Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD Releases Interlagos Opterons With Up to 16 Cores

Last response: in News comments
Share
November 14, 2011 4:03:57 PM

Dear AMD,

Pleas throw a bone to pc gamers because bulldozer is a complete flop to us.

Thanks.

Side note: I'm glad that bulldozer still have some use in the market. :) 
Score
23
November 14, 2011 4:05:51 PM

dear wintermint, stfu, bye, clueless moron
Score
-42
Related resources
November 14, 2011 4:14:42 PM

hoping that atleast this works for AMD
Score
24
November 14, 2011 4:15:11 PM

@wintermint bulldozer competes with the 2500k, or intels top selling gamers processor. amd also supports a 100% unlocked cpu and has crazy OC ability. stop reading opinions and start reading facts.
Score
-17
November 14, 2011 4:17:29 PM

lenell86dear wintermint, stfu, bye, clueless moron


wow, fanboy much?

Yes bulldozer has some pluses but it still has a LOT of faults.
Score
20
November 14, 2011 4:18:41 PM

Like Intel, what do you think about the i5-2500k and i7-2600k and the i7-2700k?
the 2500k is more than enough to power all current-gen games and yet people chooses to the 2600k or 2700k for gaming. This is just preference.
In the AMD side, there are 955BE, 1100T, FX8150.
What do you think now? 955BE, up the multiplier and turns into 975BE, then they all perform extremely similar in games, just like in the intel match up.
---------------------------------------------------------
Please, just use your brain. It tells that up until a point of processing power, the limiting factor (bottle-neck) is or are the display card(s).
You want your maximum performance? Same your budget on CPU and dump that on GPUs.
Score
-13
November 14, 2011 4:18:50 PM

They should be releasing 24 core / 32 core magny cours. As they already had 12 / 16 core cpus, even if it was two 6/8 core cpugs on one die.
Score
3
November 14, 2011 4:20:25 PM

I would rather still use a magny cours cpu as it would be true cpu cores and not ones with screwed up fpu units
Score
3
November 14, 2011 4:21:01 PM

illo@wintermint bulldozer competes with the 2500k, or intels top selling gamers processor. amd also supports a 100% unlocked cpu and has crazy OC ability. stop reading opinions and start reading facts.

Please read the FX8150 oc review, the FX8150 doesn't oc very well under the same condition, as like, the 2500k. You might need to stock up on some facts.
Score
13
November 14, 2011 4:21:22 PM

So 16 Core Bulldozer Cores are 84% better than 6 intel cores...well 6 core -12 threads...but how many "modular" cores are in the Bulldozer CPU?.

it will be interesting to see Tom's Benchmarks and Server Architecture comparation...maybe we need an Bulldozer "10" core that can compete against i7 2600k
Score
9
November 14, 2011 4:23:26 PM

All very nice, but the Xeon X5670 is 20months old and Sandy Bridge Xeons are right around the corner.
Score
7
November 14, 2011 4:23:41 PM

So basically bulldozer with hyperthreading
Score
-14
November 14, 2011 4:24:06 PM

16 cores from AMD and it will still get beat out by a quad core Intel Processor!
Score
-14
November 14, 2011 4:25:00 PM

big reason why the bulldozer failed witht he FX line, is becuase they had a 6 core phenom processor, and the bulldozer only had a 4 module version. AMD should of came out with a 6 module version, that way it would of been on par with the 6 core phenom in terms of fpu power. As it stand the 8 core phenom is kind of on par with the 6 core phenom despire hte fact the FX is clocked faster.
Score
-4
November 14, 2011 4:32:54 PM

in a lot of areas the 8 core / 4 module be haved like 4 core phenom or flightly faster due the clock speed, and seldomly beat the 6 core phenom.

You have to think the fx has a large l2 cache per cpu, where it should of been smaller, so the latency is higher, and since windows canmove a thread around of different cpus, latency is doubled as it has to copy cache to cache, and since the cache has higher larecy, the latency ends up being a big hit.


I would of reducted l2 cache or make it shared per module helping the module out in latency.


