And if you also look the fx-8370 actually has 4 cores. Its not like some of their other chips which have 2 cores but they call it 4. Like this for example.
The difference is AMD splits their modules into 2 cores. Meanwhile Intel uses 1 core per Module.
I'm not sure that Intel even has an analogous notion of modules in their CPUs. You could argue that in the Core 2 generation, they had modules of two cores each, if you're willing to apply the term "modules" to separate dies. You could also make a pretty good claim that AMD's chips with Jaguar cores (used in game consoles and low end laptops) have modules of 4 CPU cores.
But I still want an answer to the question I asked above: how many cores does a GeForce GTX 1080 have? Yes, it's a trap: there are at least five different answers that are justifiable.
The difference is AMD splits their modules into 2 cores. Meanwhile Intel uses 1 core per Module.
Not exactly but basically your statement is correct. They are two very diferrent CPU architectures. AMD's been advertising the core count based exclusively on integer cores while AMD CPU's have so called modules that contain shared resources for 2 integer cores +1 floating point unit per module. Intel CPU's contain the advertised number of physical integer cores with dedicated resources (if we compare them to AMD's solution) and in many cases optional HT support + a number of FPU cores identical to integer cores. So basically a quad core Intel has 4 integer cores and 4 FPU's regardless of hyper threading support while quad core AMD's have 4 integer cores and 2 FPU's in all together 2 modules. Intel doesn't use the so called module architecture.
The difference is AMD splits their modules into 2 cores. Meanwhile Intel uses 1 core per Module.
I'm not sure that Intel even has an analogous notion of modules in their CPUs. You could argue that in the Core 2 generation, they had modules of two cores each, if you're willing to apply the term "modules" to separate dies. You could also make a pretty good claim that AMD's chips with Jaguar cores (used in game consoles and low end laptops) have modules of 4 CPU cores.
But I still want an answer to the question I asked above: how many cores does a GeForce GTX 1080 have? Yes, it's a trap: there are at least five different answers that are justifiable.
Which is what we have been discussing. A similar topic in which there are different justifiable answers. Just trying to get some clarity is all.
The difference is AMD splits their modules into 2 cores. Meanwhile Intel uses 1 core per Module.
Not exactly but basically your statement is correct. They are two very diferrent CPU architectures. AMD's been advertising the core count based exclusively on integer cores while AMD CPU's have so called modules that contain shared resources for 2 integer cores +1 floating point unit per module. Intel CPU's contain the advertised number of physical integer cores with dedicated resources (if we compare them to AMD's solution) and in many cases optional HT support + a number of FPU cores identical to integer cores. So basically a quad core Intel has 4 integer cores and 4 FPU's regardless of hyper threading support while quad core AMD's have 4 integer cores and 2 FPU's in all together 2 modules. Intel doesn't use the so called module architecture.
Is zen going to change that for them? Which would be a good reason they will finally start to hyperthread.
Zen at least is adopting intel's method of SMT (Simultaneous multi-threading) after their own approach CMT (Cluster based multi-threading) failed so hard.
I wouldn't trust AMD though to suddenly become good over night though, they tend to over hype/market and under deliver. Be cautiously optimistic, but still buy Intel until they prove themselves. They also need to show us their software side (r&d, drivers) has improved, otherwise you can get good hardware with crappy support.
Zen at least is adopting intel's method of SMT (Simultaneous multi-threading) after their own approach CMT (Cluster based multi-threading) failed so hard.
I wouldn't trust AMD though to suddenly become good over night though, they tend to over hype/market and under deliver. Be cautiously optimistic, but still buy Intel until they prove themselves. They also need to show us their software side (r&d, drivers) has improved, otherwise you can get good hardware with crappy support.
It's a small sample size on AMD architectures, as one is usually so heavily derivative of the previous. The only real clean slate new architectures they've had in the last 15 years are:
Athlon 64 (which was great) in 2003 Phenom (which was mediocre) in 2008 Bobcat (decent, but only for lower power markets) in 2011 Bulldozer (which was terrible) in 2011 Zen (which is still unknown) in 2017
On GPUs since the merger, they've had the VLIW architectures that were basically set in stone when they bought ATI, GCN in 2012, and that's it. Because Zen is basically a clean slate, it could be anywhere between awful and great, and it won't be dragged down or propped up by the choices in Excavator cores. With Excavator, we knew that it couldn't deviate too far from Steamroller.
