AMD please bring some competition

[KaareKanin]

No. It is not. It is a quad core with hyper-threading. If you have Intel's Xeon, that's an eight core. It also has hyper-threading, so it has 16 threads.

Gee, thanks for elaborating...

 

No because they're not 8 whole cores.

OK, so what practical implications does this have? Each thread is ran slower than they would on a non-hyper threaded CPU?

 

Yes it does. FX 8350. Also, please don't tell me they're not eight cores. Because they are.

So it has 4 modules with two integer clusters each. From Wikipedia: "The "module", described as two logical cores, can be contrasted with a single Intel core with HyperThreading."

[Eddyall]

So the core are arrange in modules or in individual cores?

That's the reason why I make the difference, if AMD decided to let down the Bulldozer idea than I'll stop saying thing that would no longer be true but AFAIK the best AMD did was a hexacore on the consumer side.

 

 

So it has 4 modules with two integer clusters each. From Wikipedia: "The "module", described as two logical cores, can be contrasted with a single Intel core with HyperThreading."

 

Thank you won't have to hunt down a diagram, to respond to your question while Intel extra core don't perform as well as real one, AMD's won't count as 2 core but 1 in some situation.

Problem with AMD is that they advertise it as a 8 core not 4 modules while Intel only count whole core and adds the Hyperthreaded sticker, they're not intended to be the same while AMD'S marketing implies they do.

[Eddyall]

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/5831/Screen%20Shot%202012-05-14%20at%2010.38.35%20PM.png

 

So no AMD doesn't have 8 core CPU on the consumer side, best was the hexacore or the dodeca on the server side.

[Godlygamer23]

KaareKanin, on 05 Jun 2013 - 6:05 PM, said:

From Wikipedia: "The "module", described as two logical cores, can be contrasted with a single Intel core with HyperThreading."

No.

[KaareKanin]

So the core are arrange in modules or in individual cores?

That's the reason why I make the difference, if AMD decided to let down the Bulldozer idea than I'll stop saying thing that would no longer be true but AFAIK the best AMD did was a hexacore on the consumer side.

 

 

 

Thank you won't have to hunt down a diagram, to respond to your question while Intel extra core don't perform as well as real one, AMD's won't count as 2 core but 1 in some situation.

Problem with AMD is that they advertise it as a 8 core not 4 modules while Intel only count whole core and adds the Hyperthreaded sticker, they're not intended to be the same while AMD'S marketing implies they do.

 

Allright! This clears things up somewhat!

[KaareKanin]

No.

 

What "no"? "no, wikipedia doesn't say that"? "no, wikipedia is wrong"? "no, I disagree"? It would be helpful if you answered in sentences and tried to argue your point of view

[Godlygamer23]

Wikipedia is wrong. Two of AMD's cores are not equal to one Intel core and one hyper-threaded core.

[Woodypc]

Hyper-threading is a Logical process it doesn't physically exist, where as AMD cores might not be complete they are physically there meaning it is a 8 core and application can use them and only certain applications/programs can use hyper-threading properly.

[Godlygamer23]

Hyper threading occurs in between regular processing of information.

[KaareKanin]

Wikipedia is wrong. Two of AMD's cores are not equal to one Intel core and one hyper-threaded core.

 

Well, wikipedia said it could be "contrasted with", it never said equal. But from what I gather, there are a lot of similar traits.

 

Just in case you misunderstood me when I said "to all intents and purposes" earlier, did you think I was dense and didn't get the difference between physical and logical cores, or did you just not get that I was referring to what the OS sees and works with?

 

I'm genuinely trying to learn something here, but I get the distinct impression that you might think that I'm some Intel-fanboy that needs to be shot down

[Godlygamer23]

but I get the distinct impression that you might think that I'm some Intel-fanboy that needs to be shot down

I do not think that.

[KaareKanin]

I do not think that.

 

Good to hear (Y)

[PcBlackBelt]

So the core are arrange in modules or in individual cores?

That's the reason why I make the difference, if AMD decided to let down the Bulldozer idea than I'll stop saying thing that would no longer be true but AFAIK the best AMD did was a hexacore on the consumer side.

 

 

 

Thank you won't have to hunt down a diagram, to respond to your question while Intel extra core don't perform as well as real one, AMD's won't count as 2 core but 1 in some situation.

Problem with AMD is that they advertise it as a 8 core not 4 modules while Intel only count whole core and adds the Hyperthreaded sticker, they're not intended to be the same while AMD'S marketing implies they do.

 

 

You forget that AMD doesn't have 8 core CPU yet.

 

cmon guys teach and make friends dont poke and make enemies.. i know its hard to do sometimes but this one is about companys missleading people if anyone is to blame its not the person who took a company at there word that a cpu was octa-core but the company that doesnt explain and just hopes the higher number will look better...

 

theres good reason's to laugh at someone im not sure being lead to believe something false by advertisements is completely users fault. especialy since we have all been there..

