Looks like the Denebs are getting ready to roll to retail.....
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20081104PD203.html
Xmas presents for everybody!:clap:
Printable View
Looks like the Denebs are getting ready to roll to retail.....
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20081104PD203.html
Xmas presents for everybody!:clap:
Pricing info???
yea i saw that im guessing its around the time of shanghai. i knew that the chips were already ready. they might of been delaying them to late q4 early q1 to see if they can squeeze out a C3 revision but i think nehalem has pushed up their priorities of just getting the chip out.Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRicer
isn't this recycling of the previous rumors regarding the name and the launch time-frame?
Nedjo, everything's "recycled" (or confirmed, depending on perspective) BUT they added Deneb timelines.
We all thought Deneb was a late December affair.
well all I see in that article is bunch of wrong information so I'm inclined to suspect reliability of this "news"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
I just read the entire article. I couldn't find any of the "wrong information" you speak about so I'm inclined to suspect that you might have an ulterior motive for claiming that something "wrong" was presented.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
Please expound and point out anything your might have suspected was "wrong information".
This is a Digitimes article.....not the Inquirer. Digitimes don't post non-sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
Ohhhhh Nedjo,
really im not having a go, after all that we lovers have been through,
but sometimes you just dont make sense, that last comment is a cracker, i just read the article, and see nothing of what your talking about, like the previous two posters.
also reliability is something we learn, through past experiance, and proper evalutation. have you done any university education? because its the first thing they teach you, along with plagerism.
you need to learn to evaluate your web sources properly.
for me this is the first time i have seen the 'November this year' part, i thought it was all at end december, and first Q of 2009
i take this source as sound, and also i think the article 'rings true', there is just too much info in those short paragraphs, to think this is something like 'Hardware Zone Network' or something like that
this ones for your consideration Nedjo, maybe you could take up this sport? its called 'Shoot yourself'
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/k.../shootself.gif
Sounds like pretty legit info to me! Thanx for posting :)
that's because some of us have nda info. All i can say is they are able to do it since shanghai will launch very soon, but roadmaps always stated launching a bit later then november :D so i must have changed in the oktober roadmap... perhaps yields is better then expected and want to get profitable in q4.Quote:
Originally Posted by soundood
If true this is some sweet news!
I'm hoping that these suckers are better than the i7's for gaming. I think they have too much ground to make up in general Windows applications, but I'm really optimistic about the gaming aspect.
Unless I missed it, I have yet to read anything about unlocked multipliers in these AM2+ Denebs. Do we have any idea when the FX models will be out? OR what the pricing differential will be from the locked standard models? :shrug:
Hmm this is key here I will only buy a BE cpu with unlocked multis:yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzman
No one really knows for sure, AFAIK, whether BE line will be continued or not. If it will be, what extra's will FX line bring?Quote:
Originally Posted by Titan7171
I think it's more likely BE line was a placeholder for the FX line since you cant simply ask 1K back in the skt 939 days, now 160 Euro because of Intel's performance and then 1K again with Deneb. It ruins pretty much all your marketing.
Also I had a little theory that the FX line might be the first one to bring high/k and metal gates to AMD's CPU's, but I really cant be sure and nothing points at that direction thus far.
I don't think AMD is in any position to start demanding the same price for their FX line up as Intel are for their Extreme Edition. That would mean the high end Denebs would be going head to head against Nehalem and we already know that Intel's latest offerings are very overclockable and are we sure that AMD could meet the same performance?
One of the reason why I am a fan of AMD at the moment is because of their low pricing, and a BE with unlocked multi is not only fun to play with in terms of OC'ing but the performance for the price is pretty good. Starting to charger 1k per FX CPU would probably be a very stupid thing to do. Unless AMD really do have an incredible innovation for us.
It's a nice theory about the high/k and metal gates though.
the FX days are over, you just cannot ask that sort of price now, the whole game has shifted.
not to say that the FX branding is dead, i supect and agree with the above poster in saying that the high binned high/k and metal gate efforts, will be given the first 'prestige' FX tag.
FX line also had more cache like the Opterons did, and were generally higher grade silicon. So it isnt just an unlocked multi. Whether they make an FX line or keep the BE line I dont really care, as long as they dont start charging massive amounts of money just to get something like an unlocked multi. I honestly wouldnt even care if they made a BE and an FX line that had more cache
What:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by EniGmA1987
Opterons, at least the skt 939's, were exactly the same as FX apart from unlocked multipliers. Actually, FX's were unlocked Opterons.
Deneb FX is real product...only u must wait about 1/2 year .-)
phenom fx is gonna come out. i think amd skipped it this time because barcelona/agena didn't work out too well. june 2009 is my guess for the first deneb fx. lets just hope that this time the fx cpus don't cost $1000+.
It has been mention about the FX returning 2H 2009...I know AMD has a real strong feeling about Shanghi, with the improvements that were made...I bet they are feeling just as good with deneb as well for the desktop users. As soon as this NDA or what ever is lifted.. I hope to see some nice results...I have been trying not to get excited..as I could be let down..I really don't think AMD would bring another product to launch if they didn't feel it could do well.
