Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AMD's Next-Gen Steamroller CPU Could Deliver Where Bulldozer Fell Short

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the rollin'-rollin'-rollin' dept.

AMD 161

MojoKid writes "Today at the Hot Chips Symposium, AMD CTO Mark Papermaster is taking the wraps off the company's upcoming CPU core, codenamed Steamroller. Steamroller is the third iteration of AMD's Bulldozer architecture and an extremely important part for AMD. Bulldozer, which launched just over a year ago, was a disappointment. The company's second-generation Bulldozer implementation, codenamed Piledriver, offered a number of key changes and was incorporated into the Trinity APU family that debuted last spring. Steamroller is the first refresh of Bulldozer's underlying architecture and may finally deliver the sort of performance and efficiency AMD was aiming for when it built Bulldozer in the first place. Enhancements to Fetch and Decode architecture have been made, as well as increased scheduler efficiency and cache load latency, which combined could bring a claimed 15 percent performance-per-watt performance gain. AMD expects to ship Steamroller sometime in 2013 but wouldn't offer timing detail beyond that."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

AMD has cool code names. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41160739)

They all sound like sexual positions.

Fuck A Monkey! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41160847)

They all sound like sexual positions.

Yeah reminds me of sex with niggers. Also known as bestiality.

Re:AMD has cool code names. (4, Funny)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#41160879)

And Intel ones don't? Who are you kidding?

Aladdin
Bad Axe
Bad Axe 2
Batman
Batman's Revenge
Big Laurel
Black Pine (a cute name for anal sex I guess)
Black Rapids (I don't want to know)
Bonetrail
Caneland
Cougar Canyon
Glidewell
Tanglewood (sounds bi to me)
Warm Springs

and last, but never least, the

Windmill (also known as "Helicopter Dick")

Re:AMD has cool code names. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41161935)

Just wait until they come out with the Killdozer.

(haha... the captcha for this post is "mighty")

Re:AMD has cool code names. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41162017)

To me they sound more like REALLY slow and clunky vehicles... Not sure what AMD is hoping people associate their products with.

Re:AMD has cool code names. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41162229)

Big powerful machines.

Doesn't necessarily work, but I can sort of see where they were going with it.

Re:AMD has cool code names. (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165823)

I'd rather make a getaway on top of a steamroller instead of running with a clawhammer between my legs.

Re:AMD has cool code names. (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#41164013)

Sounds to me like they're all machines that can get massive amounts of work done in a relatively short time (compared to any alternative).

Re:AMD has cool code names. (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 2 years ago | (#41164337)

For me, the first association that comes to mind when I hear "Steamroller" is "slow". Sure, it can do one task really well, but come on...

Re:AMD has cool code names. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41164721)

I guess the idea was that it bulldozes down the competition.

Re:AMD has cool code names. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41162457)

Interesting that this story is about how great Steamroller is going to be, when we're stlil waiting for desktop versions of Piledriver, the CPU that was supposed to fix the first-generation problems of the Bulldozer.

Of course the initial Piledriver cores that were included in the Trinity APU turned out to be just a 5-15 % improvement over Bulldozer, so it's not that bad, but AMD is still sadly lagging years behind Intel.

Re:AMD has cool code names. (1)

thsths (31372) | more than 2 years ago | (#41163131)

> but AMD is still sadly lagging years behind Intel.

Exactly, so a promised 15% increase in efficiency next year is not going to cut it. Intel has an advantage of about 50%, and they will probably deliver improvements by next year, too.

So for me, this message says that AMD has lost the race.

Re:AMD has cool code names. (5, Informative)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#41163251)

In some races they are just about alone on the track. An AMD based server with 64 cores and 128GB of memory will set you back $9000. with Intel you can now get 80 cores for about ten times that, or 40 cores for about five times that.
For some tasks when you can get 640 slightly slower cores (the ten core Intel chips have a lower clock than the ones with less cores) for the same price as 80 it's pretty easy to see which way to go. If anything is massively parallel you can forget about Intel at this point.

Re:AMD has cool code names. (5, Interesting)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#41163975)

Indeed. I think AMD is actually far ahead of Intel (again, think e.g. integrated memory controller, for quite a few server-loads Intel was vastly behind for a time due to that). The speed increases of CPUs have become slower and slower and mater less and less. The trick for AMD will be to survive intact until Intel gives up and gets a next-gen architecture of their own. By then AMD will have ironed out the kinks and they will be on an equal footing again. When looking at their relative sizes and cash-reserves, it is impressive that AMD can compete at all. But the bottom-line is that in almost all cases (exception: You need a small number of CPUs with high power because your software is stupid, and cost of the CPUs is not an issue) you get significantly better value for the money from AMD.

Re:AMD has cool code names. (2)

rullywowr (1831632) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165659)

They should just drop the "driver" and name it "pile."

They need to innovate (4, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 2 years ago | (#41160741)

Things like hitting the 1GHz mark first, and making a workable 64bit chip that also speaks x86 only get you so far. AMD needs to come up with something cool, else they're doomed to play catch-up.

Re:They need to innovate (4, Insightful)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161037)

Well they definitely need to step up with their current offerings but I will forever be grateful for their 64 bit x86 extensions. If not for that we'd be stuck with Itanium desktops...*SHUDDER*...

Re:They need to innovate (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161115)

"may finally deliver the sort of performance and efficiency AMD was aiming for when it built Bulldozer in the first place"

So, this will finally be able to compete with Intel had last summer? A year late is an entire product cycle, so what Intel has now should crush it, performance-wise. So AMD will still have to go for 'cheap, and good enough". I guess their saving grace is they can weld a real GPU to it, then beat the GPU benchmarks for Intel's welded on GPU.

Re:They need to innovate (1)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161171)

Unless they're planning to cut their margins drastically, "cheap and good enough" won't work. By the time this comes out, intel CPUs with the performance of even mid-range sandy bridge CPUs will be quite cheap in their celeron (or whatever their cheap equivalent is these days) line up.

Re:They need to innovate (3, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162047)

Ya know what? Nothing wrong with cheap and "good enough" the problem has been their new designs are cheap and shitty thanks to that lame "half core" they went for.

