<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>AMD tapes out its Bulldozer CPU architecture</title>
		<description>Discuss AMD tapes out its Bulldozer CPU architecture</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:22:49 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/19520/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>terrace215 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1148</link>
			<description><![CDATA[9-12 months from tape-out to launch for a completely new microarchitectu re, a complex server MPU on a new process, and a process with yield learning issues? I think not. 12-18 months would be lucky.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>terrace215</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:03:20 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1148</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>blandead says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1124</link>
			<description><![CDATA[well all I can say is that the bottom line, without speculations, all we can do is wait to see how it performs compared to intel and see which is the faster product at standard 125 TDP. Then you will know how fast the cut down versions with lower TDP will perform. hopefully they have it out soon cause they really need a comeback in the high performance segment with cpus]]></description>
			<dc:creator>blandead</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 02:57:15 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1124</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>eugen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1123</link>
			<description><![CDATA[so blobber do you think another revision of bulldozer would fix the tdp or what whoul you want from zambezi?stable current ,why 125 tdp is not stable i have had in the past one athlon x2 65w@2.93ghz it worked slower than previous 89w@2.66ghz,now for one year i`m using phenom 955 very stable at stock frequency but if you want overclock intel all the way,i do not do oc never did,i like amd but they are not better than intel`s that is for sure r&d just dosen`t cut it for amd.all i am interested is performance @stock clock and only after tdp&heat from a cpu.i am glad to hear some realease date news from prolonged bulldozer project i do not5 care for amd`s business.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>eugen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:22:08 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1123</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1122</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Possibly... depending on what a core is.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:00:46 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1122</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>blandead says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1121</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Bl0bb3r you've got it all wrong. 2 cores is wrapped up in 1 module with a shared fp. its not hyperthreading they are 2 actual cores in one module. im sure its very confusing coming from intel's core count.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>blandead</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jul 2010 22:41:49 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1121</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>blandead says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1120</link>
			<description><![CDATA[guys this is a performance chip, its expected to have 125tdp. if you want the quad core-2module version or 1 module-2core version with 45w then get that, its all up to you. the difference with these chips is clock-per-clock will be faster and threading apps will be very good supposably. there are plenty of low power 25w versions to come so if that is your main concern wait for those. this is the high peformance chip.. wait for the low power/mainstream performance chip if that is your concern. stop bashing on a regular 125w tdp. 8 cores running at 3.4+ghz at 125w doesnt seem so high. any decent cooler of 40$ will cool it fine. go buy intels atoms and sandy bridge if you think its better. coolers don't cost that much.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>blandead</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jul 2010 22:37:12 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1120</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1118</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@blandead, it looks like two cores but that is actually one single core, capable of two parallel threads, rated from 10 up to 100W TDP (presumably in single core package). Zambezi will have 4 and 8 of these dual-threaded cores, and I'm just guessing they will be making them in 4 native cores chips, the 8 cores version being two chips glued together MCM-style. Makes sense and will give better yields than massive native 8-core chips.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jul 2010 21:21:03 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1118</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1117</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@eugene Third, the heat and noise output... while there are solutions out there that can take care of high heat and high noise produced by the respective fans, they also add to the total cost of the platform. When you see $200 CPU needing a cooler that costs half or just as much you have just spent your money very very poorly. I know a single Bulldozer core is capable 10 to 100W... and MIND YOU... one single core, that leads me to believe that a low TDP 8 core system might use 110W (8*10W for cores and 30W for L3), so if that's the low end, a high-end dual core? 2*60 + 15 = 125W... one acronym: WTF? So yes, I am concerned about the TDP... even on today's platforms, and now since a new heatwave hit and I'm seeing my temps up by 5 to 10*C on the same setup I run every day.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:51:26 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1117</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1116</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@eugene More phases = more stable current = more overclocking potential = more awards = more popular product = better income to support your much-so-needed R&D. Secondly, it affects power draw. The higher the rating, the higher the power draw which in turn will lead OEM maker to pick the less needy processors and they might very well be from Intel. That, buddy, means less products on shelf and less income for AMD to in your much-so-needed R&D. If you follow articles like me you would know that low TDP chips, be it CPU, RAM or GPU, are regarded by the OC community as the ideal overclockers. Just read all some of their thread and see how enthusiastic they are about LoVo products.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:50:56 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1116</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1115</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@eugene If you're a rich kid with nothing to do all day then the reasons why TDP, core-count and the rest matter won't... matter. TDP is a figure that's important in more ways than you know. First it dictates the needs for motherboard makers when designing the power circuitry for the CPU. This has both implications on performance and stability of the system, and most importantly on the costs. Take a look at intel boards, 90% of them have more power phases than the AMD line. Why? Because Intel dictates that if a maker want's to build on intel platforms they are abound by contract to supply top notch power circuitry. Nehalen uses on medium 20 phases while amd are stuck a 10, with the only exception being the Crosshair IV line. Not good for performance, but affordable.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:50:26 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19520-amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-cpu-architecture#comment-1115</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
