and the way the FX series was set up and marketed saying the FX 8350 for example was an " 8 core " cpu AMD got sued saying advertised the CPUs as eight-core chips, but each chip only had four “dual-core modules” , something that always puzzled me since AMD using a chaplet design

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason the 8350 was only called a quad core is because each core pair shared cache and IIRC a floating point unit, so each "core" didn't really have all the necessary building blocks to be its own core. It was closer to something like a beefed up hyperthreading (not exactly, but you get the picture). Plus FX was monolithic, compared to the chiplet architecture found on the Ryzen chips. 

 

Ryzen, on the other hard, does have cores that have all the necessary parts to be a core. The chiplet architecture is more as a way to improve yields since instead of making one giant piece of silicon that has a fairly high likelihood of defects and thus being a paperweight, making a bunch of relatively small silicon where the odds of a defect are much lower then setting them up to communicate with each other gets a lot more cores for a lot cheaper and without as much waste. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

FX CPUs had half floating point but full integer core counts.

So 8core FX was a 4core on FP but did have 8 integers.

Or the other way round.. was a while ago can't fully remember but articles did cover it.

 

Today's Ryzen 8cores 16 threads might be split with chiplets but each core has full FP/integer support from each core.

 

Something to that effect.

Maximums - Asus Z97-K /w i5 4690 Bclk @106.9Mhz * x39 = 4.17Ghz, 8GB of 2600Mhz DDR3,.. Gigabyte GTX970 G1-Gaming @ 1550Mhz

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

A CCX and a Bulldozer module are entirely different in their architecture even if they are similar in concept. But the most important difference is that, for the Zen architecture, each core is a full core and the shared cache is an L3 cache.

 

With Bulldozer, each "core" only has most of the components you would expect to find on a modern CPU core. The most important feature those cores are lacking is a floating point unit (FPU). Put simply, the FPU is used for calculations involving numbers with decimal points. Another important issue is that the cache shared between the Bulldozer "cores" is the L2 cache. Each core only gets its own L1 cache. This design is pretty bad in terms of caching, because the L1 cache is so small that each core individually is cache starved, but the L2 cache shared between them is so small that its hard for the two cores to share data meaningfully.

 

A modern CPU core has both an L1 and L2 cache, and its own FPU. The FPU is the most glaring issue, as that had been standard on CPUs for over a decade at that point. To call something a CPU core implies to most people that its like a self contained CPU, but in reality, it was only a partial CPU, even by 2011 standards.

 

With Ryzen, each core is a full core and the CCX can actually be of benefit for multicore workloads. With Bulldozer, each "core" was basically a cut down version of a true CPU core, and its design was hit or miss when it came to multicore workloads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FX processor modules are made of 2 x86 cores that share the FPU and cache. 4 modules, 8 cores.... kinda.

A Ryzen processor on a single CCX is 8 cores, all of which have their own L1 and L2 cache and also their own FPUs.

 

And ninja'ed x3 !!!! XD

 

Spoiler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Guest 5150 said:

The FX processor modules are made of 2 x86 cores that share the FPU and cache. 4 modules, 8 cores.... kinda.

A Ryzen processor on a single CCX is 8 cores, all of which have their own L1 and L2 cache and also their own FPUs.

8 cores per CCX is only true for Zen 3. Prior versions had only 4 cores per CCX, although Zen 2 did have 8 cores per CCD by having 2 CCXs per CCD. The original Zen and Zen+ have only 4 cores per CCD - each chiplet only got 4 cores. This is why 1000 and 2000 series maxed out at 8 cores total - you can only up to get 2 CCDs per consumer Ryzen CPU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, YoungBlade said:

8 cores per CCX is only true for Zen 3. Prior versions had only 4 cores per CCX, although Zen 2 did have 8 cores per CCD by having 2 CCXs per CCD. The original Zen and Zen+ have only 4 cores per CCX and CCD - each chiplet only got 4 cores. This is why 1000 and 2000 series maxed out at 8 cores total - you can only up to get 2 CCDs per consumer Ryzen CPU.

Yes all of it is true!! I figured just using the example of the most recent and making a short comment. The single CCX 5800X and 3D design are the power houses I hand in mind.

 

Spoiler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

snipped

You know just for the sake of the talk, an FPU doesn't exactly make a single core a single core while at one time processors didn't have floating point computation. Realistically, the FX processors did in fact have 8 x86 cores, just only half the FPUs. There just wasn't enough space on the nodes to apply the other 4 FPUs,

FX did like the netburst with long pipelines to increase frequency. Thus AMD released the first consumer 5ghz processor.