You take a good 85%+ of the people out there and a MOR AMD Deneb quad will frankly be twiddling its thumbs because it will blow through any jobs that they have, even gaming, even more so for Thuban. And their Brazos chips were fricking great, an APU designed for mobile video and basic tasks that got great battery life while often being cheaper than an Atom+ION setup.

I've sold many an Athlon II and Phenom II and the people are damned happy with them, they just blast through everything they want to do with plenty of cycles left over. I even put my money where my mouth is with regards to my family, me and the oldest are gaming on Thubans while the youngest took my Deneb, and they blow through any game we throw at 'em.

I see from TFA they've partially dropped the "half core" design but I can only hope that with Piledriver they'll drive a stake through it, as most of the people I've talked to Win 8 is a DO NOT WANT yet the half core scheduler bug is only fixed in Win 8. Meh, hopefully I'll still be able to get enough Thuban, Deneb, and Liano chips to get me through the whole BD/SR phase and the new Apple chip designer they hired will give us another Athlon64. One can hope after all.

Re:They need to innovate (4, Interesting)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162521)

Ya know what? Nothing wrong with cheap and "good enough" the problem has been their new designs are cheap and shitty thanks to that lame "half core" they went for.

You take a good 85%+ of the people out there and a MOR AMD Deneb quad will frankly be twiddling its thumbs because it will blow through any jobs that they have, even gaming, even more so for Thuban. And their Brazos chips were fricking great, an APU designed for mobile video and basic tasks that got great battery life while often being cheaper than an Atom+ION setup.

I've sold many an Athlon II and Phenom II and the people are damned happy with them, they just blast through everything they want to do with plenty of cycles left over. I even put my money where my mouth is with regards to my family, me and the oldest are gaming on Thubans while the youngest took my Deneb, and they blow through any game we throw at 'em.

I see from TFA they've partially dropped the "half core" design but I can only hope that with Piledriver they'll drive a stake through it, as most of the people I've talked to Win 8 is a DO NOT WANT yet the half core scheduler bug is only fixed in Win 8. Meh, hopefully I'll still be able to get enough Thuban, Deneb, and Liano chips to get me through the whole BD/SR phase and the new Apple chip designer they hired will give us another Athlon64. One can hope after all.

This. I have a six-core 1055T. Bought it to overclock and it does hit 4ghz stable on air but guess what? I run it at stock 2.8ghz. Why? Because 99.9% of the time six cores at 2.8ghz is more than enough. Even games run perfectly. CPUs have finally reached the point where faster isn't better anymore, its power usage and heat output. Rather have it run cool using little power at stock then run it full blast all the time sucking watts and heating the room at 4ghz I'm not even using.

When I bought this intel didn't have anything close in price that performed as well. Sure I could have spent double and bought a faster intel chip, but why? What was the point of spending more on something I wouldn't use? Rather spend the $ on a ssd for real performance gains then extra ghz I'd never use. So I bought AMD and I'll probably do it again next year if the price is reasonable and the speed is "good enough"

Re:They need to innovate (3, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#41163409)

Hi fellow Thuban user! I have the 1035T and my oldest has the 1045T and like you I got some crazy OCing when I first got it (I ended up with 3.5GHz with 3.9GHz turbo) before going back to stock because even at 2.6Ghz it just mows through everything.

What I really love is the TurboCore, with my Asrock board I can tweak to my hearts content but even at stock settings with TC I'm getting a little over 3GHz when gaming thanks to most games using 3 cores or less. No muss, no fuss, it just kicks it in automatically when I need the single threaded boost. And with the N520 cooler, which I paid a grand total of $30 for, it stays around 8 degrees above room temp idle and never hits above 127F even when the cores are being pounded. When you can keep a chip that cool with just a $30 heatpipe cooler and arctic silver what's not to like?

What did it for me though was like you how much I could save while still having damned good performance. I have 2 teen boys that also game so I try to keep us pretty close to parity and when you can grab a complete 6 core kit for $345 [tigerdirect.com] and that's BEFORE the MIR gives you another $30 off? It was a no brainer. I got myself the Thuban, gave the youngest my X4 925, which considering he prefers MMOs is frankly overkill, while the oldest ended up with a kit I just like I linked to given to him by his grandpa as a back to school present before I could grab it for him.

All told for THREE systems, with the family pack of Win 7 HP X64 and 3 HD 4850 GPUs? $1400 before the MIRs, after I got those back all told it was around $390 a system. You just can't beat that and all the games we play run just beautiful at the 1600x900 res our screens run on. In a year to a year and a half I'll pick up some 6770s or 6850s when they drop to the $50 price range and make my money back on the 4850s off of CL. With two hexas and a quad we couldn't be happier, the kids gaming and movies, my gaming and transcoding along with multitrack audio editing? We have tons of cycles to spare.

So I have to agree, what's the point when these systems already can tear through anything we care to do at half the price of a similar Intel unit?

Re:They need to innovate (1)

lexman098 (1983842) | more than 2 years ago | (#41164947)

Rather have it run cool using little power at stock then run it full blast all the time sucking watts and heating the room at 4ghz I'm not even using.

Take a look at CPU-Z sometime. The CPU scales back its clock automatically when it doesn't need all the cycles.

Re:They need to innovate (1)

travbrad (622986) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165615)

Why? Because 99.9% of the time six cores at 2.8ghz is more than enough. Even games run perfectly

There are virtually no games that actually use 6 cores though, so 2 of those cores just sit idle doing nothing. There are a lot of games that still only use 2 cores too, for example Skyrim (one of the most popular games in recent years):

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-9.html [tomshardware.com]

That's one of the big problems with Bulldozer. In programs than can use all 8 cores it is somewhat competitive with 4 Intel cores, but in the programs that can't use 8 cores (quite a few) they get absolutely crushed by Intel.

Re:They need to innovate (1)

DuckDodgers (541817) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166641)

That's why Tom's Hardware's latest "best gaming CPU for the money" article put the AMD FX-4170 at the top of the list on the AMD side - only four cores, but it runs at 4.2 GHz right out of the box. So in the rare event you're doing something massively parallel it will get creamed by one of the Bulldozer 6 or 8 core processors, but for games it's the best option AMD has. $120 at Newegg.

I'm building a new PC next year, if the Steamroller chips aren't really good both on performance and on price, I will probably just get the FX-4170.

