3 ms·
from TFA: > Note on Bulldozer > Bulldozer is an obvious comparison because it also shares substantial resources between core pairs. However, shared resources
by skavi 3y ago
from TFA:
> Note on Bulldozer
> Bulldozer is an obvious comparison because it also shares substantial resources between core pairs. However, shared resources had little to do with Bulldozer’s performance problems. In fact, Bulldozer was most competitive in multithreaded applications where there could be contention for shared resources. Bulldozer issues came from having less per-thread reordering capacity and higher cache latency than Sandy Bridge in a market where single-thread performance was of paramount importance. Cortex A510 does not target the high performance market. If performance did matter A510 would be held back by its in-order execution scheme, not shared resources. Instead of performance, A510 targets low power and area. Sharing resources fits that goal perfectly.
- a-french-anon 3y agoYep, I dare to say that Piledriver wasn't bad at all, when you weren't just needing single-threaded performance. Power consumption was horrid, though.
- hajile 3y agoAMD would have been far ahead of the game if they'd made 1 big ALU, 1 big FPU, and 1-3 little ALUs. They'd have been competitive on single-thread performance while getting a big boost in multithreaded performance without all the complexity of SMT.