Get the new Iphone 4!

This information is taken from few posts i saw in amd blogs http://blogs.amd.com , some questions from users and some answers from AMD.

Here is some important information.

AMD:

Each integer core will be able to run one software thread, and these threads can all be done simultaneously, unlike an SMT-type technology that lets two threads share one core.  You typically find SMT technology on processors with much lower core counts, and its shared nature can create   bottlenecks, even resulting in negative throughput in some cases.

As for core counts, here is what we have committed to at this point:

• “Interlagos” – 16-core server processor
• “Valencia” – 8-core server processor
• “Zambezi” – 8-core client processor

Users:

“The x86 core (Bobcat) of AMD Fusion APU Ontario will be based on Bulldozer architecture?” – Fabio Mendes

AMD:

Actually, these are different designs. The upcoming “Ontario” processor will be based on the “Bobcat” core, which has a different core architecture than “Bulldozer.”  There have been some that have made the assumption that a Bobcat was just a scaled down “Bulldozer”, but they are, in fact, different.  I’m sure that between the two there are similarities and some small sub-components that are shared, but you won’t see the modular design of “Bulldozer” in “Bobcat.”

Users:

“Will Bulldozer get a Turbo CORE for single threaded applications, just like the Thuban?” – Björn

AMD:

Yes. There will be a Turbo CORE feature for “Bulldozer”, but there will be some improvements from what you see in “Thuban” (our 6-core AMD Phenom™ processor). There are some enhancements to give it more “turbo”. This will be the first introduction of the Turbo CORE technology in the server processors.  We expect that this will translate into a big boost in performance when using single threaded applications, and there should be some interesting capabilities for heavier workloads as well.  We’re pretty excited about how this will be implemented with “Bulldozer”, but the specifics of how this is implemented and the expected performance gains will not be disclosed until launch.

Users:

“How much extra performance will we see when running two-threaded applications on one Bulldozer Module compared to two cores in different modules?” – Simon

AMD:

Without getting too specific around actual scaling across cores on the processor, let me share with you what was in the Hot Chips presentation.  Compared to CMP (chip multiprocessing – which is, in simplistic terms building a multicore chip with each core having its own dedicated resources) two integer cores in a Bulldozer module would deliver roughly 80% of the throughput.  But, because they have shared resources, they deliver that throughput at low power and low cost.  Using CMP has some drawbacks, including more heat and more die space. The heat can limit performance in addition to consuming more power. Ask yourself, would you rather have a 4-cylinder engine that delivered 300HP or a 6-cylinder engine that delivered 360HP and consumed less gas?  The cylinder to horsepower ratio for 4-cylinder is obviously higher (75HP/cylinder vs. the V6’s 60HP/cylinder), meaning that each cylinder can give you more performance.  However, looking at the overall enginge, you are getting less total output; and you are getting that lower output at a higher cost (higher gas consumption).

Users:

“Current and forthcoming Nehalem EX based servers from IBM and HP top out at 8 sockets and 64 cores. What kind of vertical scalability can we expect from Bulldozer-based servers?” – David Roff

AMD:

Bulldozer will fit into the current “Maranello” and “San Marino/Adelaide” platforms. “Maranello” is our high performance platform that will support up to 4 CPUs.  Combining a “Maranello” platform with the upcoming 16-core “Interlagos” processors, the total core density of a 4P system will reach as many as 64 cores.

The 8P x86 market today is pretty small. According to IDC, last year it accounted for roughly 7,915 total servers, down 26% from the year before (Source: IDC Quarterly Server Tracker, Q4 2009). If you want to say that 2009 was a bad year, from 2007 to 2008 the 8P x86 market was essentially flat as well, so that isn’t a growth engine. Part of what is impacting that market is the core and memory densities of today’s systems.  People bought 8P servers to get to 48 cores (8 x 6-core) or to get to large memory footprints. Today’s 4P systems are meeting those needs at a lower price, with lower power consumption and lower latency. When we get to 2011 with “Bulldozer,” you’ll see an increase up to 64 cores, and we expect the total memory footprint will increase again.

