Slashdot Mirror
AMD Unveils Carrizo APU With Excavator Core Architecture
MojoKid writes: AMD just unveiled new details about their upcoming Carrizo APU architecture. The company is claiming the processor, which is still built on Global Foundries' 28nm 28SHP node like its predecessor, will nonetheless deliver big advances in both performance and efficiency. When it was first announced, AMD detailed support for next generation Radeon Graphics (DX12, Mantle, and Dual Graphics support), H.265 decoding, full HSA 1.0 support, and ARM Trustzone compatibility. But perhaps one of the biggest advantages of Carrizo is the fact that the APU and Southbridge are now incorporated into the same die; not just two separates dies built into and MCM package.
This not only improves performance, but also allows the Southbridge to take advantage of the 28SHP process rather than older, more power-hungry 45nm or 65nm process nodes. In addition, the Excavator cores used in Carrizo have switched from a High Performance Library (HPL) to a High Density Library (HDL) design. This allows for a reduction in the die area taken up by the processing cores (23 percent, according to AMD). This allows Carrizo to pack in 29 percent more transistors (3.1 billion versus 2.3 billion in Kaveri) in a die size that is only marginally larger (250mm2 for Carrizo versus 245mm2 for Kaveri). When all is said and done, AMD is claiming a 5 percent IPC boost for Carrizo and a 40 percent overall reduction in power usage.
This not only improves performance, but also allows the Southbridge to take advantage of the 28SHP process rather than older, more power-hungry 45nm or 65nm process nodes. In addition, the Excavator cores used in Carrizo have switched from a High Performance Library (HPL) to a High Density Library (HDL) design. This allows for a reduction in the die area taken up by the processing cores (23 percent, according to AMD). This allows Carrizo to pack in 29 percent more transistors (3.1 billion versus 2.3 billion in Kaveri) in a die size that is only marginally larger (250mm2 for Carrizo versus 245mm2 for Kaveri). When all is said and done, AMD is claiming a 5 percent IPC boost for Carrizo and a 40 percent overall reduction in power usage.
workin on the Linux drivers .. or atleast letting someone else work on them ..
An Intel Xeon E5-2690 V2, S 2011, 10 Core, 3.0GHz costs £1500. An AMD 3rd Gen. Opteron 6380 CPU, Abu Dhabi 16 Core, S G34 provides better performance and costs less to run yet only retails for £700. I'd say AMD have plenty of life left in the server market and if they can achieve similar price / performance numbers relative to Intel with these new desktop chips I'd say there is some life in them in the desktop arena too!
There are some results from LibreOffice Calc at the bottom of this page.
It would only knock a couple hundred off a intel based system and still suck balls compared to them.
It's knocking out a whole chip, it could bring the price of the whole PC down to less than a couple hundred.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In real world server benches, the Opteron 6380, despite being a 16 core part that uses more power, *loses* all-around to a E5-2660 which is slower than the one you mentioned (and also a bit cheaper): http://www.anandtech.com/show/6508/the-new-opteron-6300-finally-tested/14 Not that it matters, because it's the only segment they're even remotely competitive in.
As for desktops, they're barely competitive with the old Core 2 arch... All of their current CPUs have a terrible IPC, and they kinda suck in the performance per dollar department too. Right now all they have is power hungry monsters that have lots of cores which will sit idle most of the time -- save for the 3 people who will reply to this and who will pretend everybody need 8 cores for everyday things, and that this makes them a good value somehow.
We don't need a ton of slow shitty cores. We need a better architecture with a higher IPC. A 5% increase is nowhere near enough. Most people are better off with an i3...
I'm afraid you have been SCAMMED, as Intel has been bribing the benchmark software companies to rig their tests. there is currently a major investigation in the EU over this and it looks like Intel may get even more in fines than they had to shell out to AMD over their OEM bribery scandal. The latest one caught was Cinebench, if their software detected an AMD APU/APU it would drop ALL SSE optimizations and run ALL the math in X87 mode, a mode that has been depreciated since the P3. yes they were rigging THAT badly.
If you take the rigged benchmarks out of the equation? Then surprise surprise AMD chips trade blows with chips costing more than twice as much with several tests the AMD outright smoking and in others within a couple percentage points of the i5s. Again we are talking about $120-$150 chips against $300+ chips and when you figure up how much more powerful your hardware could be if you put that extra $150 into the GPU or more RAM? Its really easy to choose AMD over Intel in the sub $700 mainstream price point. Oh and the AMD wrecks your power bill bullshit is just that, with 17 years required to make Intel come out ahead on power savings versus the increased cost.
So DO NOT BUY THE LIES, Intel has been caught over and over AND OVER committing bribery and outright market rigging to insure they can get the press and benches to say what they want it to. The fact that they have risked so many fines and sunk so many hundreds of millions on bribes should make you ask yourself one simple question.....if they were REALLY so far ahead, why risk it? Why not simply stand on their merits and let the chips fall where they may? Maybe because they are NOT as far ahead as the rigged benches they paid for indicate and they are afraid of losing their jacked up premium if they have to compete in a fair market?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I'd take power reduction over IPC any day, I haven't needed more CPU performance in about 6 years, and it's looking like I still won't need any more performance for another 6 years.
