Comment Re:bad for amd? (Score 1) 120
Well, I don't like Bulldozer, at least not as it is now.
It doesn't make much sense as it is nether here not there. They are trying to sell one modules as two cores, which is ridiculous. Also, it is not clear why in real life one module ( ie by making it execute just one thred with all its resources) can't match performance of one decent core on clock-by-clock basis.
Also, AMD managed to squeeze 6 K-10 cores on 346 mm2 with 45nm geometry on Thuban ( x6 1055,1075,1090,1100T), With 32nm they should be able to use 2x logic on same area. If one module costs them only 18% more die area as the classical core from previous generation, then they should be able to put something like 8-10 MODULES ( and not only 4) on a chip, done with 32nm on 315mm2 like FX-8150. If they went for 350mm2 like before, then even 12 modules, perhaps with a bit less L3 wouldn't be out of the question ( 12 modules = 24 threads ! ).
Users would then get poor man's Magnycores. It would be awesome. And people would understand even if unithread performace sucked - it would be manythreading monster. Even better, they could offer higher clocked versions with just two or 4 modules for those kind of customers. Or even refer them to existing Thubans.
As it is now, it looks as if someone panicked in the late stage of the design and tried to save it by bundling it with shitload of L2 and L3 cache.