 

even if the last time you were mislead by advertisements was being lead to believe "Guess who" had characters that talked back to you.lol

[Eddyall]

theres good reason's to laugh at someone im not sure being lead to believe something false by advertisements is completely users fault. especialy since we have all been there..

 

The one who is laughing is the one who was led by false advertising.

Silly thing is that in a way AMD could transform their quadcore in false dodecacore since you could argue there's 3 core in each module.

 

Someone define a core for the forums please.

[Titan]

I think AMD is not focusing anymore on powerful cpus, but more on price, and integrated graphics. For laptops, netbooks etc.

[ShiverMePenguins]

The one who is laughing is the one who was led by false advertising.

Silly thing is that in a way AMD could transform their quadcore in false dodecacore since you could argue there's 3 core in each module.

 

Someone define a core for the forums please.

who contrived the meaning of core? what is the meaning of module? who gave it such distinction?

 

amd uses octo core processors which share fetch and decode units. that does not mean they aren't cores. they are physical cpu cores on the same die. actual physical manifested parts. they exist. open it up and you can see. they literally can be seen by a human eye. 8 different cores. all 8, not 4. what if i told you intel doesn't have any true multi-core processor because they don't follow the traditional fashion of central processing units due to the shared cache and bus technology? what if i told you a system would only be multi-core because a "core" is supposed to be infact a multi-cpu part.

 

therefore the only multi-core computers are dual socket workstations. any other computer (read cpu) just has increased logical potential from creating multi-threaded functionality on a hardware level?

 

what does this mean? amd made a decision to share fetch and decode units for cpu cores in order for whatever crazy reason they decided. they have already realized doing such bottlenecked cpu performance because of the nature of 2 cores sharing the same resource which in essence removes some of the purpose of multi-threaded capability. steamroller will have seperate decode units because amd learned one of the biggest hits to performance was the shared decode unit. this is being changed.

 

 

does this mean it is now no longer a module? NO, because who made that term up? did amd go to an official office and coin the term module? did intel go to court saying "this isn't a true cpu so blah blah blah?" not really. techies used this made up term for a distinction that is relatively useless and arbitrary to feed their own palpable preconception that amd is evil and stupid, and good king intel is the only true gaming company.

 

 

So in an effort to not be rude, i would invite you to p.m. me with any questions you have, i shall answer them to the best of my ability, and you can choose to accept, reject, or get a second opinion. however, i would ask that you cease to spread false information with  a shallow understanding of technology.

[Eddyall]

i would ask that you cease to spread false information with  a shallow understanding of technology.

 

While I may not have a understanding of what each element of the previous diagram mean I have an understanding of diagram plus my basic understanding of computer science.

 

Looking at the slide I can guess that it come directly from AMD, therefore what is written on it must be official statement from AMD. So by reading the title I understand that this is a module that is shown by AMD and that's their official term, at the very less at that time, of this group of components.

 

Second, I know the name and use of some components and can guess the use of some of them by their names. And because I did some programming in Java I know that "int" is a term reserve for integer so "integer scheduler" must be some kind of component that do something with number.

 

Third with that in mind I see that they are part of a smaller diagram since they are in a grey rectangle each and that, since this is the only division in the diagram, my understanding is they represent cores. But since they are different from one another and one seem to have way more component I assume one of the core can not do everything the other core can. I also don't believe they wanted to make the diagram simpler by making a simplify version on the left.

 

 

So even if I do not have a background in electronic I can conclude that a module =/= 2 cores. What I also conclude is that a module is not a core. So when you or anyone says AMD CPU have x amount of cores, the proper thing to say is AMD CPU have x module of y cores and that it doesn't = x*y cores.

 

If you have a idea were to find diagram of Intel CPU core, please tell me because then I could see the difference in architecture.

[brownninja97]

Only problem with usb 3.0 is that there are compatible problems and i hope they dont put usb 3.0 everything just in case it dont work. hopefully  a new sata connections that is 9gb per sec

[PcBlackBelt]

I think AMD is not focusing anymore on powerful cpus, but more on price, and integrated graphics. For laptops, netbooks etc.

it sounds like thats not the case. after watching the tek today there releasing a 4.8-5ghz chip that runs at 200+ watts.. going for pure hertZ instead of instructions per clock...

i realy dont think thats what everyone is looking forward too.. i dont care all that much about power efficiancy but heat.... thats like 2 and a half incadescent light bulbs and those get so hot they glow hence lightbulb.. tryin to cool that is gonna be a challenge especialy if you overclock

[ShiverMePenguins]

it sounds like thats not the case. after watching the tek today there releasing a 4.8-5ghz chip that runs at 200+ watts.. going for pure hertZ instead of instructions per clock...

i realy dont think thats what everyone is looking forward too.. i dont care all that much about power efficiancy but heat.... thats like 2 and a half incadescent light bulbs and those get so hot they glow hence lightbulb.. tryin to cool that is gonna be a challenge especialy if you overclock

wrong. again. really, please stop while you are about 8 steps up under your hole.

