If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
reason for AMD's Bulldozer fiasco?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis..._ Fiasco.html Sounds plausible: way too many transistors plopped down by dumb automated design. So they made an 8-cylinder CPU that is as good a Phenom X6 or an Intel quad core... On the other hand, what about the Interlagos? I haven't seen the tons of bad reviews for that, and Cray bought the first 10,000 allegedly. Aren't those things just bigger Zambesis that use ECC RAM? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
reason for AMD's Bulldozer fiasco?
On 21/10/2011 9:47 AM, Orson Cart wrote:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis..._ Fiasco.html Sounds plausible: way too many transistors plopped down by dumb automated design. So they made an 8-cylinder CPU that is as good a Phenom X6 or an Intel quad core... On the other hand, what about the Interlagos? I haven't seen the tons of bad reviews for that, and Cray bought the first 10,000 allegedly. Aren't those things just bigger Zambesis that use ECC RAM? I think the main difference is that the Interlagos Opteron chips are being used in servers where all of the cores make a difference, but the Zambezi desktop chips are being used in desktops and not fully utilized. Good for multithreaded workloads, not great on single-threads though. Yousuf Khan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
reason for AMD's Bulldozer fiasco?
On Oct 21, 8:19*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 21/10/2011 9:47 AM, Orson Cart wrote: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis..._Ex_AMD_Engine... Sounds plausible: way too many transistors plopped down by dumb automated design. So they made an 8-cylinder CPU that is as good a Phenom X6 or an Intel quad core... On the other hand, what about the Interlagos? I haven't seen the tons of bad reviews for that, and Cray bought the first 10,000 allegedly. Aren't those things just bigger Zambesis that use ECC RAM? I think the main difference is that the Interlagos Opteron chips are being used in servers where all of the cores make a difference, but the Zambezi desktop chips are being used in desktops and not fully utilized. Good for multithreaded workloads, not great on single-threads though. Apparently, AMD did too good a job selling its crippled "cores" as "cores." Currently, the Microsoft scheduler will just as willingly force two threads to share a common front end and FPU as to do the more sensible thing and push the busiest threads onto separate front ends and FPU's. Did no one at AMD check into that ahead of time? The problem, of course, is not unfixable. Bulldozer will still be an inferior product, but it won't be quite as disappointing for Windows, once the Windows scheduler is fixed to accommodate AMD's "cores." Robert. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
reason for AMD's Bulldozer fiasco?
On 10/30/2011 12:36 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
On Oct 21, 8:19 pm, Yousuf wrote: I think the main difference is that the Interlagos Opteron chips are being used in servers where all of the cores make a difference, but the Zambezi desktop chips are being used in desktops and not fully utilized. Good for multithreaded workloads, not great on single-threads though. Apparently, AMD did too good a job selling its crippled "cores" as "cores." Currently, the Microsoft scheduler will just as willingly force two threads to share a common front end and FPU as to do the more sensible thing and push the busiest threads onto separate front ends and FPU's. Did no one at AMD check into that ahead of time? The problem, of course, is not unfixable. Bulldozer will still be an inferior product, but it won't be quite as disappointing for Windows, once the Windows scheduler is fixed to accommodate AMD's "cores." It probably explains why they fired their CEO, Dirk Meyer, early in the year so unexpectedly. There was no real reason ever given at the time, and that was a period of time when it looked like AMD was doing really well too, but we can now guess in hindsight. They were probably already aware of the problem back then. AMD is now showing off the processor running under Windows 8 beta with its newly designed scheduling system. It's showing some definite improvements, both minuscule and significant. So I don't know if this is an admission that Windows 7's scheduler will never be improved, or that the Windows 8 scheduler won't be backported to Windows 7. Another problem with the design seems to be that AMD designed their very own Pentium 4-concept processor. That is, it's highly pipelined, resulting in huge losses during branch misses, but also allowing it to be clocked extremely high. And much like the Pentium 4's of old, the performance never really took off until they were clocked really high. Also like the Pentium 4's, highly clocking them also result in huge power consumption. They are talking about bringing out a new stepping that won't result in better single-threaded performance, but in better power management. This would indicate to me that they trying to beef up the power mgmt, so that when they start clocking it really hard, then it won't be using any more power than it is now. Yousuf Khan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
reason for AMD's Bulldozer fiasco?