Re:They need to innovate (1)

ZenDragon (1205104) | more than 2 years ago | (#41167303)

Same here. build a 1055T rig with 16gb of ram, on a vertex 3 SSD for under $1000 bucks about a year ago, with a Radeon 7950 it plows through every single game I have thrown at it in pretty much max resolution with all the goodies turned on. I have yet to see a reason to "upgrade" to an i7 yet. And probably wont even bother until this thing dies.

Re:They need to innovate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41167331)

CPUs have finally reached the point where faster isn't better anymore, its power usage and heat output.

I agree, and that's why AMD was what to buy prior to 2011.

I agree, and that's why as of January 2011 and later, you buy Intel. SB and IV rule on power usage and heat output, and they're fast too, whenever you need it.

I love Athlon IIs but I wouldn't buy one today, when I could get a Core i3 21xx instead.

Re:They need to innovate (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166531)

Agreed. AMD give you 90% the power of Intel for 50% the price.

I built my parents a computer to replace the old Athlon XP. I could have gotten a Core 2 Duo, or a Phenom II X3. Guess which one I got?

I actually told them that if they want to upgrade (new Civilization game out, seems to run a bit slow), the Phenom X4 and X6 chips are dirt-cheap now. Haven't heard back from them yet.

Re:They need to innovate (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#41163225)

I guess their saving grace is they can weld a real GPU to it, then beat the GPU benchmarks for Intel's welded on GPU.

You may not have noticed, but Intel is fast closing the gap in integrated GPU performance. They are catching up to AMD on the integrated GPU front much faster than AMD is catching up to Intel on the CPU side.

Re:They need to innovate (1)

rrhal (88665) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161107)

There Heterogeneous System Architecture (HSA) is pretty innovative stuff. If AMD is successful this will change the way software is written and move us to a more parallel world.

Re:They need to innovate (1)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161183)

CPUs don't really drive software development that much. Or else we would have migrated off x86 years ago. If intel can get the same/similar performance without a paradigm shift in development methodology, developers won't bother.

Re:They need to innovate (4, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161855)

CPUs don't really drive software development that much. Or else we would have migrated off x86 years ago. If intel can get the same/similar performance without a paradigm shift in development methodology, developers won't bother.

The migration from x86 has already started, actually - the architecture they're moving to is ARM. (After all, there are more ARM-based SoCs shipped than x86 CPUs - every PC includes one or more ARM cores doing something).

But on a more user level - tablets, smartphones are becoming the computing platforms of the day, all running ARM processors. Regardless of whether they run iOS or Android. Developers have embraced it and cranking out tons of apps and games and other stuff for this. It's so scary that Intel's investing a lot of money bringing Android to x86 because the writing's on the wall (when more phones and tablets ship than PCs...)

But x86 won't die - it has a raw performance advantage that ARM has yet to reach, so for computation-heavy operations like databases, it'll be the heavy lifter. Perhaps serving an entire array of ARM frontend webservers.

Re:They need to innovate (4, Interesting)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162825)

This is just so weird. 20 years ago it was Alpha, MIPS, SPARC, PA-RISC, etc. that were the ones counted to do all the heavy lifting backend, HPC stuff. x86 was kind of a joke that everyone frowned upon but tolerated because it was cheap and did the job adequately for the price. Then x86 steamrolled through. Now no more Alpha or PA-RISC. MIPS is relagated to low-power applications (my router has one).

AMD's in deep trouble with Steamroller (4, Interesting)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161263)

I think AMD's work here will provide some great evolutionary speedups that will be significant to many people. Unfortunately for them, at the same time AMD is bringing out these small "free lunch" general improvements, Intel will be bringing out Haswell -- which in addition to such evolutionary improvements has some really fantastic, significant new features that'll provide remarkable performance boosts.

  • Integer AVX-256. For apps that can take advantage of it, this'll be a massive speed-up. Things like x264 and other video processing will take huge advantage of this.
  • SIMD LUTs. One of the major optimization tricks programmers have been using for ages, look up tables, have been thus far out of reach to SIMD code without complex shuffle operations that usually aren't worth it.
  • Transactional memory. This is not quite the easy BEGIN/COMMIT utopia people are hoping transactional memory will eventually get us, but it's a building block that'll enable some advanced concurrent algorithms that either aren't realistic now or are so complex that they're out of reach to most coders.

These are all pretty specialized features, yes, but they service some very high-profile benchmark areas: video processing and concurrency are always on the list, and AMD will get absolutely crushed when apps start taking advantage of it.

I'm a developer, a major optimization geek both micro- and macro-. I thrive playing with instruction latencies, execution units, and cache usage until my code eeks out as much performance as possible. Of course we'll never know until the CPUs are released for everyone to play with, but right now my money is on Intel.

AMD is in serious trouble here. I hope I'm wrong.

Re:AMD's in deep trouble with Steamroller (3, Interesting)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162025)

I'm a developer, a major optimization geek both micro- and macro-. I thrive playing with instruction latencies, execution units, and cache usage until my code eeks out as much performance as possible. Of course we'll never know until the CPUs are released for everyone to play with, but right now my money is on Intel.

Yeah, I'm a developer too. However, my simulations run on desktops not super computers so it doesn't matter how optimal the code is on a single particular piece of hardware... Wake me up when there's a cross platform intermediary "object code" I can distribute that gets optimised and linked/compiled at installation time for the exact hardware my games will be running on.

We need software innovation (OS's and Compilers) otherwise I'm coding tons of cases for specific hardware features that aren't available on every platform, and are outpaced by the doubly powerful machine that comes out 18 months later... In short: It's not worth doing all that code optimisation for each and every chip released. This is also why Free Software is so nice: I release the cross platform source code, you compile it, and it's optimised for your hardware... However, most folks actually just download the generic architecture binary, defeating the per processor optimisation benefits.

Like I said: In addition to hardware improvements we need a better cross platform intermediary binary format (so that both closed and open projects benefit). You know, kind of like how Android's Davlik bytecode works (processed at installation), except without needing a VM when you're done. I've got one of my toy languages doing this, but it requires a compiler/interpreter to be already installed (which is fine for me, but in general suffers the same problems as Java). MS is going with .NET, but that's some slow crap in terms of "high-performance" and still uses a VM.