It was just no good for IPC as a result.

 

Spoiler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Guest 5150 said:

You know just for the sake of the talk, an FPU doesn't exactly make a single core a single core while at one time processors didn't have floating point computation. Realistically, the FX processors did in fact have 8 x86 cores, just only half the FPUs. There just wasn't enough space on the nodes to apply the other 4 FPUs,

FX did like the netburst with long pipelines to increase frequency. Thus AMD released the first consumer 5ghz processor.

It was just no good for IPC as a result.

While at one time, the FPU was a separate module independent of the CPU, those days were long gone by the time that Bulldozer appeared, and there-in lies the problem. The issue is that it was misleading to consumers to call the FX-8150 an "8 core" CPU, because it implies to consumers that it has twice the cores of a Core i5 or Core i7. This is only true in the most technical sense.

 

Technically, a CPU core doesn't need an FPU. It also doesn't need cache. It doesn't need to have modern instruction sets. It doesn't even have to be x86 based. And if AMD explicitly told consumers that their cores were not comparable to Intel Core series cores, then there wouldn't have been a problem. But that's not what AMD did - they implied that a Bulldozer "core" was just as good as a Sandy Bridge core, which is just not true. This is why the FX-8150 can't stand up to the i7 2600K in most multicore workloads - they're both 4c/8t processors when it comes to FPU performance at the end of the day, and the cores of the 2600K are faster.

 

If you really want to get into the weeds, there are debates to be had about the way that Ryzen handles AVX vs Intel's core series, and whether or not you need certain instruction sets or features on a CPU core. Are Intel's E cores really cores since they don't have all the same features as the P cores? But something that was determined a long time ago was that floating point operations are significant, and that computers are going to be used to do a lot of them. This is where the term "FLOP" comes from, after all, and that term is basically synonymous with the "speed" a computing device has. It is reasonable to expect that a CPU core is going to have an FPU.

 

(As an aside: if I remember correctly, prioritizing integer performance over floating point was one of the things that killed VIA's CPU marketshare. You'd think AMD would've learned from that and realized that limiting FPU performance in favor of integer performance was a bad move...)

 

While Bulldozer did have some nice qualities, like the high clockspeeds, and it was decent for some workloads, I ultimately agree with the court decision to penalize AMD for misrepresenting the CPUs. A Bulldozer "core" is not the same thing as a modern Core series core, and not just in a superficial way. AMD misled consumers and implied that they had produced a consumer 8 core CPU a good six years before the first true consumer 8 core CPU would be released. The only redeeming part of this story is that that first true consumer 8 core CPU was the original Ryzen 7, and it was a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, YoungBlade said:

While at one time, the FPU was a separate module independent of the CPU, those days were long gone by the time that Bulldozer appeared, and there-in lies the problem. The issue is that it was misleading to consumers to call the FX-8150 an "8 core" CPU, because it implies to consumers that it has twice the cores of a Core i5 or Core i7. This is only true in the most technical sense.

 

Technically, a CPU core doesn't need an FPU. It also doesn't need cache. It doesn't need to have modern instruction sets. It doesn't even have to be x86 based. And if AMD explicitly told consumers that their cores were not comparable to Intel Core series cores, then there wouldn't have been a problem. But that's not what AMD did - they implied that a Bulldozer "core" was just as good as a Sandy Bridge core, which is just not true. This is why the FX-8150 can't stand up to the i7 2600K in most multicore workloads - they're both 4c/8t processors when it comes to FPU performance at the end of the day, and the cores of the 2600K are faster.

 

If you really want to get into the weeds, there are debates to be had about the way that Ryzen handles AVX vs Intel's core series, and whether or not you need certain instruction sets or features on a CPU core. Are Intel's E cores really cores since they don't have all the same features as the P cores? But something that was determined a long time ago was that floating point operations are significant, and that computers are going to be used to do a lot of them. This is where the term "FLOP" comes from, after all, and that term is basically synonymous with the "speed" a computing device has. It is reasonable to expect that a CPU core is going to have an FPU.

 

(As an aside: if I remember correctly, prioritizing integer performance over floating point was one of the things that killed VIA's CPU marketshare. You'd think AMD would've learned from that and realized that limiting FPU performance in favor of integer performance was a bad move...)