Also since the cache in the fx is inefficient, means the FX takes more penatly when a pipeline stall due to the longer pipeline. AMD thought they could throw more cache at the problem, but the more inefficient cache creates evena bigger problem when threads are mobed all over the place, creating even more stalls.
Score
0
November 14, 2011 4:35:15 PM

here is one issue, intel has been in the lead for so long, It may be hard to consider the AMD as an options.
I am an admin and one of the no brainers is no AMD in the server room. Our workstation are quad cores intel and video is quatro,
I like AMD but I think this will be and up hill battle. AMD fanboys may jump quick but here is the world of IT , I would need a compelling case for the suggestion, and let me tell you, its never cost. If I am buying a Server, the suggestion better work with all know software we have.
As for VM-ware this is not a good option becasue you are unable to use HF going from AMD to intel.
So for esx this cant work unless they are building from the ground up.
So AMD fanboys do not flex anything yet, AMD is far from being out of the woods. At leaset they can keep intel from Pricing these system in the stratosphere
Score
-4
November 14, 2011 4:35:24 PM

kelvintyLike Intel, what do you think about the i5-2500k and i7-2600k and the i7-2700k?the 2500k is more than enough to power all current-gen games and yet people chooses to the 2600k or 2700k for gaming. This is just preference.In the AMD side, there are 955BE, 1100T, FX8150.What do you think now? 955BE, up the multiplier and turns into 975BE, then they all perform extremely similar in games, just like in the intel match up.---------------------------------------------------------Please, just use your brain. It tells that up until a point of processing power, the limiting factor (bottle-neck) is or are the display card(s).You want your maximum performance? Same your budget on CPU and dump that on GPUs.


Sure, AMD C-50 can play 1080p mkv files just fine. Why would anyone in their right mind buy intel's i7-2600k, right?
I'm sure everyone only plays games on their desktop computers and have nothing better to do.

Score
3
November 14, 2011 4:35:36 PM

Just a side note, Interlagos is where the brazilian Formula 1 GP is held. It´s in São Paulo city.
Score
11
a b À AMD
November 14, 2011 4:35:50 PM

would love to see some server benches against xeons... and some real world general purpose benches e.g. gaming and transcoding on the side. :) 
would also love to see amd rebadging lower end bd server cpus (may be valencia) as bd-ex or something (similar to what intel did during presscrap vs athlon days) and sell them to desktop enthusiast market against sb-e. fx's epic hilarious failure in desktop hurt customers - intel is selling overpriced cpus (i am looking at you, i7 3820!) claiming they're aimed at enthusiast segment.
fanboys of both brands should take note that these are not zambezi (fx) cpus - these are valencia and interlagos cpus with features different from zambezi e.g. tdp capping so they should perform differently from fx. bulldozer is the name of a whole bunch of different cpus.
Score
10
November 14, 2011 4:36:27 PM

otacon72Um the Xeon X5670 has 6 cores. Intel should make an X5670 with 16 cores and blow the Opteron 6276 out of the water just to shut AMD up.

First of all AMD has been the major innovator in new technology on Intels ancient x86. It was AMD that made x64, and was criticized for it. It was AMD that developed single die multi core and was mocked for it. Its now AMD that is redesigning the x86/64 CPU to be more economical and scalable with multiple cores. It would be imposable to have 16 cores with the previous technology and meet the power ratings they have. So what do you sacrifice in a chip that is mainly suited for integer math. The integer pipes or the floating point pipes?
Score
7
November 14, 2011 4:37:54 PM

illo@wintermint bulldozer competes with the 2500k, or intels top selling gamers processor. amd also supports a 100% unlocked cpu and has crazy OC ability. stop reading opinions and start reading facts.


The Bulldozer desktop part was a flop, because games and other everyday desktop applications are lightly threaded. Where as the desktop Intel parts can handle a huge number of instructions per clock making them better at those applications. Where Bulldozer shines is in the use of highly threaded applications. You only tend to see those types of applications on workstations and servers.

Also for your information my Phenom II x4 965 matches the new bulldozer cpus in almost every benchmark out there. Well that is until you get the bulldozers overclocked to the point where they generate so much heat and suck down so much power that it is no longer worth it.

In the end what i am saying is that bulldozer will make a GREAT server and workstation part, but as it is now it is a pretty MEH desktop part.
Score
3
November 14, 2011 4:39:11 PM

AMD, nobody runs Linpack on their machines, do some real world tests and get humiliated :) 
Score
-7
November 14, 2011 4:39:12 PM

otacon72Thumb my comment down all you want... 6 cores to 16 which one do you think is going to come out on top? AMD proclaiming it's so much better is an insult to people's intelligence. Intel should compare BD to the 2600k...it would be a laugher.

