Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > CPU's and Motherboards

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #171 (permalink)  
Old October 13, 2011, 09:09 PM
techman95's Avatar
MVP
F@H
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 322

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killswitch View Post
It may be wise for AMD to keep Phenom II's in production for a bit longer yet seeing how the 6 cores of the Thuban is so close in performance to "8 cores" in Bulldozer.

I agree. Perhaps a die shrink and even some tweaking for a "Phenom III" might have been the way to go. The X6 was closing in on Intel's top dogs compared to X4's. The Phenom II does contain some decent architecture, and true CPU cores.... not one core with part of another one mash into it. Sorry, the module idea has me pissed. Either way, AMD probably just didn't want to see the last few years of R&D go down the crapper. They likely felt obligated to release BD.

Makes me wonder how a 32nm Phenom II X8 would fare.
^^^^^This, this is what i was thinking the whole time. i would like to see that happen. Quick we must all write strongly worded letters to AMD about this!!! and you think im kidding. i would love to see this happen i mean there is more power left in the good old opteron design. just think a thuban at 32nm with power gating and a better memory controller my god i think im a genius.......or just not stupid either one cant tell yet.
Reply With Quote
  #172 (permalink)  
Old October 13, 2011, 09:43 PM
Killswitch's Avatar
Allstar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ontario
Posts: 839

My System Specs

Default

There ya go. Take Thuban, reduce the latency and power consumption, add two more cores, then maybe watch the 2600K squirm? haha

Seriously.... look at the jump in the benchmarks between the Phenom II X4 980 and the X6 1100T. Add two more cores = win?

Forget the letters. Maybe we should send resumes!! lmao j/k
Reply With Quote
  #173 (permalink)  
Old October 13, 2011, 11:00 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: midland, ontario
Posts: 519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killswitch View Post
There ya go. Take Thuban, reduce the latency and power consumption, add two more cores, then maybe watch the 2600K squirm? haha

Seriously.... look at the jump in the benchmarks between the Phenom II X4 980 and the X6 1100T. Add two more cores = win?

Forget the letters. Maybe we should send resumes!! lmao j/k
Actualy wasn't there 8 core thurbans ?
Reply With Quote
  #174 (permalink)  
Old October 13, 2011, 11:02 PM
EmptyMellon's Avatar
MVP
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 434

My System Specs

Default

Well, I just fully read AnandTech's review of the FX-8150 and it looks like that the reason AMD went with BD instead of kept on with Thuban, is new instruction sets, and the basic conclusion I got for Anand's conclusion, is that Heavy Multi-Threaded and encryption workloads, BD with wipe the floor with a 2500K, everything else (including gaming which AMD wrote in their press kit) will not do well. To be competative in non-heavy multithread loads, BD should be running at 4.3GHz to be truelly competative with SNB or Thuban for that matter; as such I would not start looking at FX until 8170 (3.9GHz stock) comes out (or overclock the current BDs).

EDIT: Just spotted the added charts (in the HWC review article) pertaing to Trucrypt/SPECviewperf/..., and I am happy to see some improvements in those areas.

Last edited by EmptyMellon; October 14, 2011 at 12:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #175 (permalink)  
Old October 14, 2011, 12:38 AM
Grampa's Avatar
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 185

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmptyMellon View Post
Hence it would be an interesting excise to see how would a die-shrink of the Thuban affect the performance/power agains the present 45nm design - yet AMD is looking to phase it out ASAP, while Intel is still selling their Pentiums, go figure.

Very interesting point you raise!
Yes... 8-core Thuban with a die shrink would have been very interesting indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #176 (permalink)  
Old October 14, 2011, 02:12 AM
bradleyg5's Avatar
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 60
Default

If they can sell a lower clocked 8 core for close to $150 and a quad core for $80 or less I think these chips could actually do well. they can't compete at the 175-300 price point though. those prices reflect more of a "well I'm stuck with AMD so will be cheaper to get the best AMD chip than to switch platforms."
Reply With Quote
  #177 (permalink)  
Old October 14, 2011, 02:43 AM
chrisk's Avatar
Folding Captain
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: GTA, Ontario
Posts: 7,406

My System Specs

Default

BD is supposed to scale pretty well. If not for the heat and power issues I would say this might even be an 'elegant' design, but that is a word that I certainly don't feel comfortable using at this point. The '2/3 cores' (or modules, or whatever) add to the workload to get lightly-threaded work done unfortunately, and applications are just not ready to use the BD chips properly right now. One thing that worries me is that Intel has dumped support for some of the new instructions that BD uses...this makes it less likely that software developers will use them (FMA instruction set - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).

