FX 6300 cores

[Kestrel98]

So I was taking a look at the RED SIDE FX 6300 wich is advertised as a six core cpu but when I went to this site http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6300+Six-Core it says that it does not have six phisical cores? whats the catch?

[ZetZet]

3 modules with 6 cores. each 2 cores share resources. it's like hardware hyper-threading.

[comicsansms]

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/393598-cinebech-fx-6300-3-cores-6-threads

[Ketcchup]

Not this thread again pls

 

 

AMD FX's architecture is based on bulldozer. Bulldozer uses modules instead of cores let's say.

 

Every module has 2 integrer "cores" but they share the FPU (floating point unit). It's not like HyperThreading, just sharing FPU.

[DimasRMDO]

It has 2 physical integer cores/module.

Edited June 27, 2015 by DimasRMDO

[Sam Z Man]

It has 3 physical cores.

And you must have half a physical brain.

[DimasRMDO]

And you must have half a physical brain.

Ah sh*t, typed it wrong, wait give me a minute.

[Kestrel98]

It has 2 physical integer cores/module.

So to make an analogy it has two cookies in a box and 3 boxes with 6 cookies total now I get it

[Sam Z Man]

So to make an analogy it has two cookies in a box and 3 boxes with 6 cookies total now I get it

Yes it has to view them as 3 cores with 6 threads because if not this happens.

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/amd/Bulldozer/Review/win82.jpg

[incarnate]

The long and short of it id's, the fx 6300 isn't a traditional six core cpu. The fx architecture isn't designed around cores. It is based off of modules that share resources. It acts like a 6 core cpu in some situations, and like a 3 core with hyper threading in others (when both cores on the same module need access to a shared resources, one core has to wait). But even then, comparing it to a traditional cpu isn't exactly right, but it kinda gets the point across

[Prysin]

FX, or rather bulldozer is 1,5 cores per "module" with hardwired hyperthreading.

 

The end result is

FX 6300 = 3x1,5 = 4,5 CORES, 6 "threads"

FX 83xx = 4x1,5 = 6 Cores, 8 "threads"

 

 

Now, if only these 0.5 cores added together that nicely, but they dont.

 

So its 1 core + 0.5 junk = 1 module with 2 threads.

So divide AMDs core count by 1/2 and you got the real answer, almost.

[rjfaber91]

So to make an analogy it has two cookies in a box and 3 boxes with 6 cookies total now I get it

 

To an extent, yes. A better analogy would be two employees in one office, but they have to share a single desk. An FX6300 would, in this analogy, have three offices.

[Prysin]

To an extent, yes. A better analogy would be two employees in one office, but they have to share a single desk. An FX6300 would, in this analogy, have three offices.

and the company wouldnt get shit done on time, ever

[Nena Trinity]

Its 1 big core with two baby cores! :3

[Hieb]

The specifications for it are quite convoluted because it really depends on your definition of a "core". When AMD says core here, it apparently just means integer clusters.

 

Basically in Haswell (Intel's main architecture at the moment) a "core" consists of L1 cache, L2 cache, scheduler, decoder, floating point unit, integer processing units... and tons of other smaller components that make it work.

 

With the FX series of CPUs, it seems AMD's definition of "core" is just... integer processing unit. Because the integer processing units share basically everything else. Each "module" consists of scheduler, decoder, L2 cache, floating point unit, and two integer units. So basically two of AMD's FX cores has what would be considered one core with extra integer processing capabilities.

 

So the FX-6300 is kind of like a triple-core with hyper-threading since six threads can be run, but a lot of the calculations from each pair of "cores" is going through the same floating point unit, a lot of the data they need is in the same cache, etc.

[Sam Z Man]

To an extent, yes. A better analogy would be two employees in one office, but they have to share a single desk. An FX6300 would, in this analogy, have three offices.

The best analogy is this:

 

Single core=One Arm feeding you from one plate. You have to take a small break from eating to get more food.

 

Hyper threaded core= Two Arms feeding from one plate. You can go from eating from one hand to the other while the spare hand gets more food from the plate.

 

AMD Module= Two arms feeding there own mouth from the same plate, you have two mouths(cores) feeding from the same plate(cache) but each has there own arm(thread) feeding them information.

[Sam Z Man]

FX, or rather bulldozer is 1,5 cores per "module" with hardwired hyperthreading.

 

The end result is

FX 6300 = 3x1,5 = 4,5 CORES, 6 "threads"

FX 83xx = 4x1,5 = 6 Cores, 8 "threads"

 

 

Now, if only these 0.5 cores added together that nicely, but they dont.

 

So its 1 core + 0.5 junk = 1 module with 2 threads.

So divide AMDs core count by 1/2 and you got the real answer, almost.

You are so wrong it makes me cry, how the hell can you have a half a core.

[incarnate]

You are so wrong it makes me cry, how the hell can you have a half a core.

 

i think he means the performance worth of the two core modules being worth about 1.5 cores on average where as hyperthreading is about a 20% increase. but ya. i don't think he completely understands the concept.

[d1screet]

You can schedule up to 6 streams of instructions on the FX-6300. The particular architecture design that AMD chose with Bulldozer consists of modules, which include 2 integer cores and 1 floating point core. It can, in theory, operate as well as a dual-core processor when dealing with ints but only has the power of one core when dealing with floating point performance. There are also a number of shared resources within each module, namely things such as instruction fetch/decode, L2 cache, and so on; that would normally be exclusive to a single core in an Intel procesor, that affects a module's ability to perform equivalently to a traditional dual-core processor.

 

Overall, I wouldn't say that AMD's cores are 'fake' or anything; they just have a different naming criteria on what constitutes as a core. Is it misleading? Sort of: it can still handle 6 threads, but it may not handle those 6 threads as quickly as 6 cores with exclusive resources. I wouldn't say it's any less misleading as claiming that Intel's Hyperthreading's performance is on par with actual twice the number of cores (it does the best that it can to seem like it's performing two tasks concurrently; but it's mostly clever scheduling and sharing, not random Intel magic). Regardless, I still think it's something that an average computer user wouldn't know, and would blindly consider "more cores = better"; This simply goes to show that comparing processors with very different designs and philosophies with simple numeric specs such as 4.0GHz! or 8 FREAKING CORES UGUU~ is not the right way.