Besides, I thought it was rule #2: Never optimise prematurely?
(I guess the exception is: Unless you're only developing for yourself...)

Re:AMD's in deep trouble with Steamroller (1)

aaron552 (1621603) | more than 2 years ago | (#41163171)

Wake me up when there's a cross platform intermediary "object code" I can distribute that gets optimised and linked/compiled at installation time for the exact hardware my games will be running on.

I hear LLVM is heading in this direction

Re:AMD's in deep trouble with Steamroller (2)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162101)

*Looks around* AAAAAAAnd, how does this AVX-256 compare to OpenCl transcoding of video?

Re:AMD's in deep trouble with Steamroller (1, Insightful)

TeXMaster (593524) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162227)

*Looks around* AAAAAAAnd, how does this AVX-256 compare to OpenCl transcoding of video?

That's a stupid question. OpenCL by itself does nothing whatsoever to improve video transcoding. OpenCL is an API, so the performance of an OpenCL kernel for video transcoding highly depends on which hardware you're running it on. On Intel CPUs supporting AVX-256, OpenCL kernels will be compiled to use those instructions (if Intel keeps updating its OpenCL SDK), on GPUs and APUs it will use whatever the respective platforms use. What OpenCL does is make it easier to exploit AVX-256, just as it makes it easier to exploit SSE and multiple cores.

What are you talking about? (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162535)

That is like asking "What colour do you want this database in?" OpenCL doesn't do anything for transcoding video, it is an API for talking to graphics cards. Now, GPUs can be used for video transcoding, of course, using OpenCL or other APIs (CUDA, DirectCompute). However how well they do depends on what the graphics card is. An AMD 7970, that'll throw down some serious performance. An ATi 3400 doesn't even have driver support for OpenCL and if it did would be very slow.

So there isn't going to be any way to directly compare speeds because the speed of something using OpenCL will depend on the GPU that runs underneath it. On some systems that may be very fast on others it may not be available.

Also along those lines a difference from the user standpoint is that it is integrated in the CPU. You don't have to go buy a GPU, the CPU itself just does it. This is something that is rather nice, and hopefully some day we reach the point where CPUs are powerful enough that we don't need GPUs. The more a CPU can handle well by itself, the less people that have a need for an addon GPU.

Re:What are you talking about? (2)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162751)

+10 for being pedantic (the best kind of correct, technically correct), -1000 for knowing exactly what I was groping for, but choosing to be pedantic.

Just got back from a late-night concert, and my head hasn't stopped pounding yet (and there is some question of sobriety -> Jimmy Buffet with margaritas). Besides, and I am summoning my inner BOFH here, who teh f*ck would run OpenCl code on a CPU? I've tried, and the only thing I've succeeded in doing is giving my laptop a grand mal seizure.

And no one sane does video-transcoding on a 7-year old machine. No, no, just don't go there.

And ponying up an extra $500 on top of the regular CPU going rate ($200-300) for a new chip, from Intel, when a $150 four-generation displaced video card could / would spank it is a thought not even worth considering. But I digress, someone out there will decide that running a video transcoder, on a non-upgradeable laptop (which they will pay way too much money for this chip), with Intel HD integrated graphics (does it even support OpenCl? Is it still a separate chipset, or has it been integrated on-die?), and absolutely need this feature; they will also probably save the processed video onto a 4,000 RPM USB-1 portable value hard drive.

Comments subject to revision if / when I wake up tomorrow, and shake off that last of this Tequila. I think it's Tequila.

Re:What are you talking about? (2)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165693)

+10 for being pedantic (the best kind of correct, technically correct), -1000 for knowing exactly what I was groping for, but choosing to be pedantic.

Welcome to Slashdot!

Re:What are you talking about? (1)

DuckDodgers (541817) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166827)

Agreed. I think some of the things Intel (and AMD, and Qualcomm, and nVidia) put into their CPU instruction sets are 10% for real use and 90% so they can put an item on the bullet list for the marketing literature and get fanboys to buy something new when the thing they already had is just fine.

It was a great Buffett concert, wasn't it? But I'm getting too old for this, after two hours I couldn't hear much beyond the ringing in my ears. I still have a bit of it today. And also, I thought movie theaters with bars charged a lot for booze, but that was ridiculous.

Re:What are you talking about? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#41163865)

And if you look at the reviews you'll also see that doing video transcoding on the GPU? Really kinda shoddy. Every test I've seen had some okay, some lousy, but none of them did as good a picture quality or as small a file size as pure CPU.

This is why I'm happy with with my Thuban, 6 cores let me chew through transcodes without any trouble and with great picture quality. While I'm all for using GPUs for decode, my E350 really saves battery life by using the GPU, but transcodes? The tech just isn't there yet.

Re:What are you talking about? (2)

FreonTrip (694097) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165605)

Heads up: The x264 project's incorporating OpenCL support for certain parts of the encoder. Take a look over here [anandtech.com] - initial results are very promising.

Re:They need to innovate (2)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161271)

Really? I got a nice combo bundle (case, PSU, AMD "APU", ram, motherboard) for $120, shipped. It runs Diablo 3 and all of my steam games with no trouble. What can you get me with Intel offerings that can do the same, at that price?

Re:They need to innovate (1)

Pulzar (81031) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161693)

What can you get me with Intel offerings that can do the same, at that price?

Probably nothing. The problem is that AMD hardly makes anything on selling you that whole setup, and there are too few of you who need something like that to make it up in selling huge volumes.

It's not that their stuff is awful. It's just that they can't sell the cheap stuff at enough of a profit, and they don't have expensive stuff to make up for it.

The business side of the company is failing.

Re:They need to innovate (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41161875)

Intel completely dominates AMD in terms of process tech, but due to antitrust concerns, they tweak their prices so that AMD can stay barely alive in the "budget segment".

In the last 20 years, AMD had the best parts for only 2 years, and were in the running for maybe another 3-4 years. The game has always been rigged in Intel's favor.

Re:They need to innovate (1)

DuckDodgers (541817) | more than 2 years ago | (#41167081)

There are a number of documented cases in the past few years when Intel paid major PC makers to only carry their own chips.

Regardless of the morality of that, the result was that it really hurt AMD sales, and in turn that prevented them from getting the investment capital they needed to keep improving their products.