I think AMD is better off using any scarce foundry space and engineering skill to work on BD shrinks/optimizations than spend too much time on Thuban development.
Maybe another Thuban until the next respin of BD (or until Piledriver is ready) but I doubt AMD could spare the resources to keep the Phenom's going for much longer.

They have put their eggs in the BD basket. They gotta hope that they stay in Intel's ballpark over the next couple of years, and that software developers start producing software that needs lots of threads and uses the instruction sets included in BD.
__________________
Fold for team #54196
Reply With Quote
  #178 (permalink)  
Old October 14, 2011, 04:39 AM
techman95's Avatar
MVP
F@H
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 322

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmptyMellon View Post
Well, I just fully read AnandTech's review of the FX-8150 and it looks like that the reason AMD went with BD instead of kept on with Thuban, is new instruction sets, and the basic conclusion I got for Anand's conclusion, is that Heavy Multi-Threaded and encryption workloads, BD with wipe the floor with a 2500K, everything else (including gaming which AMD wrote in their press kit) will not do well. To be competative in non-heavy multithread loads, BD should be running at 4.3GHz to be truelly competative with SNB or Thuban for that matter; as such I would not start looking at FX until 8170 (3.9GHz stock) comes out (or overclock the current BDs).

EDIT: Just spotted the added charts (in the HWC review article) pertaing to Trucrypt/SPECviewperf/..., and I am happy to see some improvements in those areas.
they could add the new instruction sets, its no more work than going from k9 to k10 or so but i would be head over heals for a die shrunk thuban with the new mem controller and on SOI, just think over 4.5Ghz on that with air if not higherit would be even more competitive
Reply With Quote
  #179 (permalink)  
Old October 14, 2011, 09:36 AM
sswilson's Avatar
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 14,640

My System Specs

Default

Finally got a chance to read through the review along with the associated comments in this thread, and felt the need to add my voice to the overwhelmingly negative reception this release has garnered.

Quite frankly, outside of fanbois, I can't think of a single market niche which would be well served by BD. Even those of us who were hoping for some 8 core bigadv lovin' are facing much lower performance results for multi-threaded apps when compared core for core to our current hexa-core Thubins, as well as what appear to be abysmal power consumption results under full load.

Add to this the apparent SLI performance issues with 990FX chipset boards, and I'm left with a horrid taste in my mouth when it comes to BD.

Guess I'll just have to suck it up and try to get the Sabertooth to play nice with my 1090t. :(

IMHO, the only way AMD could pull a rabbit out of their hat from this mess would be for them to announce that they've managed to sqeeze 16 "cores" onto a single die without requiring a portable nuke plant for power.
__________________
MSI Z87I Gaming AC / i7 4770K / 2X 4G Gskill 1866 DDR3 / XFX XTR 750 / EVGA GTX 680 SC+ 2GB / Intel DC S3700 200G / random 160G Sata HDD
Inwin 904 / Swiftech MCP655-b / Alphacool NexXxos XT45 120 Rad / 2X Scythe GT AP-15 / EK Supreme HF / Dell UltraSharp U2412M

Asrock AM1H-ITX / AM1 Athlon 5350 / 2X4G Gskill PC3-14900 / Intel 6235 Wi-Fi / 90W Targus Power Brick / 320G Seagate Momentus / Mini-Box M350 / 1X 22" Dell IPS / 1X 22" HP
Reply With Quote
  #180 (permalink)  
Old October 14, 2011, 09:58 AM
EmptyMellon's Avatar
MVP
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 434

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisk View Post
...
They have put their eggs in the BD basket. They gotta hope that they stay in Intel's ballpark over the next couple of years, and that software developers start producing software that needs lots of threads and uses the instruction sets included in BD.
Indeed, AMD does not have the financial prowess of Intel and as such cannot afford to “experiment” and detract from their present product at hand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by techman95 View Post
they could add the new instruction sets, its no more work than going from k9 to k10 or so but i would be head over heals for a die shrunk thuban with the new mem controller and on SOI, just think over 4.5Ghz on that with air if not higherit would be even more competitive
We've mused, and if the finacial realities at AMD were lot more positive then it could even be a good possibility; back down to reality, Thuban at 32mn will not see the light of day.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AMD Phenom II X4 980 Black Edition Processor Review Comment Thread SKYMTL CPU's and Motherboards 12 May 3, 2011 06:27 PM
Intel Core i7-980X Gulftown Processor Review Comment Thread SKYMTL CPU's and Motherboards 103 September 23, 2010 01:21 PM
BFG GTX 260 Review Comment Thread SKYMTL Video Cards 33 November 15, 2008 10:26 PM
BFG GTX 280 OCX Review Comment Thread SKYMTL Video Cards 15 August 19, 2008 08:07 PM