4 ms·
> AMD's efficiency cores are much more similar to their mainline cores than for either Intel or ARM. I apologize for going off on a tangent, but now that we ha
by rewmie 3y ago
> AMD's efficiency cores are much more similar to their mainline cores than for either Intel or ARM.
I apologize for going off on a tangent, but now that we have the benefit of hindsight what was the verdict on AMD's Bulldozer microarchitecture?
I recall that Intel invested a great deal on its anti-Bulldozer smear campaign with their "no true cores" accusations, but nowadays it seems that cheaper non-performance many-cores are the winning recipe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(microarchitecture) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(microarchitecture)
- The_Colonel 3y agoCompanies now do mix of fast cores and slow cores. The problem of Bulldozer was that it only had slow cores.
- rewmie 3y ago> The problem of Bulldozer was that it only had slow cores. I don't think that was the case. Bulldozer shared the FPU and cache, and if I recall correctly it was proven that the shared FPU was rarely a bottleneck because even in compute-intensive operations the number of FPU operations was relatively low.
- The_Colonel 3y agoThat's not what I was hinting at. Bulldozer was slower than its predecessor Phenom in single-threaded tasks where shared FPU/cache shouldn't have a detrimental effect. IIRC AMD made a trade-off to focus more on the multi-thread performance at the cost of single-thread performance (so basically more slower cores). But then many tasks are largely single-threaded and at that time the parallelization efforts were still very young.