AMD CPUs might become viable for top end gaming rigs.

[Thor.]

 

That's reasonable, I just get kind of bugged that people belive the AMD 8 series CPU's are actual eight cores.

 

That also goes for Intel :whistling:

Edited February 24, 2013 by Thor.

[blove]

Intel believes that the AMD 8 series CPU's are actual eight cores as well?

[Thor.]

No i was referring to his statement that amd is hyper threading in disguise, NAA NA NA. Don't believe what he says. :blink: :teehee: In denial

 

Intel has a eight core, right, just as much as Intel has one.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Thor.

[Dan3345]

Thor we have been down this path before..

 

I ingored Intel because I have never met anyone who thinks a i7 3770k or 2770 is an eight core. The box of Intel processors say they are quad cores. And if you look at the physical die of the AMD 8350 you will see four physical CPU's, Each CPU is then split in half and made into an "integer core".

 

It doesn't matter though. I was just making a point.

 

I really like AMD and I am rooting for their imminent (fingers crossed) comeback, but the facts remain. They have not made a real eight core, they have made a quad core with 8 interger cores. And they are labeling it incorrectly for marketing attention which they so desperately need in a market heavily dominated by ARM and Intel.

 

Scratch that.. I take it back. AMD does have an eight core. I suppose it is fair to count integer cores as CPU's even though can only do integer calculations and if you do floating point math you are only using four CPU's on the 8350. God its weird.. Its very yes and no.

 

Hyperthreading is an awkward technology..

Edited February 26, 2013 by Dan3345

[FMod]

That's reasonable, I just get kind of bugged that people belive the AMD 8 series CPU's are actual eight cores.

It's probably because they are.

 

Or are you going to say Cell is not an actual 9-core?

Or that Tilera TILE64 is not an actual 64-core?

Or that GTX 580 is not an actual 512-core?

[Dan3345]

Integer cores are not the same. I already said for intensive purposes I will consider them cores. But realisticly and from an engineering perspective they are not technically CPU's. They are a single part of a whole, but alone they do not make up the whole.

 

Oh and yes, I am going to say a 580 is not a 512 core. It is a single die GPU. You cannot take one tiny core from that GPU and say here is my GPU. All of those cores together make up the GPU, but alone they are not a GPU.

 

Ok and for reference please look at this link - http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/323060-28-people-real-core-prosseser

 

It isn't the best reference I know but if you scroll down and look at the die of the bulldozer chip you will see what I am talking about.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Dan3345

[FMod]

I already said for intensive purposes I will consider them cores. But realisticly and from an engineering perspective they are not technically CPU's. They are a single part of a whole, but alone they do not make up the whole.

If they were CPUs, they would be called CPUs. They are not - they are cores.

From the dictionary,

 

CORE

1

: a central and often foundational part usually distinct from the enveloping part by a difference in nature <the core of the city>:

2

a : a basic, essential, or enduring part (as of an individual, a class, or an entity) <the staff had a core of experts> <the core of her beliefs>

b : the essential meaning : gist <the core of the argument>

c : the inmost or most intimate part <honest to the core>

 

Oh and yes, I am going to say a 580 is not a 512 core. It is a single die GPU. You cannot take one tiny core from that GPU and say here is my GPU. All of those cores together make up the GPU, but alone they are not a GPU.

If you yank a core out of any other multi-core CPU, it's not going to work on its own either.

 

There is a large section in any such CPU - Intel calls it "uncore" - without which all the cores are useless. They won't be able to do anything, receive any instructions.

[Dan3345]

Every single "core" of a CPU can in fact function on its own if you leave it with the necessary mechanisms. Its called a single core processor, and back in 95-2002 pretty much every computer had one.

 

They had the necessary cache systems, registry functions, and instruction sets along with memory bus's and controls but they lacked multiple CPU's.

 

And, if I were you I wouldn't go around saying a 580 is a 512 core GPU. Yes technically it is, as it does have that many processors, but it is only considered to be one single GPU on the that PCB.

[FMod]

Every single "core" of a CPU can in fact function on its own if you leave it with the necessary mechanisms. Its called a single core processor, and back in 95-2002 pretty much every computer had one.

I know. I did have a PC in 1990.

 

"Necessary mechanisms" aren't trivial. They include the x86 decoder. There's also a bunch of unnecessary mechanisms like the floating point unit.

So how is this any different for Bulldozer? It isn't. You leave the necessary mechanisms in and one core will function alone.

 

And, if I were you I wouldn't go around saying a 580 is a 512 core GPU. Yes technically it is, as it does have that many processors, but it is only considered to be one single GPU on the that PCB.

And a 10-core CPU is still a single CPU on one die with 10 CPU cores.

What's the difference?

 

If you mean that Windows reports cores as individual CPU and reports GPU as one per die, your problem is with Windows, not with hardware.

CUDA and OpenCL can address these cores individually. Sometimes an addressable unit is not the same size as a shader core, but it is there, they are multi-core processors. Windows just doesn't work with them.

 

 

 

Labeling Bulldozer FX8000 a 4-core with HT-like technology is severely misleading. There are several reasons.

 

Pro-Intel reason: It denies Intel's achievement of obtaining record high performance per x86 core, which is not trivial.

Pro-AMD reason: It misplaces the blame in FX8000's poor performance in single-threaded applications on the CPU, rather than on these applications' single-threaded nature.

Pro-User reason: Considering FX8000 a 4-core would lead to using it in 4-threaded applications with poor resulting outcomes.

 

In short,

i5-2500K: 4 cores - good at 4-threaded work

i5-2600K: 4 cores, splittable into 8 with HT - good at both 4-threaded and 8-threaded work

FX-8350: 8 cores, with FPU bridging - good at 8-threaded work

 

This is the theory and the practice.

Bulldozer CPU have 8 physical ALU cores and 8 physical AL schedulers, combined with 4/8 bridgeable floating point units and 4 FP schedulers.

 

Since a CPU core is defined by its arithmetic and logic unit, there are 8 cores. Instructions, loops, if/else branches, all have 8 physical and logical processors.

Floating point operations are bridged when one of the units is not needed, which actually improves performance in 4-thread workloads compared to completely separate FPU.

 

Intel's HTT is completely different. There are 4 physical cores and 4 physical FPU units. All HTT has is 8 front ends for them, which can switch these cores and FPUs (and do so independently) between two parallel threads.

 

 

 

Or, let me provide a non-technical explanation.

 

FX-8350 is an 8-bedroom house with 8 entrances and 4 lobbies with 2 wardrobes in each lobby (8 total).

i7-2600 is a 4-bedroom house with 8 entrances, 8 lobbies and 2 wardrobes in each room (8 total).

 

In FX-8350, people have separate physical rooms, but may pass by one another when they go in or out.

In i7-2600, people hot bunk in their rooms, but timetables are made such that they never meet one another.