Can we start calling Bulldozer a 4 core CPU?

[SickBeast]

I'm annoyed at how AMD is calling Bulldozer an 8 core CPU. The reality of the matter is that it is a glorified quad core.

I'm wondering if we should start discussing CPUs based on transistor count or sheer FLOP and integer throughput.

SickBeast's math:

Bulldozer has 12 cores (8 integer units, 4 floating point units)
Phenom II X6 has 12 cores (6 INT, 6 FPU)
Sandy Bridge has 8 cores (4 INT, 4 FPU)
Phenom II X4 has 8 cores (4 INT, 4 FPU)
Core i3 has 4 cores (2 INT, 2 FPU)

The limiting factor in all of those chips is the FPU, therefore:

BD has 4 cores
SB has 4 cores
PIIX6 has 6 cores
PIIX4 has 4 cores
SB Xeon has 6 cores
SB i3 has 2 cores

I just needed to get that off my chest. It annoys me that they're able to get away with misrepresenting how many actual cores Bulldozer has. The thing is effectively a quad core IMO.

As an aside, SB would be quite fitting considering my name. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Tuna-Fish]

SickBeast's math:

Sandy Bridge has 8 cores (4 INT, 4 FPU)

No, it doesn't. In all modern Intel processors, there is no separate FPU, but the FPU units share critical resources (execution ports) with the integer units. SB cannot simultaneously use all of it's integer and FP capability.

The limiting factor in all of those chips is the FPU, therefore:

BS. If the FPU was what mattered, Phenom and BD would be a lot better chips. They suck because their integer side sucks. If BD suddenly picked up 50% better integer execution, it would be a chip on par with SB. If it suddenly picked 50% better FPU, no-one would care.

 

[Idontcare]

We should call it what AMD calls it, minimizes confusion and really anything else we'd call it is just gonna be rhetoric anyways.

A similar discontinuity in the use of the term "core" exists in GPU's as well. AMD and Nvidia refer to parts of their chips as "cores" in very different ways.

I think the terminology of "cores" is headed to the same dustbin of ambiguity that "TDP" was relegated to many years ago.

Intel TDP != AMD TDP

Intel Core != AMD Core

It is true that we really only seem to care about performance/thread.

Core has become marketing, something you could argue Intel kicked off by naming their very product line "Core 2 Duo" over 5 yrs ago.

 

[SickBeast]

Can you not see that AMD is cheating by counting those integer units as cores, though?

Essentially Bulldozer is 4 cores. It's 4 FPUs working together with a bunch of integer units.

I would hope that a lawyer has looked at AMD's marketing material, because IMO marketing Bulldozer as an 8 core CPU is false advertising.

 

[EightySix Four]

Can you not see that AMD is cheating by counting those integer units as cores, though?

Essentially Bulldozer is 4 cores. It's 4 FPUs working together with a bunch of integer units.

I would hope that a lawyer has looked at AMD's marketing material, because IMO marketing Bulldozer as an 8 core CPU is false advertising.

While I don't disagree that I would prefer it called a 4 core, 8 thread CPU. This part is lol.

 

[BlueBlazer]

Well, with that said....... let me requote from my post.........

IMHO this all boils down to the marketing department's "8 cores awesome-ness" gimmick, and puts AMD into a corner. Lots of hype but not real information. For the well informed, they know that Bulldozer is more like 4 cores with HyperThreading (for example, overclocker Chew*). They should have stick with the 4 cores and come up with some technology catchphrase for CMT, examples like "Super-Threading", "Real-Threading", "True-Threading", "Giga-Threading", "Turbo-Threading", "Power-Threading", etc (up to everyone's imagination). Then herald this as AMD's answer to Intel's HyperThreading. That makes the outlook not as bad as its currently is, with "8 cores" having to compete with competitor's 4 cores and barely beating current generation 6 cores. :hmm:

 

[Vic Vega]

Can you not see that AMD is cheating by counting those integer units as cores, though?

Essentially Bulldozer is 4 cores. It's 4 FPUs working together with a bunch of integer units.

I would hope that a lawyer has looked at AMD's marketing material, because IMO marketing Bulldozer as an 8 core CPU is false advertising.

You simply do not accept AMD's definition of "core". That's fine, but who gets to decide.

Who gets to say than INT and FPU has to be 1:1 to be called a "core"? In this case with BD, it's 2:1, or scaled, 8:4. AMD is calling that a core which is fine with me. It actually doesn't matter much.

 

[EightySix Four]

If you want to be pissed about something, be pissed about the size of the die and number of transistors compared to the CPU's performance.

 

[jhu]

Can you not see that AMD is cheating by counting those integer units as cores, though?

Essentially Bulldozer is 4 cores. It's 4 FPUs working together with a bunch of integer units.

I would hope that a lawyer has looked at AMD's marketing material, because IMO marketing Bulldozer as an 8 core CPU is false advertising.

By that definition, the UltraSPARC T1 is just a single core with 8 integer units. I don't agree with that definition.

 

[Idontcare]

Well, with that said....... let me requote from my post.........