 

 

steamroller already has been spoken and shown to have many many improvements to "ipc" as well as clock to clock efficiency.  beyond that there is even further proof from amd's own press releases that AMD is addressing every fallacy they can with steamroller architecture such as cache errors, misdirects, clock efficiency (you'd call that intstructions per clock), and more. amd has made leaps and bounds since their re-do of the fx line (bulldozer). 

 

 

Furthermore stop intel fanboying. haswell has been proven to have many bugs, a much higher operating temperature, and its igpu still lags behind piledriver apu's. c'mon.

[Godlygamer23]

wrong. again. really, please stop while you are about 8 steps up under your hole.

steamroller already has been spoken and shown to have many many improvements to "ipc" as well as clock to clock efficiency. beyond that there is even further proof from amd's own press releases that AMD is addressing every fallacy they can with steamroller architecture such as cache errors, misdirects, clock efficiency (you'd call that intstructions per clock), and more. amd has made leaps and bounds since their re-do of the fx line (bulldozer).

Furthermore stop intel fanboying. haswell has been proven to have many bugs, a much higher operating temperature, and its igpu still lags behind piledriver apu's. c'mon.

As far as I can tell, he is not "fanboying." He was simply stating the facts. He has made no mention of Haswell, nor did Intel claim revolutionary performance with it. The problem is AMD is still playing catch-up. They need to work on their IPC, architectural efficiency, and single core performance. If they can fix those problems, Intel is gonna have to start kicking it up another notch.

[ALXAndy]

As far as I can tell, he is not "fanboying." He was simply stating the facts. He has made no mention of Haswell, nor did Intel claim revolutionary performance with it. The problem is AMD is still playing catch-up. They need to work on their IPC, architectural efficiency, and single core performance. If they can fix those problems, Intel is gonna have to start kicking it up another notch.

 

No they don't. All they need to do is make sure their CPUs are correctly used to make use of all the cores.

 

I can say this 'til I'm blue in the face but no one listens. When all 8 cores are used properly and to the fullest AMD's chips are right up there.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6985/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-at-1440p-adding-in-haswell-/8

 

Sleeping Dogs benchmarks, a game that uses 8 cores. So yes I am cherry picking and being rather selective, but let's not forget that you can pick up an 8320 for under half the price of the 4770k.

 

AMD already have the technology in place. Once it gets supported? no reason they can't just continue to plod along knocking out their 8 core CPUs. If Steamroller does up the single threaded performance?

 

Intel will have a lot to worry about.

[ShiverMePenguins]

As far as I can tell, he is not "fanboying." He was simply stating the facts. He has made no mention of Haswell, nor did Intel claim revolutionary performance with it. The problem is AMD is still playing catch-up. They need to work on their IPC, architectural efficiency, and single core performance. If they can fix those problems, Intel is gonna have to start kicking it up another notch.

no.

 

 

amd is not "behind". stop using synthetic benchmarks that were financially supported by intel as a reference point. look at real world gaming performance, and then use real world application performance.  amd is ahead in quite a few, and behind in quite a few. but it IS NOT a 200$ price difference of worth. going from 180 to 340 usd and people whine and moan because intel is ahead by 1 fps in 2 games.

 

 

he is a fanboy, plain and simple. i can say i'm not one, because i have quite a few systems, using a variety of parts.  because i build for specific applications. acknowledge that there are pro's and cons then leave it at that.

[ALXAndy]

Even when the 8150 launched and was considered dead and buried it beat the 2600k in all of the benchmarks that used it properly ! Now granted that was only about two, but ever since we have based a processor on gaming performance. Am I right?

 

Good. Because when a game uses all 8 cores it beats Intel's quad core CPUs. Every single time.

 

And with every game about to get a engine face lift to one that supports AMD's cores perfectly?

 

If this were a year ago? then yes, you would have a point. AMD's CPUs would still be woefully unsupported and all that would matter would be single threaded performance up to about four cores.

 

The thing is? things are changing and the world is going to be a very different place for AMD now that, you know? they have a total domination when it comes to optimised support.

[PcBlackBelt]

As far as I can tell, he is not "fanboying." He was simply stating the facts. He has made no mention of Haswell, nor did Intel claim revolutionary performance with it. The problem is AMD is still playing catch-up. They need to work on their IPC, architectural efficiency, and single core performance. If they can fix those problems, Intel is gonna have to start kicking it up another notch

thank you this is what i was saying.. i dont know why people get on the forums to just ruin the conversation..

 

if you are right ALX...  then i will be getting exactly what i asked for... not sure where the fanboy thing is coming from... but bitching about intel and asking amd to step up realy doesnt have anything to do with fanboying companys. more just hoping for a brighter future fo cpus in general