And if you also look the fx-8370 actually has 4 cores. Its not like some of their other chips which have 2 cores but they call it 4. Like this for example.
Almost as much fun as reading a DRBaltazar thread.
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone." Robin Williams
Malabooga is inventing numbers again: The CPU in your first picture wasn't even measured in the benchmark on your second picture.
It was predictable though that those two would just get into another war of making up stuff to continue the eternal fight of Light & Darkness.
It is clear you lack the mental capacity to understand what I was talking about. Maybe next time you should sit quietly in the corner instead of trying to make yourself look smart by saying nothing at all.
Malabooga is inventing numbers again: The CPU in your first picture wasn't even measured in the benchmark on your second picture.
It was predictable though that those two would just get into another war of making up stuff to continue the eternal fight of Light & Darkness.
It is clear you lack the mental capacity to understand what I was talking about. Maybe next time you should sit quietly in the corner instead of trying to make yourself look smart by saying nothing at all.
Well I said nothing at all and was pretty accurate.
You said nothing at all and were wrong at every possible turn.
Malabooga is inventing numbers again: The CPU in your first picture wasn't even measured in the benchmark on your second picture.
It was predictable though that those two would just get into another war of making up stuff to continue the eternal fight of Light & Darkness.
It is clear you lack the mental capacity to understand what I was talking about. Maybe next time you should sit quietly in the corner instead of trying to make yourself look smart by saying nothing at all.
Well I said nothing at all and was pretty accurate.
You said nothing at all and were wrong at every possible turn.
Its easy to sit there and say nothing then pretend to be smart. Maybe you should read a bit and you would realize that those who actually contributed to the conversation were agreeing with most of what I was saying. I just had some terminologies mixed up.
Malabooga is inventing numbers again: The CPU in your first picture wasn't even measured in the benchmark on your second picture.
It was predictable though that those two would just get into another war of making up stuff to continue the eternal fight of Light & Darkness.
It is clear you lack the mental capacity to understand what I was talking about. Maybe next time you should sit quietly in the corner instead of trying to make yourself look smart by saying nothing at all.
Well I said nothing at all and was pretty accurate.
You said nothing at all and were wrong at every possible turn.
Its easy to sit there and say nothing then pretend to be smart. Maybe you should read a bit and you would realize that those who actually contributed to the conversation were agreeing with most of what I was saying. I just had some terminologies mixed up.
Then I really have a lack of mental capacity cause what I read was just Quiz telling you over and over again that you have no idea.
Oh really, by your "theory" its just 2 cores....wtih 2 redundant caches lol
And yeah cores share some stuff and thats why it costs 100$ opposed ti Intels 8 core CPU which costs 1100$.
When Intels 8 core CPU costs 100$ i wont complain that cores "shares some stuff" lol but thats not in Intels plans, Intel intends to sell dual core CPU for 180$ in 2017. lol
Malabooga is inventing numbers again: The CPU in your first picture wasn't even measured in the benchmark on your second picture.
It was predictable though that those two would just get into another war of making up stuff to continue the eternal fight of Light & Darkness.
It is clear you lack the mental capacity to understand what I was talking about. Maybe next time you should sit quietly in the corner instead of trying to make yourself look smart by saying nothing at all.
Well I said nothing at all and was pretty accurate.
You said nothing at all and were wrong at every possible turn.
Its easy to sit there and say nothing then pretend to be smart. Maybe you should read a bit and you would realize that those who actually contributed to the conversation were agreeing with most of what I was saying. I just had some terminologies mixed up.
Then I really have a lack of mental capacity cause what I read was just Quiz telling you over and over again that you have no idea.
Sometimes he's too smart for his own good. What I was portraying was the fact that AMD's cores are sharing resources and the Intel cores are not. Which is probably why AMD's cores are slower. The only time Intel cores share resources is when they are hyperthreaded. So although its different terminology its sharing resources at the basic level. Which is why 1 Intel core is usually stronger then 2 amd cores. Because the AMD core is sharing resources.
You can actually turn off amd's sharing just like you can turn off hyperthreading with Intel. When sharing is turned off the number of threads will be cut in half. For some reason it doesn't make the AMD cores faster maybe because of how the resources are shared.
Oh really, by your "theory" its just 2 cores....wtih 2 redundant caches lol
And yeah cores share some stuff and thats why it costs 100$ opposed ti Intels 8 core CPU which costs 1100$.