IMHO this all boils down to the marketing department's "8 cores awesome-ness" gimmick, and puts AMD into a corner. Lots of hype but not real information. For the well informed, they know that Bulldozer is more like 4 cores with HyperThreading (for example, overclocker Chew*). They should have stick with the 4 cores and come up with some technology catchphrase for CMT, examples like "Super-Threading", "Real-Threading", "True-Threading", "Giga-Threading", "Turbo-Threading", "Power-Threading", etc (up to everyone's imagination). Then herald this as AMD's answer to Intel's HyperThreading. That makes the outlook not as bad as its currently is, with "8 cores" having to compete with competitor's 4 cores and barely beating current generation 6 cores. :hmm:

I had not seen/read that post of yours before, nice :thumbsup: You make an excellent point.

AMD really missed an opportunity here to brand something for themselves that would have had more legs for advertising than simply "it haz moar coarz, duh".

FWIW giga-threading is already taken (Nvidia).

They should go none-technical (hyper? threading)...and playing off the Rory speech: PredatorThreading (PT)

 

[Tuna-Fish]

Can you not see that AMD is cheating by counting those integer units as cores, though?

Essentially Bulldozer is 4 cores. It's 4 FPUs working together with a bunch of integer units.

Why would that make it 4 cores? It's not like having too few FP resources is the problem with the chip.

 

[Idontcare]

By that definition, the UltraSPARC T1 is just a single core with 8 integer units. I don't agree with that definition.

Yeah I'm not super excited about defining the term core as being based on the existence (and number thereof) of an FPU, or any portion of ALU:FPU ratios.

I view the FPU to merely be an ISA expansion/extension, prior to the 1989 and 486DX we had plenty of CPU cores which had no FPU:

The FPU does not make the core.

Now in this same line of thinking, I also happen to view the fusion effort as nothing more than an ISA expansion/extension as well...no more complicated or less "unusual" that was the original inclusion of the FPU into the core.

I see it all as just one continuous spectrum of ISA expansion and support.

Its tough to say where cores fall out of this. But we all know what a thread is, so it seems like a relevant metric to track is thread performance and thread scaling instead of cores.

 

[ElFenix]

i'm ok with modules, but desktop BD is a 4 module CPU at best, phenom x6 is a 6 module cpu, and desktop SB is a 4 module CPU at best.

 

[Vesku]

I really think from the perspective of informed CPU stats that number of simultaneously processed threads, per thread performance, scaling with multiple threads combined with power used for each scenario is the way to go for judging a product.

What would be great is if we had an enthusiast version of what enterprise customers do. Some enthusiast site that hosts a system to run peoples specific workloads on along with power reporting capabilities.

 

[TuxDave]

No, it doesn't. In all modern Intel processors, there is no separate FPU, but the FPU units share critical resources (execution ports) with the integer units. SB cannot simultaneously use all of it's integer and FP capability.

The math is also confusing for other reasons. Sandybridge was credited to only 1 FPU unit per core when there's FMUL and FADD on different execution ports per core.* And how it claims Bulldozer has 2x the Integer units than Sandybridge when actually Bulldozer has 1.3x the number of ALUs.

The math overall scares and confuses me.


* This of course ignores the benefit of FMA.

 

[BD231]

Amen sickbeast ...... and a big ponnie to all my nay sayers not seein the truth in the matter, bulldozer is one big heap of co-dependent castraded modules.

I'm 100% for more cores, but I didn't expect them to cut so many corners. Cheaping out on tech and entertaining missleading business tactics? I'm not exactly biting at the bit for more power here but I at least want a quality product.

 

[Vesku]

CMT looks alright, they just were counting on more HERTZ!

 

[Martimus]

You can call it whatever you want. I don't see how I could call it only 4 cores when it has 8 independent integer units, and 8 independent FPUs (that can be combined to make 4 more powerfull FPUs). But go hog wild and call it a fairy princess if you so desire.

 

[SickBeast]

8 FPUs, hmm? And what be thy source of thine information?

Toil, toil, bubble, trouble
Cast me a spell on Martimus, double
Curse him once and curse him twice
Curse some more according to dice
behold the power of the mighty spell to remove Martimus from the darkness

/thread

 

[Tsavo]

4CMT/8T describes the CPU well enough for me.

Though, AMD could have gotten away with calling it MMT, or Massively MisThreaded, considering its performance. :hmm:

 

[Grooveriding]

8 cores, 4 cores, 7 cores... it's all turd to me.

 

[aphelion02]

^Exactly. In the end its about performance. If it performed well against the 2600k, they could call it a giga-core for all I care and I would still love the product. As it is now I wouldn't touch it if it were called a octo thread single core.

 

[antisocialmunky]

8 cores, 4 cores, 7 cores... it's all turd to me.

I wish I could say "Intel Cores, AMD Cores, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!" but no, they are manufactured in Malaysia/Costa Rica, and Germany. :<

 

[alyarb]

All of intel's 32nm production takes place in the united states. you can rely on a Malaysian great-grandmother only as far as cutting the chips and putting a sticker on them but you have to leave the high-energy argon lasers to the GEDs.

 

[sangyup81]

Let's not call it anything

The 2600k chip has 4 "cores" but performs like it has a bit more than 4 "cores"
The FX-8150 has 8 "cores" but performs like it has wayy less than 8 "cores"

# of cores do not always equal performance. Just find which chip gives the best performance for the most demanding application you will likely use at the price you are willing to pay and call it a day