Yes, but so far Intel is incapable of putting out 16 cores on a processor. And yes, it is much better since it does run faster. Right now AMD is faster and it doesn't matter how it is done (cores/clock speed/high ipc) since these processors are for servers, not nerdy basement dwelling gamers who only need 2-4 cores so they can get a high FPS.
Score
11
November 14, 2011 4:39:15 PM

shqtthI would rather still use a magny cours cpu as it would be true cpu cores and not ones with screwed up fpu units


They need to do something seriously aobut the woefully lacking FPU power of bulldozer.
Score
1
November 14, 2011 4:41:49 PM

News just in.


Ah forget it.


I don't particularly care, intel's 2500k is very reasonably priced for what you get from it, it's just I'd rather it was cheaper.

From a server point of view, I don't even have a server to comment.
Score
-6
November 14, 2011 4:43:29 PM

Opteron is very much alive in HPC environment.
Score
9
November 14, 2011 4:46:54 PM

acadia11They need to do something seriously aobut the woefully lacking FPU power of bulldozer.

Agreed.

If the fpu is shared, they should of somehow figured out how to increase the amount of fpu instructions that can be executed/fpu power/sse power. It is possible everytime the fpu needs to change hand from cpu to cpu within a module there is a stall, as things have to be finished first or work has to be saved. fpu wa snever designed to take orders from two cpus at once. two threads at once on an fpu is hard due to the stack structure of the fpu and the register structure of 3dnow/sse2. So i guess work would have to be saved somewhere for change in cpu, unless the complex instructions needs to be finished first (upt to so many) before cpus can be changed, adding a large latency.
Score
1
November 14, 2011 4:54:45 PM

shqtthAgreed.If the fpu is shared, they should of somehow figured out how to increase the amount of fpu instructions that can be executed/fpu power/sse power. It is possible everytime the fpu needs to change hand from cpu to cpu within a module there is a stall, as things have to be finished first or work has to be saved. fpu wa snever designed to take orders from two cpus at once. two threads at once on an fpu is hard due to the stack structure of the fpu and the register structure of 3dnow/sse2. So i guess work would have to be saved somewhere for change in cpu, unless the complex instructions needs to be finished first (upt to so many) before cpus can be changed, adding a large latency.
Ya AMD has stated that the current software is not opt amazed to use the new Bulldozer architecture. So threads that may need to share FP math would get put on cores that don't share a FP module and would need L3 cache to transfer making things a complete headache. Read this for more on how Windows 8 will fix this.
Score
3
November 14, 2011 4:56:07 PM

"Bulldozer-based Opterons are offer more efficient economics "

Are you getting paid by the word?

WRT to the AMD offering, I've always liked Opterons and this package seems like a winner. Yeah, maybe Bulldozer isn't a gamer's chip, but based on the push for cloud computing, maybe it was never intended to be one.
Score
6
November 14, 2011 5:02:07 PM

This is not about Bulldozer vs. Sandy Bridge but about Opteron vs. Xeon which are server processors. In the server world, all that matters is performance per watt and performance per $. Everything else is more or less irrelevant.
Score
12
November 14, 2011 5:06:12 PM

I'm glad they chose to make the FPU shared. Any truely floating point heavy job should be offloaded to the GPU anyway. At least in an ideal world. That seems to be the way GPUs are going anyway.
Score
5
November 14, 2011 5:14:57 PM

lenell86dear wintermint, stfu, bye, clueless moron


lenell86 what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Score
1
November 14, 2011 5:18:46 PM

otacon72Um the Xeon X5670 has 6 cores. Intel should make an X5670 with 16 cores and blow the Opteron 6276 out of the water just to shut AMD up.

In fact the SB-E Xeon chips should be coming Q1, and will have 4, 6, and 8 core setups, with HT.
However I think that the bulldozer architecture will do well in this segment as more cores will be used more of the time, and they will be cheaper than the SB-E chips per performance. Best of luck to them, they could use a boost right now to get them through this rough patch, but I think they are on the right track.
Score
4
November 14, 2011 5:22:27 PM

lunchbox4kYa AMD has stated that the current software is not opt amazed to use the new Bulldozer architecture. So threads that may need to share FP math would get put on cores that don't share a FP module and would need L3 cache to transfer making things a complete headache. Read this for more on how Windows 8 will fix this.


That is the biggest mistake. THy should of never designed for something that might work better for windows 8 or design something fo only windows 8 in mind. As it is now, just as much people with xp also run windows 7 (winows 7 users are starting to equal xp users). The fast is a lot of people run legacy OS. Only a few will bennifit from windows 8. I don't like this 'suffer now, and the future may get better' attitude.