When Intels 8 core CPU costs 100$ i wont complain that cores "shares some stuff" lol but thats not in Intels plans, Intel intends to sell dual core CPU for 180$ in 2017. lol
You will never need an 8 core processor from anyone. Maybe in 2020 if gaming takes a really different turn.
Malabooga is inventing numbers again: The CPU in your first picture wasn't even measured in the benchmark on your second picture.
It was predictable though that those two would just get into another war of making up stuff to continue the eternal fight of Light & Darkness.
It is clear you lack the mental capacity to understand what I was talking about. Maybe next time you should sit quietly in the corner instead of trying to make yourself look smart by saying nothing at all.
Well I said nothing at all and was pretty accurate.
You said nothing at all and were wrong at every possible turn.
Its easy to sit there and say nothing then pretend to be smart. Maybe you should read a bit and you would realize that those who actually contributed to the conversation were agreeing with most of what I was saying. I just had some terminologies mixed up.
Then I really have a lack of mental capacity cause what I read was just Quiz telling you over and over again that you have no idea.
Sometimes he's too smart for his own good. What I was portraying was the fact that AMD's cores are sharing resources and the Intel cores are not. Which is probably why AMD's cores are slower. The only time Intel cores share resources is when they are hyperthreaded. So although its different terminology its sharing resources at the basic level. Which is why 1 Intel core is usually stronger then 2 amd cores. Because the AMD core is sharing resources.
You can actually turn off amd's sharing just like you can turn off hyperthreading with Intel. When sharing is turned off the number of threads will be cut in half. For some reason it doesn't make the AMD cores faster maybe because of how the resources are shared.
Intel CPU cores share L3 cache with each other. They also share access to the memory controller. And they even tend to share both of those things with an integrated GPU, too. On AMD APUs, the CPU doesn't have to share cache with the GPU.
All modern multi-core processors have some resources shared between cores. It's just a question of which resources and how they're shared among how many cores.
Have you considered that if turning off all but one core doesn't make that core faster, then maybe that the core was sharing resources with other cores wasn't the problem to begin with?
Comments
But since you're an expert on counting cores, what I want to know is, how many cores does a GeForce GTX 1080 have?
I was going to wait for RyZen to build my new PC, but you might have changed my mind. Where, pray tell, are you getting FX 8370s for 100 bucks?
But I still want an answer to the question I asked above: how many cores does a GeForce GTX 1080 have? Yes, it's a trap: there are at least five different answers that are justifiable.
I wouldn't trust AMD though to suddenly become good over night though, they tend to over hype/market and under deliver. Be cautiously optimistic, but still buy Intel until they prove themselves. They also need to show us their software side (r&d, drivers) has improved, otherwise you can get good hardware with crappy support.
Athlon 64 (which was great) in 2003
Phenom (which was mediocre) in 2008
Bobcat (decent, but only for lower power markets) in 2011
Bulldozer (which was terrible) in 2011
Zen (which is still unknown) in 2017
On GPUs since the merger, they've had the VLIW architectures that were basically set in stone when they bought ATI, GCN in 2012, and that's it. Because Zen is basically a clean slate, it could be anywhere between awful and great, and it won't be dragged down or propped up by the choices in Excavator cores. With Excavator, we knew that it couldn't deviate too far from Steamroller.
When you don't want the truth, you will make up your own truth.
You said nothing at all and were wrong at every possible turn.
And yeah cores share some stuff and thats why it costs 100$ opposed ti Intels 8 core CPU which costs 1100$.
When Intels 8 core CPU costs 100$ i wont complain that cores "shares some stuff" lol but thats not in Intels plans, Intel intends to sell dual core CPU for 180$ in 2017. lol
You can actually turn off amd's sharing just like you can turn off hyperthreading with Intel. When sharing is turned off the number of threads will be cut in half. For some reason it doesn't make the AMD cores faster maybe because of how the resources are shared.
All modern multi-core processors have some resources shared between cores. It's just a question of which resources and how they're shared among how many cores.
Have you considered that if turning off all but one core doesn't make that core faster, then maybe that the core was sharing resources with other cores wasn't the problem to begin with?
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
"You better keep silent about things you don't know and be looked stupid, than make things up to look even more stupid."
I am stupid, I choose to keep silent and be a good reader.
When you don't want the truth, you will make up your own truth.