The bottom line is, you’ll get the 64 cores that you want, you’ll just have to spend a lot less to get them; is that OK?

Users:

“Can you explain how is your Multi-threading technology different from Intels? What are the advantages?” -  Vygantas

AMD:

We use actual, physical cores to handle multiple threads.  Intel does this too, but they use HyperThreading technology to execute two threads on a single core as well which can create bottlenecks.

The challenge with HT is that it exploits gaps in the execution pipeline in order to get that second thread running.  In a world where you have inefficiently executing applications, you have gaps in the pipeline and you can get that second thread executing.  But, in efficient software, you have less opportunity to take advantage and you potentially end up with little or no gain.  Some applications actually recommend turning off HT for better performance.

We will have cores, real physical cores, and that leads to better overall scalability. In heavily optimized systems, you aren’t fighting over execution pipelines because every thread has its own integer core. There is less system overhead involved in parsing out the threads because cores are all pretty much equal.

Take this scenario: a 4 core processor with HyperThreading with have all 4 physical cores actively handling threads. Now you need to execute a 5^th thread.  Do you put that thread on an already active core, reducing the processing of the thread already on that core because the two threads now have to share the same execution pipeline, or, do you wait a cycle and hope that one of those cores frees up? There is a lot more decision making when you have “big cores and HT cores”, but in the AMD world, you could have 8 or 16 cores, so the 5^th thread just goes onto the next available physical core.  It is much easier and much more scalable.

Users:

“Please explain why having two separate integer cores is better than one fat one. For example, if each core has two ALUs and two AGUs and 16 KB of L1 cache, what if it was one integer core with 4 ALUs and 4 AGUs and 32KB cache? Theoretically, you’d get about the same performance for multi-threaded programs and better single threaded performance.” – Ryan

AMD:

We get asked that a lot.  The key is that a single core that would be able to compete with the throughput of two smaller cores would consume a disproportionate amount of die space and consume more power.  Taking Bulldozer and turning each module into one “big core” instead of two cores with some shared resources would net you a disproportionately higher price and disproportionately higher power consumption.

In reality what we are doing is driving efficiency.  And don’t worry about the single threaded performance –we have already stated publicly that Bulldozer single threaded performance is expected to be higher than our current core architectures.

What you have to keep in mind is that we are bringing innovation and driving towards the future.  Back in 2005 when we did the first x86 dual core processors, there were some that argued that single core processors were better because a.) they had higher clock speed and b.) no applications really take advantage of multiple cores. Where are those people today?

When we innovated with bringing x86-64 to the market there were those that said 32-bit applications were better because they were faster and nobody really needs to access more than 2GB in most cases anyway.  Where are those people today?

In this business you can either look out the windshield and focus on the road ahead and the technology that is coming up in the future or look in the rear view mirror and constantly obsess about how things were in the past.

The rules are changing now, just as they did in the past.  AMD will continue to innovate.

Remember we say cheap, so we are going to create AMD&ATI config.
WARNING! By cheap we don’t mean low performance!!!
Lets start with the Motherboard..

Brand: Gigabyte

Model: GA-790XTA-UD4
CPU Socket : AM3
Supported CPU’s :  Phenom II / Athlon II / Sempron 100 Series
2 x PCI-E 2.0 x16 slot (x16 or x8, x8) supports ATI CrossFireX
8 Channel Audio from Realtek, 10/100/1000 mbps lan / 6xSata3 / 2xSata6
AMD 790X / DDR3 – 1333 | 1066 max 16GB ram.
This motherboard is supporting the latest AMD socket’s + you can always buy a second video card and enable CrossFireX! you won’t need new mobo for atleast 2-3 years i guess.

Price: ~$91.99 Newegg Link

Now the CPU…

Brand: AMD

Series: Athlon II X2 / Model: ADX260OCGMBOX
Socket: AM3
This is a 45nm Dual-Core Athlon running at 3.2GHz – works really nice with most of the new games, but later it can be OC’ed!  however Heatsink & Fan included are also included in the BOX!

For gaming, this looks way better than 2.5 Ghz quad core (5 more dollars). don’t ask me why.

