* Two tightly coupled "classic" x86 out-of-order processing engines which AMD internally named module
(Single-Module ==> Dual-Core, Dual-Module ==> Quad-Core, Quad-Module ==> Octa-Core etc...)
* 8MB-16MB L3 cache shared between all modules inside same processor (on same silicon die)
* Dual channel DDR3 integrated memory controler (support for pc3-12800 (1600MHz))
* Higher Memory Level Parallelism
* Continuous Multithreading (CMT) Technology
Bulldozer module consists of
** 1024kB L2 cache inside each module (shared between module cores)
** Two independent integer cores
each consist of 2ALU and 2AGU and capable of 4 independent arithmetic or memory operations per clock
** One 256-bit wide floating point unit
with fused multiply-add (FMA) capability and flexible configuration to work with up to four 64-bit wide FP data or one 128-bit wide SSE FP data per clock
AMD called it DX11 product line the Visual Proccessing Unit, kind of different from the Nvidia Geometry Proccessing Unit! It seems they have a patent that puts gpu on the cpu as a co proccessor to enhance graphics and cad functions to speed up the gaming and workstation market. Its better to have embedded graphics functions on the mainboard to speed up functions, an upgradeable socket for a mainboard wouldn't be that bad either maybe in the future as a next step! Faster than using the PCI-E Slot, but the peripheral component interconnect slot gives you more options for upgradability for future releases of products, limiting the need for throwing out your mainboard every 1-3 years depending on when you upgrade!
"JF-AMD wrote: I generally don't comment on these threads because they start out on a false premise and just keep getting worse.
How many "end of the world for AMD" threads over the past 4 years have been right? "
I'd say some of them were partially right.
Yes, you are still in business, but you lost 80% (perhaps more) of your market value, and 70% ownership of your fabs. The ownership of the fabs will keep dwindling to keep the company profitable.
I have to say that I myself underestimated AMD's problem when I said 2 years ago that I believe AMD would not sell off the fabs. It turns out AMD had to sell off the fabs.
My point here is clear: (1) AMD needs access to state-of-the-art fabs in order to stay competitive. Don't even try to tell me otherwise, or why don't you manufacture Bulldozer at 45nm? You had 5 years to do so. (2) The only company who can provide this with capacity is GlobalFoundries. (3) Unfortunately, 32nm SOI is not the highest priority of GF; 28nm bulk is.
If GF takes off, and it starts to make high performance processors for other companies, then AMD can leverage on the cost sharing which would benefit everyone in the industry. If, on the other hand, GF does not attract enough customers, then either AMD can shoulder the R&D cost at GF, or it can say goodbuy to GF (can it?) and send chips off to TSMC or Samsung to manufacture. Then it will be at a greater process disadvantage to Intel.