Home https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ Technology https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ The lawsuit against the slaughter of rubbish against the AMD bulldozer is aimed at a sample
The lawsuit against the slaughter of rubbish against the AMD bulldozer is aimed at a sample
; (макс-ширина: 640px) 100vw, 640px “/>
BD-Die-Crop-Feature “srcset =” https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/BD-Die-Crop-Feature-640×353.jpg 640w , https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/BD-Die-Crop-Feature-300×166.jpg 300w, https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2019/01 / BD-Die-Crop-Feature-768×424.jpg 768w, https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/BD-Die-Crop-Feature-106×59.jpg 106w, https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/BD-Die-Crop-Feature-672×371.jpg 672w, https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019 /01/BD-Die-Crop-Feature.jpg 1344w “sizes =” (макс-ширина: 640px) 100vw, 640px “/>
A lawsuit against AMD claiming that the company misrepresented the capabilities of its bulldozer and Bulldozer product lines will move to a process dismissed by hand, until the decision of the State District Judge Haywood Gilliam was a decision in favor of the plaintiffs.
The argument by plaintiffs Tony Dickie and Paul Parmer is that AMD "has misinterpreted the number of core processors in its Bulldozer central processing line … The applicants claim that the Bulldozer processors, advertised as eight cores, actually contain eight" subprocessors " , which share resources such as L2 cache and floating point units ("FPUs"). "
I wrote about this trial when it was filed in 2015, and my opinion has not changed in the last three years. This article also discusses Dickey's specific claims against AMD in his original case and why they were inaccurate or inappropriate in a different way. In this case, AMD's contradiction that a "significant majority interprets" the kernel "in ways that are fully compatible with AMD's chips," is considered to be an inadequate reason not to authenticate the class trial.
What Dickie and Parmer is saying is that the Bulldozer / Piledriver (in particular the FX-9590) did not deliver the expected results of an octagonal processor with regard to Intel processors . They argue that shared resources in the Bulldozer core have hampered the "simultaneous multitasking" chip and that as the resources are shared between processor cores, Bulldozer "functionally has only four cores". 19659004] Bulldozer does not support SMT, which allows the CPU to perform more than one thread at a time. The fact that performance increases upward in integer and FPU loads on a BD / PD processor when moving from four threads to eight is proof that the processor is not limited to a functional quad-core configuration. Since these results from OpenBenchmarking.org show BD performance improves over four threads, even with FPU loads. Total workloads also show upgrades from four to eight. While the absolute zoom level may be smaller, Bulldozer is not a functional quad-core CPU as a matter of a defined number of cores. The fact that its overall performance may be equivalent to Intel's quad-core processor has nothing to do with the fact that the processor actually has the number of cores advertised. It is true that the Bulldozer zoom factor is about 20% lower than the "true" multi-core design, and also that the BD architecture AMD was better or worse, unique and shared resources differently from other processors on the market, and its overall level of performance does not match what many enthusiasts wanted the CPU core to be different from the CPU core of Thuban, or a processor core of Intel from an equivalent Core chip. The problem is that they are not sufficiently different to justify the argument that AMD has abused the word core and the applicants' claims do not support the technical analysis. between Bulldozer / Piledriver and the Sony Cell Broadband Engine that powers the PS3. No one would argue that Cell is a conventional eight-core processor (seven cores included for the PS3). It combines a relatively standard CPPC core of PowerPC (PPE or Power Processing Element) with up to eight SPEs (synergistic processing elements). These SPEs are clearly distinct from conventional CPU cores, with limited access to small local memory pools and no hardware resources to predict clones. Deep diving of Cell articles is available in RealWorldTech for those who are interested in traveling downhill.
<img class = "aligncenter size-full wp-image-284341" src = "https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Cell-Broadband.jpg" alt = " Cell Broadband "width =" 620 "height =" 350 "srcset =" https: //www.extremetech.com / wp-content / uploads / 2019/01 / Cell Broadband.jpg 620w, https: // www. extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Cell-Broadband-300×169.jpg 300w, https: //www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Cell-Broadband-223×126.jpg 223w, https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Cell- Broadband-106×59.jpg 106w, https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01 Sony has explicitly not released the PS3 as an eight-core system to remember, but according to the most basic definition of the word, namely, that it is part of the processor, which performs calculations based on received instructions – Cell Broadband Engine SPEs will still qualify as cores, in which case Sony recognizes that the technical differences between CBE and other larger chips were sufficiently significant to use different labels for the components of chip. But this nod to the understanding of consumers, though absolutely correct to does not mean that we can not call the "kernels" of SPEs.
Does Bulldozer Share FPU? Of course. The same happened with Sun UltraSPARC T1 (one FPU per chip) and T2 (one FPU per core but shared with up to 8 threads). The case claims that sharing L2 caches and FPUs means that AMD has violated the commonly accepted definition of "core," but Intel chips share L2 cache from Core 2 Duo days. That's where the problem lies. Surely we could define a CPU core based on the basic capabilities of the components to act as generic non-aided microprocessors – something that cellular SPEs can not do. This type of division would lead to more significant differentiation. The attempt to draw a line through a chip in the way this lawsuit is, however, impossible. If the Bulldozer cores are not cores, nor are kernels in other processors.
Unlike Cell, One One Bulldozer Kernel is able to perform all the loads that are capable of operating eight Bulldozer cores. Performance that is clearly dimensioned with access to additional threads, as well as other CPU projects from other companies that are clearly available on the basis of core counting, are available at different levels of core-based performance. There is a potential way to make a distinctive definition of all of this, but you will not do so by using the features highlighted by the plaintiffs in this case.
Dickey and Parmer may be angry at having purchased seamless processors that are not supposed to be Intel's seamless processors. This does not mean Bulldozer is not an eight-core chip. A number of cores do not guarantee a certain level of performance.