Of course, the counter point is that AMD failed to make a compelling case to the major PC vendors that dropping AMD products was a serious mistake. That's competition at work. But I dislike the prospect of having only one major processor vendor in the market and I sincerely hope the world moves to ARM and other alternatives just so that there is more major players in the game.

Re:They need to innovate (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41161511)

Amd surprised me with some of their more power efficient offerings. I was able to get an e-350 based motherboard for under $100 for an always on little home server. The thing draws less than 40 watts with a bunch of spinning hard drives. When doing research, it very solidly competed with Atom [tomshardware.com] (Tom's hardware) in terms of price/ performance. I'd be interested to see what this refresh does for this line of chips.

Re:They need to innovate (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161929)

Not to mention there is a BIG rotting elephant in the room that nobody is talking about which is this: If you don't like Windows 8? You're screwed if you buy a new AMD chip. You see the braintrust at AMD didn't bother to keep MSFT in the loop about what they were cooking up with their "half core" design and now that BD and soon SR will be out there MSFT has made it clear that the scheduler bug is a WILL NOT FIX except in Windows 8.

So if you run XP, Vista, or Windows 7 with one of the new AMD chips you either have to disable half the cores or Windows will treat it as hyperthreading and tie a nice boat anchor to your new chip. This is why you can disable half the modules (thus making them like a traditional chip) and your benches will go UP and not down, because Windows doesn't know WTF to do with such a strange CPU, just as it didn't know what to do with the first hyperthreaded chips. This is also why the Thubans will win in most benches against the BD chips, even though BD has more cores, because Windows doesn't know about the half cores and how to schedule them properly.

I just hope the new chip designer they hired away from Apple can do some good and come up with another truly great design, because otherwise AMD is stuck with a chip that will only run correctly on an OS that looks to be the most hated Windows since MS Bob.

As someone who has put my money where my mouth is and not built a single Intel PC since the bribery and compiler rigging came out I've been sticking with AM3 but its getting harder and harder, and since my customers aren't going to Windows 8 I may have to start looking at Intel again. After all who is gonna want to buy a system that has to get stuck with Win 8 just to have it run correctly?

Re:They need to innovate (3, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162287)

or Windows will treat it as hyperthreading and tie a nice boat anchor to your new chip.

Actually it's the opposite, the system SHOULD be treating the co-cores like HT units and not scheduling demanding jobs on adjacent cores (at least not ones that both need the FP unit or lots of decode operations). The problem is that AMD basically lied to the OS and told it that every core is the same and that it can go ahead and schedule anything wherever it wants. If they had just marked the second portion of each co-core as an HT unit the normal scheduler optimizations would have basically handled 99% of cases correctly. In reality BD's problem wasn't so much the gaff with the co-cores (though that certainly didn't help things), but that Global Foundry is more than a process node behind Intel (one node plus 3D transistors).

Re:They need to innovate (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#41163317)

In ANY case, which your description does make sense, the problem is NOT with GloFlo but squarely with AMD.

If they would have let MSFT in on the idea from the start (and no point not telling them, it isn't like Intel was gonna gut their superior performing Core line to completely re-engineer their chips to steal an AMD idea) then they could have written the scheduler to recognize the AMD chips and treat them as modules instead of cores but they kept MSFT in the dark and now frankly everyone is getting punished because if you want a fully functional chip on XP, Vista, or 7 you should avoid AMD like the clap.

Personally I thought the whole idea was retarded except for the mobile chips like Brazos, on the desktop the idea was completely stupid and on the server even more so. For those that don't know the original plan was to go "Full APU" and have the GPU take the place of the FP on chip, which would be a much simpler and weaker design than in years past thus freeing up more TDP for more cores. Why is this dumb? Well what if you want to use the GPU AND do some floating point heavy task? Or what if you don't want the integrated GPU because you can't OC worth a crap with the GPU built in?

Frankly the ONLY place that would have been a really good idea is Brazos, because you could then use the die space to have a quad core APU that would use very little power when not doing FP heavy tasks yet would still have excellent multimedia capability thanks to the powerful GPU taking up the slack. Instead the braintrust at AMD killed the replacement for Brazos, instead going for the usual minor speed up thanks to die shrink. That is completely moronic as Brazos was selling as fast as they could crank them out and even today you still see laptops up to 15 inch using Brazos, so a quad Brazos II that used less than 17w under load and got great multimedia and even okay gaming would have been a slam dunk, and instead they bet it all on BD arch which unless they pull off a miracle may be their very own Netburst. Whereas Netburst was clock above all the BD design is cores above all and in both cases just bad design.

I'm sure AMD fanboys will have a shitfit but this is from someone who owns not a single Intel unit, my netbook is Brazos, my Office box is a Sempron nettop, and I'm typing this on my Thuban home machine. So I WANT AMD to succeed, I really really do. I remember what it was like when Intel had a monopoly and it wasn't good for anybody. After all if it wasn't for Athlon64 giving Intel a spanking we'd probably have 8GHz Netburst space heaters right now. But if AMD is gonna survive they are gonna have to do better, simple as that. I truly hope that the new chip designer they lured away from Apple can give them a kick ass design, because there really isn't a selling point for BD right now. It sucks more power, is more expensive, gets less performance than Thuban which can be had for MUCH cheaper, and it doesn't work well with anything but Windows "Hai I Iz A Smartphone LOL" 8, which looks to be as big a bomb as Vista or even Bob.

One more reason why APU in the high end is stupid (2)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 2 years ago | (#41164981)

Personally I thought the whole idea was retarded except for the mobile chips like Brazos, on the desktop the idea was completely stupid and on the server even more so. For those that don't know the original plan was to go "Full APU" and have the GPU take the place of the FP on chip, which would be a much simpler and weaker design than in years past thus freeing up more TDP for more cores. Why is this dumb? Well what if you want to use the GPU AND do some floating point heavy task? Or what if you don't want the integrated GPU because you can't OC worth a crap with the GPU built in?

All correct, but I could live with those aspects. I usually don't OC, and if I know I want the GPU AND do some floating point heavy task, I could get an additional discrete GPU. There is, however, a worse one:

Memory bandwidth congestion. A typical lower midrange graphics card with 128 bit data bus and GDDR3 is significantly slower than the same model with GDDR5. In an APU, the GPU part has to share the even lower bandwidth of the DDR3 main memory with the CPU part.