Why couldn't they just trick the OS, to make it think each module is its own numa cpu with its own memory. that way, there wouldnt be as bad as a thread problem. that might help the cache problem too indirectly, as each cache wont have to cache as much ram.
Score
-5
November 14, 2011 5:26:58 PM

Well, for those who read the Bulldozer review, the remarkable benchmarks for a server environment were the benchmarks where BD shone... The rest is marketing hype, ok. But the comparison 12 threads vs 16 BD cores will be fair or not depending on costs... until intel releases its news Xeons or moves prices... BD its not a bad architecture, its an evolutive technology and one step ahead, maybe people who waited for a i5 killer got disappointed. For the Desktop, I think Fussion chips are more relevant (SoC makes more sense for a desktop than a multichip configuration with 32 cores...).
Score
5
November 14, 2011 5:38:28 PM

molo9000 said:
All very nice, but the Xeon X5670 is 20months old and Sandy Bridge Xeons are right around the corner.


True. The 6-core 3960X that was officially released today is a die-harvested 8-core Sandy Bridge EP part, and according to the reviews it blows the Bulldozer 8150 out of the water, 6 cores to 8 cores. So a true 8-core SB should be even more lopsided in comparison.
Score
-2
November 14, 2011 5:43:40 PM

otacon72Um the Xeon X5670 has 6 cores. Intel should make an X5670 with 16 cores and blow the Opteron 6276 out of the water just to shut AMD up.


And what? Charge $8,000 for it? Cuz they already have an 8 core nehalem at ~$4k
Score
7
November 14, 2011 5:51:33 PM

judging by the comments, not many people seem to know much about the bulldozer processor other than "it sucks!". Bulldozer should do very well in the server space as it does seem to be more aimed at it. They need to come out with a more gaming/consumer orriented part or just leave the consumer market completely(i really hope they dont but thier inability to compete except on price is not very reassuring.
Score
6
November 14, 2011 6:02:25 PM

otacon72Um the Xeon X5670 has 6 cores. Intel should make an X5670 with 16 cores and blow the Opteron 6276 out of the water just to shut AMD up.


They will and probably have, but then you'd be paying out the butt for it.
Score
-2
Anonymous
November 14, 2011 6:05:20 PM

I BELIEVE AMD
Score
1
a b À AMD
November 14, 2011 6:15:09 PM

lenell86dear wintermint, stfu, bye, clueless moron

Let me put what you said together using proper grammar and letter format:

Dear Wintermint,
STFU
Bye,
Clueless Moron

So as we can see, the "stfu" was from someone who seems very aware that they are a clueless moron. So we can all stop insulting him because he already knows it.
Score
7
Anonymous
November 14, 2011 6:47:55 PM

FP server load is all moving to GPUs anyway, and cpus get slaughtered compared to a gpu. So why bother trying to beef up the FPU in the server world, it makes no sense.

Going after integer performance and making a beefy server cpu was the right choice.

That said the bulldozer is disappointing as a desktop chip(i wont be buying a first gen, who knows about future gens until they are released). But, this article isnt about desktop, its about servers.
Score
3
November 14, 2011 6:58:38 PM

rahulkadukarAMD, nobody runs Linpack on their machines, do some real world tests and get humiliated

like using itunes to transcode mp3, play sysmark and other benchmarking problems ... sureeeeeeeee and yes ... opterons to play some stupid game no ?
Score
3
November 14, 2011 7:46:36 PM

Tentative props to AMD for FINALLY pulling a concrete success off (independent reviews notwithstanding).
Score
2
November 14, 2011 8:39:29 PM

16 cores and hits less than 100% better than an X5670? Trust me, I'm an AMD fanboy, :p , but this does not sound good. If the processor cost is significantly lower than the X5670, then AMD may have something. Too bad there is nothing about cost in the article.

Tom's how about a good analysis and benchmarks article on the chip?
Score
-5
November 14, 2011 8:54:23 PM

This is such a huge blunder on AMD's part. This is supposed to be their flagship server CPU but they stacked it against almost 2 years old Intel one, which is far from being Intel's flagship, not even the strongest in it's series. For those who didn't know or care to know, there's 6 more CPUs in X5xxx series, plus there Intel will soon launch E/X6xxx, L/E/X7xxx, E3 and E7 lines. As AMD fan I must say that Bulldozer reminds me of Intel's Netburst and that I hope they will be able to reinvent them self in shorter time than Intel needed.
Score
-5
!