4 ms·

> In particular, we talked about Intel and AMD. He claimed that if AMD's architecture was produced using Intel's fabs, the chips would be better than Intel's.

> In particular, we talked about Intel and AMD. He claimed that if AMD's architecture was produced using Intel's fabs, the chips would be better than Intel's. I would have believed this maybe 4 or 5 years ago, but these days I don't think that's the case anymore. There was a time maybe 7 or 8 years ago when AMD was hands down better, then Intel started doing good work with the original Core 2 and then Nehalem, innovating on both the architecture and process sides. Now AMD is kind of where Pentium 4 Prescott was in that their latest architecture has to be pumped up to insanely high clock speeds to be competitive with Intel's midrange parts. I don't think shrinking the process node would help there, because they just don't have the IPC, and I don't think going down to 22nm would help AMD push their clocks that much higher that they would suddenly be competitive. And power consumption would probably go through the roof if they tried that. That said I'm probably going to build another AMD desktop just to support them though an Intel would be way better for my needs, only because without them competition would die on the CPU front. At the price points I'm looking at I could get AMD's fastest CPU which competes with Intel's mid range and it'd at least do everything I need it to do, but the Intel would probably use less power. I'm kind of curious if AMD's Bulldozer architecture benefits parallel compiling because my hand wavy intuition says that compiling should be mostly integer code, and their processing modules do have two integer units so vaguely speaking it might be able to perform close to how an 8 core standard system would perform.

yvdriess 14y ago
Intel is essentially still using the Pentium II architecture, where AMD has refreshed theirs recently with the bulldozer. Intel's fab advantage (32->22nm gives a massive thermal advantage) is getting wasted on putting more GPU on die. Probably because they can't put more cores on there without blowing their thermal threshold. The only way to add more cores then, is for cores to share more component: share the sequencer (more vector instructions), share the FP pipeline (aka bulldozer module), etc. Running bulldozer modules on a 22nm fab would definitely beat the Intel Xeons on the majority of the server applications. Increasing the cache sizes and increasing the set associativity (amd is at 4, Intel at 8) will already give it the edge. With regard to the sharing of FP pipelines: this is not new, the Sun Sparks have been doing that for ages. As we add more cores and parallelism, we will go more towards finer-grained parallel architectures like the spark. The bulldozer is only a shy step in that direction, not willing to commit too much in loss of sequential performance.

yvdriess 14y ago

Intel is essentially still using the Pentium II architecture, where AMD has refreshed theirs recently with the bulldozer. Intel's fab advantage (32->22nm gives a massive thermal advantage) is getting wasted on putting more GPU on die. Probably because they can't put more cores on there without blowing their thermal threshold. The only way to add more cores then, is for cores to share more component: share the sequencer (more vector instructions), share the FP pipeline (aka bulldozer module), etc. Running bulldozer modules on a 22nm fab would definitely beat the Intel Xeons on the majority of the server applications. Increasing the cache sizes and increasing the set associativity (amd is at 4, Intel at 8) will already give it the edge. With regard to the sharing of FP pipelines: this is not new, the Sun Sparks have been doing that for ages. As we add more cores and parallelism, we will go more towards finer-grained parallel architectures like the spark. The bulldozer is only a shy step in that direction, not willing to commit too much in loss of sequential performance.