Decent, although this still won't match Ivy Bridge.
I still don't see it as a reason to cancel the Bobcat successors though. Sure, 17W is good enough for the ultrathins (aka netbooks) market, but the bobcat line went even lower power (~5W) and more importantly SHOULD have been super cheap to produce with its die size.
Is it the one on page 7 of this document? Pulse latches are cool, but it's important to consider metrics such as hold time and not just setup+clk2q.That dude has flip-flops named after him!
It's a really neat idea. Looks like they presented it today at ISSCC 2012. I'll look forward to reading the paper.
In probably a non very correct way.All of this is over my head. Could someone explain this to me in layman's terms?
All of this is over my head. Could someone explain this to me in layman's terms?
Why do I have a feeling this will be BD 2.0.
A new article comes out saying it will be super fast. Just like the months before BD came out. Super cereal this time guys! :whiste:
Only since?AMD's fab abilities (since their fabless) are so far below Intels, they have to try new stuff, come up with new ways of competeing.
To be fair, Intel's performance/power ratio was way ahead of Phenom II, and tons of people still bought them. AMD doesn't need to be as efficient as Intel, they just need to have acceptable efficiency, which BD clearly didn't for most consumers. This new technology along with modest IPC improvements (I thought I read like 5-7% somewhere) and new steppings/refinements to GloFo 32nm should help a lot. I was skeptical about AMD's claim of 15% perf/watt improvement with Piledriver, but it's looking more like they might be able to hit this target pretty easily. Time will tell, though, we'll just have to wait and see to be sure.Even if this on avg. cuts power usage down by 10%, and in some cases upwards of 24%....
we all know it wont matter.
Intel performance/power ratio is more than 10% or even 24% above AMDs (if you look at BD vs SandyBridge).
AMD's fab abilities (since their fabless) are so far below Intels, they have to try new stuff, come up with new ways of competeing.
Thats the 1 good thing out of this, it forces AMD to innovate with designs.
Implementing Cyclos Resona, sounds good, anything that get them abit closer to intel power usage has to be a good thing.
To be fair, Intel's performance/power ratio was way ahead of Phenom II, and tons of people still bought them. AMD doesn't need to be as efficient as Intel, they just need to have acceptable efficiency, which BD clearly didn't for most consumers. This new technology along with modest IPC improvements (I thought I read like 5-7% somewhere) and new steppings/refinements to GloFo 32nm should help a lot. I was skeptical about AMD's claim of 15% perf/watt improvement with Piledriver, but it's looking more like they might be able to hit this target pretty easily. Time will tell, though, we'll just have to wait and see to be sure.
Comment from the eetimes post.As with any first time implementation of new technology, the approach was somewhat conservative. We believe savings as large as 20% are possible with more aggressive design and analysis.
To be fair, Intel's performance/power ratio was way ahead of Phenom II, and tons of people still bought them. AMD doesn't need to be as efficient as Intel, they just need to have acceptable efficiency, which BD clearly didn't for most consumers.
To be fair, Intel's performance/power ratio was way ahead of Phenom II, and tons of people still bought them. AMD doesn't need to be as efficient as Intel, they just need to have acceptable efficiency, which BD clearly didn't for most consumers. This new technology along with modest IPC improvements (I thought I read like 5-7% somewhere) and new steppings/refinements to GloFo 32nm should help a lot. I was skeptical about AMD's claim of 15% perf/watt improvement with Piledriver, but it's looking more like they might be able to hit this target pretty easily. Time will tell, though, we'll just have to wait and see to be sure.
Power consumption gets pretty crazy, especially when you OC them to 4.5GHz+. Not a ton worse than Phenom II X6, they could get pretty power hungry with high overclocks as well, people love to compare Bulldozer power consumption to Sandy Bridge to prove how "crappy" it is but sometimes seem to forget the fact that Phenom II weren't power sippers either and used a lot more power than SB, which is just a ridiculously efficient CPU. But being 32nm you'd expect BD to offer quite a bit better performance per watt than Phenom II, unfortunately it doesn't, in that efficiency test Tom's did it barely edges out Phenom II X6 in heavily threaded tasks.Bulldozer uses less power than phenom 2, except for 8150 in high load situations. (and overclocking). Idle power usage is way down, and for example peak 8120 power usage is less than similar phenom X6 CPU power usage in the same situations.
Lack of performance was the problem, not power usage, despite what many would have you believe.
Sheesh for Bulldozer we need a 100% IPC improvement and a 50% reduction in power usage, at the same time. 5-7% wont do squat.
It would take a power reduction of more than 60% to get BD to be competitive.
Not really, AMD needed 2x cores vs. the Xeons to be competitive as well. It'll get them in the range of competitiveness, that's it. Piledriver isn't looking bad though.