 

While Bulldozer did have some nice qualities, like the high clockspeeds, and it was decent for some workloads, I ultimately agree with the court decision to penalize AMD for misrepresenting the CPUs. A Bulldozer "core" is not the same thing as a modern Core series core, and not just in a superficial way. AMD misled consumers and implied that they had produced a consumer 8 core CPU a good six years before the first true consumer 8 core CPU would be released. The only redeeming part of this story is that that first true consumer 8 core CPU was the original Ryzen 7, and it was a good one.

All be it was still an interesting design. 

 

Spoiler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

just checked this thread after getting home, i was like hmm for instance a ryzen 3100 vs 3300x as the CCX if i rememebr are different 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, YoungBlade said:

While at one time, the FPU was a separate module independent of the CPU, those days were long gone by the time that Bulldozer appeared, and there-in lies the problem. The issue is that it was misleading to consumers to call the FX-8150 an "8 core" CPU, because it implies to consumers that it has twice the cores of a Core i5 or Core i7. This is only true in the most technical sense.

 

Technically, a CPU core doesn't need an FPU. It also doesn't need cache. It doesn't need to have modern instruction sets. It doesn't even have to be x86 based. And if AMD explicitly told consumers that their cores were not comparable to Intel Core series cores, then there wouldn't have been a problem. But that's not what AMD did - they implied that a Bulldozer "core" was just as good as a Sandy Bridge core, which is just not true. This is why the FX-8150 can't stand up to the i7 2600K in most multicore workloads - they're both 4c/8t processors when it comes to FPU performance at the end of the day, and the cores of the 2600K are faster.

 

If you really want to get into the weeds, there are debates to be had about the way that Ryzen handles AVX vs Intel's core series, and whether or not you need certain instruction sets or features on a CPU core. Are Intel's E cores really cores since they don't have all the same features as the P cores? But something that was determined a long time ago was that floating point operations are significant, and that computers are going to be used to do a lot of them. This is where the term "FLOP" comes from, after all, and that term is basically synonymous with the "speed" a computing device has. It is reasonable to expect that a CPU core is going to have an FPU.

 

(As an aside: if I remember correctly, prioritizing integer performance over floating point was one of the things that killed VIA's CPU marketshare. You'd think AMD would've learned from that and realized that limiting FPU performance in favor of integer performance was a bad move...)

 

While Bulldozer did have some nice qualities, like the high clockspeeds, and it was decent for some workloads, I ultimately agree with the court decision to penalize AMD for misrepresenting the CPUs. A Bulldozer "core" is not the same thing as a modern Core series core, and not just in a superficial way. AMD misled consumers and implied that they had produced a consumer 8 core CPU a good six years before the first true consumer 8 core CPU would be released. The only redeeming part of this story is that that first true consumer 8 core CPU was the original Ryzen 7, and it was a good one.

so what im getting at Ryzen per core has access to all the resources but FX series had to share their resources like the FPU's between the two cores 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, tjrose91 said:

just checked this thread after getting home, i was like hmm for instance a ryzen 3100 vs 3300x as the CCX if i rememebr are different 

The Ryzen 3 3100 and 3300X are rather unique chips. Each Zen 2 CCX has 4 cores but there are 2 CCXs per CCD. The Ryzen 3 parts for 3rd gen are two different approaches to that limitation. The 3100 has 2 CCDs, each with 2 cores in a CCX. This results in higher latency, as tasks that require more than 2 cores are forced to work across the two CCDs (often referred to as a 2+2 configuration) and because each CCX only has half the cache of a full CCX, and so the 3100 suffers in cache and latency sensitive workloads. The 3300X has a full CCX on a single CCD (a 4+0 configuration). This gives it good core-to-core latency - actually, the best core-to-core and cache latency of any chip in the Zen 2 range, as all the other chips have multiple CCXs. This is why the 3300X was such a good budget gaming chip that sometimes beat the higher core count 3600.

13 hours ago, tjrose91 said:

so what im getting at Ryzen per core has access to all the resources but FX series had to share their resources like the FPU's between the two cores

That's the gist of it, yes. The Bulldozer module is a rather complex thing that failed for a number of reasons, but the shared resources is probably the most glaring issue. Here's an AMD block diagram of it if you want to see what we've been talking about:
bulldozer-module.jpg.81ded512f6ee68904990eaaf3a908339.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×