Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AMD Upgrades Hardware

AMD Details Upcoming Bulldozer Architecture 234

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the summon-bob-the-builder dept.
Vigile writes "AMD is taking the lid off quite a bit of information on its upcoming CPU architecture known as Bulldozer that is the first complete redesign over current processors. AMD's lineup has been relatively stagnant while Intel continued to innovate with Nehalem and Sandy Bridge (due late this year) and the Bulldozer refresh is badly needed to keep in step. The integrated north bridge, on-die memory controller and large shared L3 cache remain key components from the Athlon/Phenom generation to Bulldozer but AMD is adding features like dual-thread support per core (but with a unique implementation utilizing separate execution units for each thread), support for 256-bit SIMD operations (for upcoming AVX support) all running on GlobalFoundries 32nm SOI process technology."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Details Upcoming Bulldozer Architecture

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Bulldozer? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rotide (1015173) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @01:38PM (#33358040)
    Or it pushes everyone/everything else to the wayside. I guess it depends on your interpretation.
  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @01:38PM (#33358042) Homepage Journal

    It's a whole new architecture and will almost certainly require a new socket. ISTR the article saying nothing about memory technologies as well. The good news is that a new architecture on the horizon which almost certainly requires a new socket makes it seem less likely that AMD will bring out another socket before then.

  • Re:Bulldozer? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Minwee (522556) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @01:44PM (#33358152) Homepage

    Perhaps the team at AMD had been drinking heavily the night before.

    At eight o'clock on Thursday morning Arthur didn't feel very good. He woke up blearily, got up, wandered blearily round his room, opened a window, saw a bulldozer, found his slippers, and stomped off to the bathroom to wash.
    Toothpaste on the brush -- so. Scrub.
    Shaving mirror -- pointing at the ceiling. He adjusted it. For a moment it reflected a second bulldozer through the bathroom window. Properly adjusted, it reflected Arthur Dent's bristles. He shaved them off, washed, dried, and stomped off to the kitchen to find something pleasant to put in his mouth.
    Kettle, plug, fridge, milk, coffee. Yawn.
    The word bulldozer wandered through his mind for a moment in search of something to connect with.
    The bulldozer outside the kitchen window was quite a big one.
    He stared at it.
    "Yellow," he thought and stomped off back to his bedroom to get dressed.

    If you don't know what that's from, get off the computer and go to a library.

  • Another article (Score:1, Interesting)

    by StuffMaster (412029) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @01:45PM (#33358160)
    There is also this [amd.com] on the AMD site. It has a slightly different take on the core/module semantics.
  • Re:AMD's stagnant? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @01:59PM (#33358410)

    Actually, AMD's has a great chance of beating Intel in the future. You fail to recognize that AMD has ATI now and they are going to be fusing CPU's and GPU's onto the same die in the future. They benefit from the experience and IP of ATI. Intels graphics capability so far has been a joke.

  • Re:Mmm (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Amouth (879122) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @02:27PM (#33358892)

    the first AMD64 CPU shipped in April 2003

    the first Itanium Shipped June 2001

    So the AMD was 23 months late - all they did was tack on to existing x86 where as Intel was trying and did develop a whole new architecture.

    almost all of the complaints for the Itanium being slow was due to it having to emulate x86 for software that was not written specifically for the IA64 - Code that was and is written for IA64 runs fast as hell and there is a reason why they are still used today - just is specific applications.

    Intel's failure was due to them trying to jump to a whole new computing architecture and expecting programmers to go with them - instead programmers resisted and AMD jumped on that by just extending the existing x86.

    Development on what became the IA64 started in 1989 by HP and Intel was brought in in 1994 and the first implementation was in 1998 - hell it is the reason we don't see Alpha's anymore.

    AMD64 started in 1999.

    So in computing terms AMD had many generations to watch Intel actually Innovate - and then take the short cut to market. Please note I'm not putting AMD down for AMD64, I'm just pointing out that you can not compare the success of it VS the Itanium because they are not the same by a long shot.

    Also if you want to learn something new - read up on why IA-64 is so different form x86 and you will see why it is worth investing in. Not for the current project but rather for the knowledge gained by doing it. You would be surprised how much of the R&D that went in to the Itanium is currently running in your newer computers and servers.

  • Re:AMD's stagnant? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by blair1q (305137) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @02:48PM (#33359230) Journal

    That is how AMD stays in business, by cutting its prices well below the average market price for the performance rating.

    But there is a large chunk of performance rating they can't even approach.

    Here's last year's numbers [techreport.com] (didn't see this year's in the first page of google results), which should give you an indication of why AMD went looking for more performance from each chip. I'm still not expecting Bulldozer to get AMD up to the top. They might match the second- and third-place chips from Intel, but they haven't come up with anything that can outright beat what Intel has fielded.

    And AMD's pricing policy costs it a lot of money, since its production costs are much higher than Intel's. They've never had the kind of production efficiency Intel had, and now they have sold off their fabs and are contracting their parts out to GlobalFoundries, who charge a cash profit on each one and still aren't as efficient as Intel.

PLUG IT IN!!!

Working...