Price: ~$71.99 Newegg Link
-

A time for Video Card and optional CrossFireX!!
Brand:  SAPPHIRE

Chipset Manufacturer : ATI
GPU : Radeon HD 5750 / 1GB / GDDR5 /128-bit /memclc 1150MHz (4.6Gbps)/ Core @ 700MHz
Supports DirectX 11 & CrossFireX / max resolution : 2560 x 1600

I’d say you can play almost all games to date with this, but if you get another running CrossFireX, you can play everything smoothly.

Price: $119.99 Newegg link

RAM – DDR3 Brand: G.SKILL / 1333 (PC3)

This thing is made for Gamers, works well with AMD.

Price: $75 Newegg link

Get a Case if you need: Newegg Link

Power Supply!
Brand:  CORSAIR!

Model: CMPSU-650TX
Type: ATX12V / EPS12V
Max Power: 650W
SLI/CrossFire ready / Ultra-quiet / One of the Best PSU’s ever made.
Price: $89^{.99 Newegg Link}
HDD Brand:  Western Digital / Series : VelociRaptor

Capacity: 300GB
Cache: 16MB ;  SATA3GB/s  ;  10,000 RPM  this is a fast HDD. i guess it does not include SATA cables.

Price : $179^.99 Get this HDD form Newegg

Total:

HDD(~$180)+PSU(~$90)+Video(~$119)+CPU(~$72)+MB(~$92) + case(~$30)+RAM($75) ===

~$675 USD.

p.s i’d spend $119 for 1 more Radeon HD 5750!

I dont care if you are an intel fan, i just happen to have an ultimate proof that Intel was always behind AMD.
If AMD have not yet released the Fastest processor in the world, it does not mean intel are better, it means that AMD puts more effort in working on their Products, Can you show me Any Intel Processor released 2010 that is at the same Price of any AMD Processor released 2010, and has better overall Performance (not just gaming) ? the simple answer is that YOU Can’t! AMD is Better, amd is the future. why would i spend $500 and buy i7 which would be about 10-15% faster than X6 1090T!? or why give $199 for crappy i5-660? i would go for the SIX-Core 1055T, its way faster.

And one more thing you must know, AMD’s Clock Speed is far more valuable than Intel’s Clock Speed.

• Processor              Clock Speed  Max Turbo  L2 Cache   L3 Cache      TDP      Price
• Phenom II X6 1090T     3.2GHz      3.6GHz      3MB        6MB         125W       $295
• Phenom II X6 1055T     2.8GHz     3.3GHz       3MB        6MB         125W      $199
• Core i5 660                 3.3GHz    3.6Ghz       0.5MB      4 MB        73W       $199

Now look at Intel Architecture (from the intel’s website – i5 660)

Do you see how their things work? now look at AMD chipset architecture (for Phenom II processors)

Can you see the difference? That is why i love AMD, This AMD Chipset is one of the most powerfull Gaming configurations for its price.  For now, i cant see better architecture from intel at the same price.

I will only say that there is no point of even testing them, we all know that the AMD has 6 cores and better chipset.

Let me tell you more about APU First. APU is not CPU or GPU, its both, a GPU and CPU in 1 Unit. Its a whole new Family for AMD, the “AMD Fusion APU” (APU- Accelerated Processing Unit).

The chip was demonstrated in TAIWAN at Computex.

AMD Plains to release the Fusion APU Family around 2011.

Software developers will be able to get advantage over the APU with OpenCL from the ATI Stream SDK.

As a software developer, i’d have to say that it will be very hard for the AMD’s team to make the APU work for the users fully, but finally the results look promising.. i can’t even imagine how much processing power i will have with the APU…  this will be a new era for the Video-Processing Technology, till now most of the Video-Processing tools used mainly the CPU for converting, there are only a few tools that use the GPU for processing/converting Videos… but when AMD releases the First APU,  someone would have to make faster RAM, and eventually faster Hard-Disks!

Watch the Demonstration Video:

As a server administrator i would say that APU will make the Business way more easier for the newbies with Big ideas that require more processing power. APU will most likely make the servers cheaper, and faster. but thats just me.