Also, you just admitted that you want the discussion to be based on facts then admitted you yourself are filling this discussion with non factual statements. So if you want it based on facts why spread crap based on nothing?
I'm not pushing any performance numbers, so I don't know where you pulled that out from. Every time I've made one it's been in relation to Nehalem, and I've made it clear that it's not factual.
Now, how exactly have you contributed to this thread? All you do is look at my posts and make personal attacks while not giving any facts or technical discussion.
what part of there are no facts to give are you not understanding?
Also, you just admitted that you want the discussion to be based on facts then admitted you yourself are filling this discussion with non factual statements. So if you want it based on facts why spread crap based on nothing?
The part where there are no facts to give.
Because there ARE facts to give. We already know how the architecture works and how that could change the performance. It's also interesting to me (and many others here, I'm sure) how performance would be given a reasonable increase in performance from K10.5.
If you don't want to discuss this why are you here? To start unwarranted arguments only?
Added comments inline for once .-)
How do we know this considering that its never been done before, there are no similer designs to take performance numbers from, we dont know clocks, and we dont know IPC.
If there were close deigns or we had some benchamarks then sure we would have an idea on how the design will effect performance. But as of right now we have nothing. We have a blueprint of the die but we have no idea how its going to effect real world performance.
Its not even like most past CPU launches where not much changed and they improved one or two aspects but most was just a die shrink, or more cache, or faster cache. This is a total redesign and could work out great or not so great, time will tell. Us pulling numbers out of our asses is not going to add any technical value to the discussion.
We know it [how the Bulldozer architecture works] based on what AMD themselves have said, the fact that many articles by reliable sources have been made covering the topic and from the fact John already clarified statements regarding the modules and performance losses.
I'm not pulling any numbers out of nowhere. Can't say the same thing about your arguments, though.
im not pulling anything out of anywhere, im just saying we have no benchmarks and no facts about performance.
We can read all the articles about how it is supposed to work all day long. Untill it is functionaing and has been benchmarked the articles mean nothing.
Also taking the articles published by AMD at face value is not a good idea. Do you believe everyhting Nvidia and ATI release to pump up there new cards? Companies will say anything to improve sales, performance numbers are all that matters, not marketing hype.
If you want to take marketing hype as fact then there is nothing i can really say other than wow.
Nothing better to do on this thread than incessantly trolling, right? If you have nothing to contribute go away.
No offense to JFAMD. I really appreciate his presence and contributions to the forums. He has thrown around a lot of numbers/terms though that seem to often be misinterpreted.
The bottom line is 80%, 90%, 180%... of what exactly? +35%, +50%, of what, exactly? Single core? Single module? Total throughput? Clock for clock? Watt for watt? At base clocks? At turbo speeds?
I do a lot of rendering with 3D apps. I'm really hoping that an 8 core BD for ~$300 blows the doors off of a i7 2600k when the software is capable of maxing out all 8 cores. Will it?
Because of it's advanced turbo will I not have to O/C it to get the most performance? Maybe just a moderate O/C will do rather than having to O/C by 1GHz+ to get top performance like with SB? That should put less wear on the system along with lower power usage. That would be desirable.
Surely AMD can afford some hard numbers by now. Even if Intel could do something to counter a month or so before launch, surely they'd have no problem doing it immediately after launch anyway. All this spy vs. spy is getting to be a bit much. :'(
One, there are facts about how the module concept affects performance and the die size
Isn't the idea behind the 8 core FX (Zambezi) processors that each 2 cores form a module, thus, in kind-of a reversed Hyper Threading, resulting in 4 logical cores?
8 cores (threads?) for a desktop PC is really ahead of its time, yes. A lot of games don't even use 4. Most good ones do, though.
Prove it, links to benchmarks please.
The 80% number keeps getting thrown around. Nobody understands it. The number that we have said is that 2 bulldozer cores in a module would be 180% of the throughput for a single bulldozer core. 90% + 90% = 180%. So the "overhead", so to speak, of the architecture is ~10% per core.
AMD didn't take that approach, though. Instead, the team chose to integrate two cores together into a fundamental building block it calls a "Bulldozer module." This module, diagrammed above, shares portions of a traditional coreincluding the instruction fetch, decode, and floating-point units and L2 cachebetween two otherwise-complete processor cores. The resources AMD chose to share are not always fully utilized in a single core, so not duplicating them could be a win on multiple fronts. The firm claims a Bulldozer module can achieve 80% of the performance of two complete cores of the same capability. Yet McKinney told us AMD has estimated that including the second integer core adds only 12% to the chip area occupied by a Bulldozer module.
what part of there are no facts to give are you not understanding?
Um, what benchmarks? You don't need benchmarks to prove that.
Respectfully, it seems Mr. LOL may have a considerably different interpretation of the term: fact. Personally I believe that an unsophisticated reader lacking the technical fundamentals to see through the baseless assumptions he insists are Gospel could be misled into thinking that there is evidence to support his theses when in reality none exists. IMHO: That does a disservice to the entire credibility basis of this forum and the participants who actually discuss evidence-based opinions.
There it is. The entire essence of his argument. Since we don't need benchmarks to prove the performance of a CPU we can also continue in that course of discussion to conclude that we can determine global warming by sticking our hand out the window and measure the distance to Alpha Centauri by eyeballing it.
I rested my case before and definitely do so again. I will not participate in this thread again until I learn from the Mods how this situation should be addressed. Until that time Mr. LOL has free rein now to spread whatever misconceptions he wishes.