When the LLano was new, Anandtech published a preview:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4448/amd-llano-desktop-performance-preview [anandtech.com]
It shows some comparisons to discrete graphics cards, including the HD 5570 which represents the lower midrange graphics card w/128bit mentioned above.
In gaming frame rates, the HD 5570 beats the LLano even when it runs on DDR3-1866 RAM, which was not a JEDEC standard at the time. With standard DDR3, the difference gets bigger. Which shows clearly the LLano is limited by memory bandwidth and really could use four-channel memory as in Intel's socket 2011.
With bigger and faster GPUs, the bandwidth demands will only grow, and for a Bulldozer APU with matching GPU part even four-channel memory may be insufficient..

Re:They need to innovate (1)

kermidge (2221646) | more than 2 years ago | (#41163737)

"After all who is gonna want to buy a system that has to get stuck with Win 8 just to have it run correctly?"

Guess it depends on what one wants to do. I was under the impression that the patches for BD had been included in the last Linux kernel or two (not that it'll help AMD's bottom line viz. market percentage.) As for Win8, if nothing else a third-party dev will have a 'Metro' app with a "click/touch/punch/yell here to get to a real desktop" icon.

I like a lot of what Intel has been doing recently with performance/power/price but have found it daunting to plow through the huge list of SKUs and trying to match them up with sockets and all. After too much reading I think I settled on something like the i5-5430 for a theoretical build.

Meanwhile, my three-year old system has seen two Phenom x4s and a Phenom II x6 on the same mobo with one or two BIOS updates, so it's been simple enough for me to deal with. If I can do a build next year, I suspect it's gonna be a tough choice depending on how well Steamroller does.

Re:They need to innovate (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 2 years ago | (#41167693)

otherwise AMD is stuck with a chip that will only run correctly on an OS that looks to be the most hated Windows since MS Bob.

WTF are you talking about? Nearly all OSes work just fine with Bulldozer modules. You just happened to cherry-pick three example that don't, and one that does but which you happen to not like.

Interesting that all 4 OSes you mentioned, just happen to be from one team/company.

You remind me of the kind of people who complain about Democrats and Republicans, and then go out and vote for Democrats and Republicans.

"I tried Tree Top apple juice, a local farm's apple juice, the supermarket's generic apple juice, and all 3 of them completely lack citrusy character! Why can't any make a citrusy juice, something that tastes like, oh I don't know, oranges? Should I try yet another brand of apple juice?"

Re:They need to innovate (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41163389)

They are doomed to play catch-up, at best.
Intel made sure of that way back when they strong-armed OEMs into not offering Athlon64 systems, later denying any wrong-doing long enough for AMD to end up in a dire financial position, so they would settle out of court for pocket change.
And yet Intel keeps selling a lot of their chips. Is it really that small of a minority that cares about a healthy competitive landscape?

it's the boards! (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#41160809)

I think 15% would put them around even with Intel. That means it's a toss up except, oh wait, their boards are ungodly expensive. I really don't know why, probably chipset manufacturing cost or something. A really nice MSI B75 board with all metal caps is $65 and my usual H77MA-G43 board is a mere $90. All the AMD ones i looked at that had the features I wanted (basically same ones as those last two I mentioned) are all $100 and usually well over a hundred. Just to get SATA III at all was terribly expensive on any AMD board with any chipset. So unless it has an onboard 1833MHz memory controller, that's the end of that. But who knows, boards might come out super cheap for the new chips.

Re:it's the boards! (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#41160829)

Huh to be honest I've not looked at Motherboards in a while, but I've never been able to get a board I wanted for less than 100 dollars and if I could I'd be pretty skeptical. Then again Elitegroup pretty much ruined my opinion of cheap motherboards.

AMD boards have better PCI-E lanes then intel chip (3, Informative)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#41160967)

AMD boards have better PCI-E lanes then intel chips.

With Intel you need to go high end to get more then 16 lanes + DMI

Re:AMD boards have better PCI-E lanes then intel c (2)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161161)

The thing is, the low end don't care for masses of PCI lanes. They run integrated video. The high end want a fast CPU as well.

And an average user would care because? (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162591)

Sorry but lots of PCIe lanes are just not the kind of thing that matters to non-high end users or people who focus on stats rather than real world performance. To even have a situation on a desktop board where it could theoretically matter you have to have multiple graphics cards. The 1x slots hang off the southbridge and have their own bandwidth separate from the lanes on the CPU for the video card. So if you stick on two GPUs then yes, you don't have enough to give them both 16 lanes.

However it turns out to not matter. We have more bandwidth than we need with PCIe, particularly now with 3.0. You test a card in 16x vs one in 8x and you find no difference in performance. So it just doesn't matter even if you have multiple GPUs.

Of course multiple GPUs are rather a high end proposition. Many people don't even bother with a GPU at all, they just use the onboard graphics which these days are surprisingly good (I've played with the integrated graphics on my new Ivy Bridge laptop since it has switchable graphics and for many games, you don't need anything more). Even those that do choose to have addon GPUs, most choose just one. I've got a GTX 680 in my desktop and there is just no need for anything more, it handles all games superbly. I'd have to move up to multiple surround monitors or something before I'd start needing more than one GPU.

So it is a situation where you only end up needing more lanes in a high end environment, thus I don't see the big deal in not having them. It is the kind of thing you won't notice.

Re:AMD boards have better PCI-E lanes then intel c (2)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162953)

What kind of workload needs more than 16 PCIe lanes, but doesn't similarly need a higher-end processor?

Re:it's the boards! (1)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161003)

I don't buy MSI or ECS as a general rule for any chip... additionally theres pretty much feature parity for price in AMD vs Intel boards. Not sure where you're shopping

Re:it's the boards! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41161027)

No idea what this person is talking about. Maybe you are only shopping Newegg w/limited stock or comparing different classes of mobos. I'd be willing to bet that 90 bucks buys you a much better Asrock AM3+ or Intel board than that MSI.

