Slashdot Mirror
AMD Bulldozer Information and Benchmarks Leaked
MojoKid writes "With Bobcat and Llano launched, AMD has one more major product overhaul set for this year. The company's Bulldozer CPU will launch in the next few months, and after years of waiting, enthusiasts and IT industry analysts are both curious to see what AMD has in its high performance pipeline. According to recently leaked info, one of the new AMD octal-core processors will be an AMD FX-8130P running at 3.2GHz base speed, with what's reported as a 3.7GHz Turbo speed, and a 4.2GHz clock speed if only half the CPU's cores are in use." Writer Joel Hruska justly points out that measures based on unofficial data and unreleased chips are subject to all kinds of potential errors, not to mention Photoshop.
has what to do with clock speed?
I don't really understand the hype behind Bulldozer. Do people really believe that it'll be on-par with Sandy Bridge? The $200 2500k competes well with their own $700+ CPU's. That is absolutely ridiculous performance that I wouldn't have dreamed of 5-10 years ago, for that price.
Sure, maybe having more cores will mean better multi-threaded performance, but this still isn't taken advantage of. I don't see Intel losing in the single-threaded department anytime soon.
Are you showing that it's a fraud, like the article cited or just to get clicks like your own Headline shows? A bit of both, eh?
For some things that run well in parallel their current 4 way 12 core processors released some time ago are better than the newly released Sandy Bridge - so OF COURSE it COULD be better. Whether the consumer CPU is as good or not as good is something that will be worth seeing. If it's nowhere near as good but a lot cheaper that will also be worth seeing.
Yeah, but that is base 16. So it must therefore allocate two numbers per core. 1st core handles all the 1s and 2s, second core all the 3s and 4s etc and the eight core all the Es and Fs. It makes perfect sense, really.
CPU:s are binary, then we use Octal or Hex to represent the contents of the binary structure because it's more convenient.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
octal never seemed that convenient to me.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
In 1996, Digital Equipment Corporation had a Alpha processor fabricated in a bad process uncorrected until 1999 that otherwise had the potential to play Doom3 in SOFTWARE RENDERING. Despite the corrected process reaching the same processor, this is the first company ever to reach 1GHz and was done in 1999, but it could've been done in 1996. The $10k workstation, made in America, and still had more potential than AMD and Intel but they were sold-out by Compaq and Hewlet-Packard.
This is why company's work hard to control how and when information is shared with the public.
Sometimes you just can't help yourself.
From What's a Metaphor For?:
And what are you doing that actually requires that 3GHz? I am currently typing this on an Arrandale-based laptop with a core speed of 1.2GHz and it is plenty fast enough and responsive enough for everything I want to throw at it. If you'd rather wiki the exact specs of my processor, go right ahead. It's a Celeron U3600. I'm not doing any high end gaming on this system (and believe it or not, most computer owners aren't gamers), so it really doesn't need much more oomph than it currently has.
And for the gaming market... how many threads are you running on that 6 year old 3GHz processor? 2 at most? And that's assuming it's a Pentium D with Hyperthreading? I have a year-and-a-half old Core i7 laptop that runs 8 threads at the same time, with a core speed of 2.93GHz. Newer processors can run even more threads. For *most* computer use, it's not the speed that matters, it's the number of threads you can run at that speed.
Far more convenient than binary...
As the mini needs better then the i3 / i5 on board video and for apple to go from nvidia on board video to intel is a side grade at best.
If you read the other responses, you would see that there is a lot of really questionable stuff here that makes the leaked information worthless. There was a known issue in the pre-release Bulldozer cores that crippled performance, which is a big part of why the release was delayed. Now, you clearly have no knowledge of CPU design if you think that clock speed alone is an indicator of performance. Intel has been beating AMD at the same clock speed for a while now due to differences in design, not clock speed. A 2.2GHz Athlon 64 was around as fast as a 3.8GHz Pentium 4 in real-world situations, and many clueless people just couldn't wrap their heads around that idea.
The big question will be what sort of performance improvements the Bulldozer core design has brought to the table compared to previous generations. Since 4-core versions will be available, that would help eliminate core count differences and would set things up for a straight drop-in CPU replacement for benchmarking. Still, if you don't think that a 3GHz processor today is faster than a 3GHz processor from six years ago, you really need to try doing a real-world comparison.
On a high-speed connection, web browsing renders pages faster on a faster processor, you have e-mail, plus a word processor, Quickbooks, all running at the same time comfortably. Just because you do very little with your machine doesn't mean that others use their computers like an overgrown tablet and only do one thing at the same time.
And what are you doing that actually requires that 3GHz?
Dwarf Fortress, once you get past 150-200 dwarves.
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
And everything you listed will benefit far more from having multiple slower cores than a single mammoth core. You could be running a 6GHz processor, and if it's single threaded single core, then my 1.2GHz dual core Celeron will be more responsive. That's the point I was making... you don't need single faster cores. 300MHz is plenty fast enough for every task you listed, if you're only doing one at a time. If you want the best responsiveness, you want tasks + 1 cores... one core dedicated to each task, and another core to handle the system calls and resource management. Since you're unlikely to find a 100+ core system on the consumer market right now, however, you make do with smaller numbers of cores with higher than needed clock speeds.
But if you seriously believe I can't have open multiple programs at the same time, all doing different things, and use them effectively on this system, you need to reexamine your operating system. I have 4 virtual desktops set up right now... on desktop 0 I have a web browser full screen (3 tabs open, this one, gmail, and facebook). Desktop 1 I have multiple IM conversations going on at the same time. Desktop 2 currently has the background chooser and theme browser open, because I'm working on a new theme for e17, and Desktop 3 has file manager and VLC providing some music to work by (currently playing The Story of the Clash volume 1, disc 1, from a network share... This is Radio Clash as I type this). I have no reason to have a spreadsheet or word processor open at the moment, but could easily add it to any of the above desktops if I felt so inclined without taxing my system in the least, as there's plenty of desktop space available to me, and if I really wanted to, I could add more virtual desktops with relative ease. Add on top of that desktop compositing and effects through e17's Ecomorph (a port of compiz/fusion). And yet my CPU fan isn't on, and the CPU meter tells me that the system has actually underclocked both cores to 600MHz because it doesn't need the extra horsepower at the moment. It's not a question of saving the battery, either, because I'm on mains at the moment, it's a question of having more than enough horsepower available to me for the tasks I'm throwing at the system... on a dual core 1.2GHz Celeron.
Nobody cares if Farmville or Facebook will only utilize one core. When folks have the money, they are going to buy the fastest CPU available. Only the budget conscious person is going to ask themselves if they will utilize all those cores or even need that many megahertz (and possibly higher TDP). When they are at their local BestBuy, the sales person is going to pitch them the latest Quad-Core or Octal-Core machine "because your college-bound daughter need it for running Microsoft Word". Going forward, there will be no choice from AMD/Intel but to have a multi-core machine at 3+GHz. Even though a low-end Via will be fine for most folks at a fraction of the cost, it won't be commercially available at the local electronics stores. Related Analogy: Americans still buy fast cars even though the speed limit is 70mph in most places. Just about every modern car nowadays is capable of going at least 100mph even though most urban folks average 30-35mph in their daily commute
I use binary at work all the time. I only use octal to do chmod.
could you please give an example of how octal is more convenient than binary?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Why do you feel that it shouldn't be there?
I definitely see the benefit of having this article presented on the front page. Why just think of how much better this article is than the one with the bad information.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Although I don't agree with you that this article is tripe, I do agree with you that we should be able to give slashdot some direct feedback about the quality of the articles.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.