Why there are no 2 core in a AMD Bulldozer?

[Bryant]

Please anyone of you please help me as I want to know that why there is no 2 core bulldozer available? Is there very genuine reason behind these? If yes then please do let me know as I am very curious about it? What is the insight theory? Reply to this query of mine as soon as possible. All your replies will be appreciated.

[Alexisus]

First, Bulldozer is intended to be a part of high-end. Llano has the dual core market covered. It's the same reason that Intel does not offer any dual-core chips EE. Also, after a certain point so that only two cores just not worth it, like you do not see Intel or AMD chip fabrication of a single nucleus. Finally, the entry level Intel chips quads.

[Nutty]

There are two central (1 modual) and 4 core (2 modual) chips bulldozer when the next start makeing APU. He is one that will replace the plain, for now, however, the first generation of chips bulldozer out will end. Those who come in 8 to 16 chips core processor. Wikipedia lists a module Bulldozer core 2 to be released, the FX-2150. I guess not getting the attention of the highest basic models.

[Terrextre]

I have not seen any reference in a 2x4 Athlon 2100 I3 exceeds the performance of the CPU. Can be almost equal in multithreaded tasks greatly, but that's the best AMD can do. The I3 2100 is even more competitive models x4 Phenom II in most cases. Llano course would be higher in graphics presentation of the IGP 2100, but is actually just a tease, because the graphics of both is still not good enough to play modern games at decent settings and resolutions.

[AmdUser]

I agree with you about performance per watt and performance per dollar to be important. However, the absolute performance is also important. A bike gives more "performance per dollar" than a car, but I would mount a nationwide just because it uses less gasoline than a car and less costs of purchase. However, even accepting the argument, Intel is ahead in performance per watt (except for maybe laptop Llano), and close in performance per dollar. Given the little dissimilarity in price virtual to what we spend on a system, more games, and other recreational activities, I still went with Intel.

[Logan.M]

Obviously, I was overstating the case to be something funny in the analogy of the bicycle and car. If you want to make a serious analogy, AMD could be compared to U.S. manufacturers in the 80 compared to Japanese automakers at the same time. The U.S. automakers for years in the technology and excellence behind a generation of Japanese cars, but said it was "good enough" (which does not need slide cams and rear independent suspensions). But eventually it caught up with them and completely dominated the Japanese car market. This is where AMD is the CPU performance now. Perhaps excavator will change this, but I think when I see the chip on the market and the actual performance.

[Sn0w-Le0p@rD]

The desktop iMac and similar all-in-one, for example, you could also make out a huge benefit over opposing products. The same goes for office machines such as Dell OptiPlex line, and even its line of Precision workstations. Just have a dual core CPU (or, in limited cases, quad-core) with a functional on the GPU chip is more than enough for anything in these cases. In any case, the best performance today is the Flash-based websites.