Re:it's the boards! (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161117)

I just got a gigabyte with dual PCI-e 4 ram slots (1833 and if you OC it a little 2000) with all the latest buzzwords for like 70 bucks ... you need to shop some more

Re:it's the boards! (2)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161667)

I got my Asus SATA3/USB3/Firewire2 AM2+/AM3 board in 2010 for $85, so I have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Re:it's the boards! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41161817)

You mean like this,

FM1 with latest SATA 6G, USB3, 1866 DDR3 support - $50 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138361 [newegg.com]

or perhaps for AM3+, SATA 6G, $50

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138345 [newegg.com]

Sure, you can spend about a $100 for premium board, but you can also spend $200 for a premium Intel board too.

I got an AMD board with all solid caps $65 few months ago.

Re:it's the boards! (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162267)

Meh, if you are building yourself a new system it should last for years, therefor spending a few extra bucks on the board at build time is well worth it.

I'd suggest an Asrock board [newegg.com] as they have all the nice features and their XFast USB really does kick up the speeds on your USB 2 sticks and their OC Tuner software is nice and simple to use. Really great boards all around.

In the end its a whole $34 more than the ones you posted but has Crossfire support, double the RAM slots, plenty of SATA slots and S'PDIF, its just a nicer board and if you are gonna have a machine for years I'd say its worth the $34 to have more upgrade options down the line.

Re:it's the boards! (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162113)

Every time Intel vs AMD comes up, some complete dope claims that Intel boards are cheaper.

Thanks for keeping the tradition of dopes alive.

Haswell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41160851)

It is supposed to come out when Haswell does next year. Who will buy it? No mention of AVX2 either.

AMD's next CPU will crush protesters into rubble? (-1, Offtopic)

Xeger (20906) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161087)

Rather unfortunate timing for the headline of this article, considering today's news item about a literal bulldozer that did not fall short...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-israel-corrie-verdict-20120829,0,4476903.story [latimes.com]

Re:AMD's next CPU will crush protesters into rubbl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41161173)

It's an interesting story but I think in general Americans are tired of what happens in the Middle East, and some idiot protester getting herself killed garners as much sympathy as those idiot pot-smoking hikers who got caught trespassing. If somebody dies doing something dumb, they tend to get a yawn in response.

The best policy for this country is to stay out of other affairs and work on our own problems. That's why support for the war, occupying Afghanistan, and the Israel/Palestine thing are so low on the radar for most Americans.

I wish we had world peace, but to be honest I'm more concerned about fixing the problems in my backyard and not half the world away. Plus those Israeli/Palestine conflict will never end and both sides do some heinous stuff, so it's a waste to care too much about it. Both sides are monsters, there can't be a winner. It's like having Hitler wrestle Stalin, hard to root for either one.

Re:AMD's next CPU will crush protesters into rubbl (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41161197)

Unless they can prove he knew she was there, it's an accident that's not his fault but her own fault.

For some stupid reason AMD made a "P4" when they should have known better, and when they could not afford to do so. So if it's just a 15% improvement over their current crap I don't think it'll be crushing much, it'll more likely be crushed.

well, it better do (1)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161095)

... or amd are facing irrelevance. ARM is eating their lunch in mobile, the core series is eating their lunch on the desktop, and the atom isn't standing still in the low power market.

Intel's integrated GPUs are now "good enough" for most people. Those who game won't want integrated AMD if integrated intel isn't good enough...

Re:well, it better do (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161185)

AMD is Intel's only direct competition in the desktop market, they are not going anywhere

Re:well, it better do (1)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161213)

Unless they start turning a profit (i.e., steamroller actually works this time), they won't be able to afford new fabs, and the investment required in CPU design to even try to keep up. Things have not been good for AMD lately.

Re:well, it better do (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162315)

AMD doesn't own any fabs, that was spun off to Global Foundry, and AMD has made some noise about moving to TSMC for their next CPU despite TSMC having their own problems at the current process node and the fact that AMD will take a hit on the stock they own in GF.

Re:well, it better do (1)

dywolf (2673597) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165817)

The AMD APU chips are pretty damn good. I used one for my HTPC, and it runs Diablo 3 and WoW, and most anything else I throw at it more than acceptably. Now, for me, acceptably, on an HTPC, doesnt mean everything maxxed. But its an HTPC, in the living room. a 2nd machine to complement my other rig. So I dont care about being maxxed.

I -love- AMD. I havent used Intel since my first system I built with a pentium3, and that system gave me nothing but grief. My current rig machine uses a black chip, forget which atm (at work) clocking around 3.3GHz.

Sadly though I've kept reading how these last few lines of chips have been having issues. First its a quality problem, causing them to not be able to make the 4cores they wanted (so they release some as 3 cores with the faulty 4th disabled). Then its just plain yeild is too small. Then its bugs in the chip design, or it underperformed. And Ive been planning a new game rig for sometime in the next year (say, March ish). The way AMD has been going though, it's looking like I might end up making an Intel machine, which I really dont want to do. Previously AMD has always met my needs in terms of quality, power and lower cost. Now? Well. we'll see.

In Linux drivers, Intel is still king. (4, Interesting)

BadgerRush (2648589) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161127)

AMD may be getting its shit together when in regards to chip design. but I'm still going Intel on my next PC because of their superior Linux drivers. At the moment I'm an unhappy owner of a laptop with a AMD graphics card that can't do anything because the drivers are useless. I'm looking forward to a new laptop with an Intel Ivy Bridge processor (I don't think I can wait Haskell).

Re:In Linux drivers, Intel is still king. (-1, Troll)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161207)

and what performs like a geforce5200 in graphics, have fun watching all those studders in every single thing you do

Re:In Linux drivers, Intel is still king. (1)

cbope (130292) | more than 2 years ago | (#41163159)

Wait a minute... weren't all the ATI (now AMD) fanboys claiming a couple years ago that because ATI was developing more "open" drivers that they would rule the linux landscape?

Re:In Linux drivers, Intel is still king. (1)

cgt (1976654) | more than 2 years ago | (#41163679)

I'm quite sure that Intel's drivers are free, too.

Re:In Linux drivers, Intel is still king. (2)

thue (121682) | more than 2 years ago | (#41164311)

While AMD is releasing documentation, Intel is releasing actual open source drivers. And now that Intel's graphics hardware is no longer a complete joke, Intel is becoming a real alternative for some users.

AMD is still better than NVIDIA, which doesn't release documentation.