You do realize that is 4 computers in one box right? Like literally the equivalent of 4 1u servers with 2 CPU and 3 GPU but turned on their side. Also that it costs nearly 100k, which is approximately 50 times as much as an _entire_ computer based on this APU would cost.
Also, considering that with your computer you are getting 12 cores * 4 machines for $100k, where as with an APU based machine you are getting 4 cores * 50 machines, and each of those cores is clocked about twice as fast (4.3 vs 2.4ghz).
Do you have a link for that? It's not that I disbelieve you, I strongly suspect that Intel would do that crap. I'd like to read more about it however if you hae a link handy, then stash the link for the next time this benchmark comes up.
Personally, I like the Phoronix Linux benchmarks. They're more meaningful for me since I use Linux and they're all based on GCC which is trustworthy.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...
The i7 4770 ocasionally blows away the FX8350 by a factor of 2, but in many benchmarks they're close, and Intel loses a fair fraction. The 4770 is the best overall performer, but not by all that much. It seems that the choice of CPU is fairly workload dependent.
For servers, I still prefer the supermicro 4s opteron boxes. 64 cores, 512G RAM, 1U. Nice.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Do you have a link for that? It's not that I disbelieve you, I strongly suspect that Intel would do that crap. I'd like to read more about it however if you hae a link handy, then stash the link for the next time this benchmark comes up.
Personally, I like the Phoronix Linux benchmarks. They're more meaningful for me since I use Linux and they're all based on GCC which is trustworthy.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...
The i7 4770 ocasionally blows away the FX8350 by a factor of 2, but in many benchmarks they're close, and Intel loses a fair fraction. The 4770 is the best overall performer, but not by all that much. It seems that the choice of CPU is fairly workload dependent.
For servers, I still prefer the supermicro 4s opteron boxes. 64 cores, 512G RAM, 1U. Nice.
The i7 4770k is a fairly high end chip by Intel. I own one but I would not expect to find one in a sub 700. It is not a Xeon, but it is just 1 notch down from the $900 extreme edition so it is 2nd highest in consumer non server chips.
Well sites like tomshardware.com make it look like a Pentium or i3 can smoke the latest AMD black edition fresh out of the water. However, biased or not my real world experience says otherwise as many games are optimized for intel and use NVidia specific directX extensions with their studio software which boils a lot of AMD users blood but it is the truth.
In SWTOR I got a doubling of FPS from moving from a PhenomII black edition to an i7 4770k. True it has less cores but apps are optimized still for single tasking and I do have 4 real and 4 hyperthreaded cores for my VMs.
Reason being are games are crappy xbox ports. The 360 I think was single or dual core so games were single threaded. Therefore they kick ass on Intel. The only good news is the xboxONE is changing this with 8 cores with an AMD and forcing game makers to optimize more for ATI.
I expect the newer games to be more competitive as a result as they are more threaded and ATI optimized on tomshardware.com and other sites.
But damage is done and the power is much better with intel chips as they leave AMD further and further in the dust with lower chip nm sized dies since AMD sold their foundries. Global Foundaries only cares about ARM chips so sorry AMD stay in 2010 ... Intel is going 10nm next year and will finally put the last nail in the coffin. ... I pray NOT!
http://saveie6.com/
The best evidence I know of is this one:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets...
You can see how changing the ID string of the CPU will change the performance of the exact same hardware.
Can you provide or link to any proof or information on the Cinebench claim? That's quite a statement which I haven't seen presented anywhere else. I run what I believe to be the largest database of cinebench scores (cbscores.com) so have a somewhat vested interest to look into this. To the best of my understanding, AMD performs poorly in certain tasks and benchmarks because of its shared use of FPUs, despite shipping consumer cpus with 8 cores, they only have 4 FPUs, which given benchmarks like cinebench run almost nothing but floating point math, would rather explain the results. But hey, I could be wrong and there might be a giant conspiracy from intel to artificially slow down their competitors. Feel free to contact me privately if you prefer and I may be able to look into it further. mash at 3dfluff.com. Disclosure: Used to work for Maxon 10 years ago
Except if you bothered to watch the video linked above for actual in-game performance testing (NOT synthetic benchmarks), you'll see that most of the time Intel is neck and neck with AMD - not "smoking" them.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Thanks, and for the stupid retard ACs that can't fucking Google? Here ya go, Intel admits to rigging benchmark results by wadda ya know, Tek Syndicate. I really shouldn't be surprised as unlike Anand and Tom's the guys at Tek Syndicate aren't making their money from intel's ads. But there it is, straight from Intel's own lips...what more do ya want? Their CEO to get his pic taken doing the Cash double bird with "yeah we rig so fuck you!" as the tag line?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
And Intel would still be forcing the Itanium on us had AMD not come out with the Athlon and the x86_64 instruction set, stealing Inel's lunch for a few years until they caught up.
Sure, AMD dropped the ball and Intel stole the lead back from them years ago. But without the competition, Intel wouldn't have any incentive to have processors as good as they do now. The market needs companies like AMD to keep companies like Intel competitive.