On 30 oct, 23:03, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Another problem with the design seems to be that AMD designed their very own Pentium 4-concept processor. That is, it's highly pipelined, resulting in huge losses during branch misses, but also allowing it to be clocked extremely high. And much like the Pentium 4's of old, the performance never really took off until they were clocked really high. Also like the Pentium 4's, highly clocking them also result in huge power consumption. The enormously long pipeline wasn't the only distinguishing feature of NetBurst. According to someone I trust, parts of the NetBurst design ran at double-time. Thus, parts of the 3GHz processors were already running at 6GHz, thus explaining in part the enormous power consumption problem that NetBurst had. Unfortunately, not enough instructions would run on the faster pipeline to justify the design strategy, and Intel was caught between an unexpected rock and hard place. The original thought was to get a processor out with a label frequency in well in excess of 1GHz, leaving AMD in the dust. Known performance problems would be addressed by beefing up the faster pipeline. In fact, the needed transistors may well have been in the original NetBurst design and had to be thrown overboard because of the power envelope. Intel probably knew a long time ago that the real problem was power management. They just weren't as fast or as successful in fixing it as they thought they would be. Robert. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
reason for AMD's Bulldozer fiasco?
On 01/11/2011 4:25 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
The enormously long pipeline wasn't the only distinguishing feature of NetBurst. According to someone I trust, parts of the NetBurst design ran at double-time. Thus, parts of the 3GHz processors were already running at 6GHz, thus explaining in part the enormous power consumption problem that NetBurst had. Unfortunately, not enough instructions would run on the faster pipeline to justify the design strategy, and Intel was caught between an unexpected rock and hard place. I think you're referring to the P4's floating point unit which was optimized for SSE2, but fell behind in regular x87 floating point. Interestingly, the new AMD Bulldozer floating point unit is expected to perform best in the newer AVX or 256-bit SSE instructions, rather than the older 128-bit SSE instructions. There were other doubled-speed interfaces like their FSB, which was running at 400MHz (eventually became 566MHz, I think), vs. AMD at 200-266MHz, or P3 at 100-133MHz. That required the highest-speed Rambus or DDR memory to make good use of its bus. The original thought was to get a processor out with a label frequency in well in excess of 1GHz, leaving AMD in the dust. Known performance problems would be addressed by beefing up the faster pipeline. In fact, the needed transistors may well have been in the original NetBurst design and had to be thrown overboard because of the power envelope. Intel probably knew a long time ago that the real problem was power management. They just weren't as fast or as successful in fixing it as they thought they would be. Which again seems to be the exact same problem that AMD will have to face with Bulldozer. Their next revision stepping is going to be entirely about getting the power consumption under control. I think AMD's biggest problem was not that Bulldozer has low IPC (it does), but that AMD couldn't right away bring Bulldozer out with enough clock frequency to compensate for its IPC. It's now got to really start pushing the clock speeds out. Yousuf Khan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AMD Bulldozer - arrives what decade? | Kulin Remailer | Intel | 2 | May 28th 11 04:21 AM |
A good reason not to choose AMD? | Peter B. P.[_2_] | Intel | 7 | August 2nd 07 07:59 AM |
Another reason to go with AMD | sillyputty | General | 23 | September 10th 06 12:44 PM |
Amtrak Fiasco | Dadio | UK Computer Vendors | 3 | December 31st 04 11:57 PM |
The rubber pads on my Amd 2400 are beging to wear any reason why ? | We Live For The One We Die For The One | Overclocking AMD Processors | 9 | May 5th 04 08:38 AM |