Re:In Linux drivers, Intel is still king. (1)

socrplayr813 (1372733) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166339)

Maybe in principle, but in my experience using the hardware, the drivers that NVIDIA is providing are far superior to the AMD drivers available for all but the most basic uses. This seems to be the general consensus, at least where I tend to spend my time.

If you're more concerned about software freedom than I am, maybe you'd rather have AMD. My Linux boxes are much happier with NVIDIA, especially my HTPC. If I get enough cash to throw at it, I might try a low power Ivy Bridge or one of the new Atoms for a new HTPC, but the low-power standalone NVIDIA cards are just so easy...

Re:In Linux drivers, Intel is still king. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41166877)

AMD is better for documentation. NVIDIA is better for something which actually reliably works.

If you want awesome drivers, go Intel. Performance will suffer and many games will be unplayable. If you want performance first, go NVIDIA which has good drivers and awesome performance. If you want crappy, unreliable drivers and slightly superior performance with slightly less heat than NVIDIA, go ATI.

Choice exists. It so happens that Intel and NVIDIA sit at the intersections which matter for the well informed.

Re:In Linux drivers, Intel is still king. (1)

fa2k (881632) | more than 2 years ago | (#41163967)

AMD are quite good about open drivers (well, 0/4 steam games work for me, Portal sort of works, but everything non-windows gaming is great). Get the Intel for the better speed, it will still be a lot faster than the AMD, but don't expect the GPU to be a lot better.

Re:In Linux drivers, Intel is still king. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41165703)

So, you're saying your car works great, it's just that when you drive it on the highway the wheels fall off?

Resonant Clock Mesh? (1)

elfprince13 (1521333) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161301)

Is that new resonant clock mesh technology still planned to launch with this new series? I remember reading they were planning to break the 4GHz barrier [slashdot.org] ?

Re:Resonant Clock Mesh? (0)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161617)

I just got a 4.2Ghz AMD chip for 140 bucks last week ... Its not stupefyingly awesome, kicks the shit out of my old phenom II 720

Re:Resonant Clock Mesh? (1)

edxwelch (600979) | more than 2 years ago | (#41163685)

Why wouldn't it be? It's already in Trinity

Re:Resonant Clock Mesh? (1)

elfprince13 (1521333) | more than 2 years ago | (#41164557)

oh, huh, I guess I missed that somehow.

It's a Start (1)

ndykman (659315) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161465)

Having dedicated decoders for the IPU is definitely on the right rrack, but a shared fetch is still means there is a bottleneck in getting those cores fed.Also, apparently, the changes hit the L1 performance, so they had to add some cache to make up for it. So, there is some room for improvement, and this does help, However, I just don't see it as the big step that AMD needs against Intel. Intel's dies are smaller, they are making better use of space, and this is a huge advantage. Intel has 10 core dies, and has room to go to 12. In the server space, this is a big gain in density.

Also, they have a lead in hyperthreading, which does seem to boost multithreaded performance enough in highly parallel server scenarios to hold up against the chip multithreading concept that Bulldozer supports.

What is strange is that AMD need to really get a vision of a unified platform. AMD could really have a great ultrabook and media PC platform, but against, they let Intel take a lead in this area.

Re:It's a Start (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162189)

Bah, what AMD needs to do is just keep doubling cores on the Phenom-line of chips. A 12-core Phenom III, in the next 12 months, could keep them going for another two years or so. Of course, then they'd think that it might impact their server offerings, but lets be honest, I've looked at their server offerings, and while I love the number of cores, I need at least 3 Ghz cores; the 2.1 Ghz cores make me question whether it's worth just buying multiple machines with Phenoms, as opposed to buying Magny-Cours (or whatever we're up to).

Do you hear me AMD? Fix the goddamn FX processors, I want full decoders & all the bling, I want more cores for the Phenoms, and I want faster server processors. Yes, yes, I know MS and the OSS community are trying to fix the FX kludge (which I upgraded to from a Phenom II X6; the FX's also appear to hate Opera, as it keeps freezing on my machine (as well as Explorer (File Explorer, not Internet Explorer)...keep getting cross-threading exceptions...IDFK, but it shouldn't be there).

And look into optical chip components.

Re:It's a Start (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41162409)

A faster server processor doesn't necessarily mean faster cycles, but more cache. IBM's Power7 chips can have up to 32MB with 8 cores. Yes, they also get up to 5Ghz, but I'd much rather have the cache. There's only so much work a processor can do before it needs to dump its results and load new data.

I've was eyeing Intel's E3-1220 17 watt processor, which runs at 2-something Ghz. If it had more cache it'd be awesome. As it is I'm gonna go with one of the 69W, 1220v2's. I don't really care what the speed is. The biggest expense with colocation is power, anyhow.

Re:It's a Start (1)

Shinobi (19308) | more than 2 years ago | (#41163775)

The biggest cost will ALL server facilities is power, floorspace and cooling. No matter how many idiots will keep bleeting "manpower is expensive", the fact remains that manpower is generally a fixed cost no matter what hardware you get, while power, cooling and floorspace will be variable depending on what hardware you get. And right now, it doesn't matter if AMD gives you more cores because Intel does more through a more efficient architecture that can be more easily fed to maintain maximum throughput, at less overall power use, and requires less cooling.

Other things that could happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41161491)

Unicorns *could* pop into existence.
Cheap flying cars *could* be invented.
Gravity *could* cease to exist.
The dead *could* come back to life.
Etc., etc., etc.

Lots of things *could* happen. It doesn't mean that they will happen or even that they are remotely possible. "Could" in a headline is a cheap way to make you think something is likely to happen or is just around the corner. It isn't.

AMD Brewin Something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41161915)

Steamroller [youtube.com]

The real question (1)

fa2k (881632) | more than 2 years ago | (#41163995)

Will it be faster than the Phenom II 985?

I would like to stay with AMD because they don't usually limit the features to the high-end or server CPUs. For example, I can use ECC on my workstation. Performance matters, though, and it doesn't seem great unless they do something like 20 cores for a reasonable price.

Kaveri (1)

tchiwam (751440) | more than 2 years ago | (#41164207)

Interesting as this is the Finnish word for friend. Finnish cooperation here ?

High School (1)

gooner666 (2612117) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165383)

I had a steamroller in high school. That thing kicked your ass.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?