morphine wrote:Holy wall of text, Batman. Cat ripped out your Return key?
tfp wrote:Depending who you ask AMD FX CPUs are not 8 full cores and AMD is just using a "better" version of hyperthreading. OSes can not treat each thread on those CPUs as a full process for best performance so MSFT must just those cores as logical processors. Until right before launch AMD itself didn't call each of the 8 "modules" cores but marketing change that to help fight the "i have the most cores in my CPU battle".
It cuts down the die size, meaning more chips per wafer and less chance for a flaw per chip. That makes it cheaper / more efficient for AMD. For more background on AMD's logic, see page two of that Kanter article.rcs2k4 wrote:I don't get why the decided to use only 4 FPU's and share them with a pair of so-called core's. Logic dictates there should be 8, and if it had 8 performance would be pretty decent (again in theory). Is the FX 4100 1/2 of a FX 81xx then, so only has 2 FPU's, 4 so-called cores behind that and all of the bigger brothers cache at L3?
rcs2k4 wrote:I looked at the CPU die diagrams on how it's all held together - In theory it looks to be a better design choice than HT on Intel's CPU's. We all know in reality thats not the case, but there's definatly 8 core's (of sorts) that run at a nominal speed and will carry out a thread each for 8 in one go.
Flatland_Spider wrote:AMD's module system is about massive amounts of cores. It's a good idea, but there are just technical details that hold it back. A fully loaded module effectively cuts the clockspeed in half because the decode unit alternates in handing out work to the cores. When people say, Bulldozer needs high clockspeeds to function well, that is the reason why.
ronch wrote:Honestly though, if the FX-8150 is sold for $150 today I just might bite.
Users browsing this forum: f0d and 4 guests