Ya, they didn't want to label a CPU "FX" if it wasn't performance crown material. The BE is just away to unlock potential easier and with that sell more CPU's that otherwise might get passed by the enthusiast due to the competition. And I know it sold me..I have bought only the BE chips on all my past purchases..Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
FX line could consist of 6 core chips in H2 09,easy as that :).
im not sure if 6 core chips are even coming to desktop. you think they might?Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Yep i do.Die size will be approx. the same or lil larger than with Agena. Shanghai x 6 + 6MB L3 = pwng :)Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
FX = shift to high K and metal gates/increased clock speeds! 2H09
Deneb (or shanhai? lol) should be 15 to 20 % at same clocks speeds with their previous models, but however with the Core i7 awaiting around the corner its going to be a pitty again.
I've bin looking for a while now for a CPU upgrade, this might be the one tho :)
They seem to always have a desktop version of the server part...Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
deneb is appearing to be coming out around the time of shanghai. really tho deneb looks like a big success. agena maxed at 2.6ghz stock and deneb is coming out with 2.8 and 3.0 plus the 15-20% bonus. seems to be overclocking well and if people overclock it to 4ghz it will be a big difference. 15-20% more performance plus another 800 mhz overclock will be a big performance change. (assuming 3.2ghz is average agena overclock and 4ghz is average deneb overclock)Quote:
Originally Posted by lism
Heck, I'll just be happy if theyQuote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
1) Get the thing out the door this year
2) It actually works without any embarrassing bugs
3) Is delivered with respectable clocks
4) Doesn't require a small nukular pile to run it
5) Overclocks respectably, and doesn't require LN02 to cool it
6) Actually works with the existing AM2+ boards and DDR2 8500 with little or no trouble
If they deliver this, most AMD'ers will be happy, and maybe some of the intel fambois who are broke will come back to where it all started. And maybe the shedload of AMD stock I've been buying will be worth more than the pittance it is now.
No more motherboards for me until DDR3 comes WAY down in price, and until then, its just CPUs and SSDs. So Deneb better friggin work
I think Denb is going to be be much better than most people realise. AMD have said themselves that it will bring 20% ipc improvements over Barcelona and we have all seen the 4+ghz overclocks on C1 silicon.
What makes me so positive is the way intel are going about things with this massive paper launch of nehalem, they are throwing everything at it to the detriment of the current penryns which are a great cpu in their own right.
I just get the feeling intel are running scared atm. I have never seen them react this way in my 20+yrs of being around pc's.
Here's hoping.:toast:
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie FX
Right. Intel is running scared at the moment. Even while Nehalem is proving itself on dozens of review sites, and proving itself with a handful of overclockers right here on XS. You don't have to go too far to see what kind of numbers it's putting up. It's quite the chip.
And don't forget what happened the last time AMD threw around performance numbers, because they only managed to talk the talk.
Look, I'm hoping for the best for AMD, and I'm really hoping their new chips do well in games, because I'll switch in an instant, but let's be realistic and realize they have lots of ground to make up against the performance that Intel is producing. I just think "Intel running scared" sounds a little silly at this point, especially considering all the evidence argues against it. But, of course, your 20+ years around PC's must be taken into consideration, because that is a very notable qualification.
Actually I think we are seeing many Intel fans getting nervous.
We have the B2 that came out with a "problem" that AMD admitted. There was a bios update that "stopped" that problem but was not really a "solution".
Then the B3 came out with quick fix to that problem in "hardware." But was it really a FIX? We must ask: Did they FIX that problem with B3 or just throw in something that made it not happen? And did that problem affect actual performance?
If they actually had a problem that was only "masked" by the "fix" then it is VERY possible that the Deneb, if it actually FIXES that problem could be much more than a mere "shrink".
Okay. They add cache. They change a few other things. They actually fix the problem they had. This could be MUCH more than a mere "shrink" from 65nm to 45nm. It could actually be MUCH more than that.
On the other hand we might just see Deneb suddenly make Yorkfield look bad. If that is the only thing that happens... that would be VERY good indeed.
But then based on the fact that it is also an IMC... if it does well against Yorkfield it could also do VERY WELL against the i7. Even if it ONLY does well against Yorkfield that is GREAT. But what I am pointing out is that it could also do very well on all benchmarks that make the i7 look "great". That would be predictable and only someone that is biased would not see that. But then even if it did... it still wouldn't stop the "OMG i7 is going to be the better" posts on this or other forums. Even if it only matched i7 at the same speed... you'd still have the "OMG it's not Intel" crowd. Although it would stop the "I only really care about the price per performance" crowd from making stupid posts.
Will it happen? We do not actually know yet. If might merely be better than what is available now. On the other hand... the Intel "natives" are getting restless. (Which I must admit is very enjoyable to see.)
OTOH: I am tired of the "Q6600 is better than the best AMD has to offer" crowd posting their tripe. That hasn't been true for months but they still post it in a sad attempt to make their opinion "more true" than reality. It would be nice to see the "best" Yorkfields fall short. And guess what? It could happen. If they didn't have a "secret" we probably would have seen leeks. We haven't. That means SOMETHING is going to happen soon. Or not. The only thing we can really say NOW is that we don't know yet.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Trooper
What have I done to you that makes you want to launch into me for making an observation?
Please give me an explanation as to why intel have paper launched nehalem. Seeing as though you appear to know everything.
I dunno how this state of mind and soul is explained trough psychology but I've come to enjoy reading your posts :DQuote:
Originally Posted by soundood
anyhow I know all about upcoming Denebs and that gives me great perspective on DigiTimes articles and reliability of those ;)
Even if true, which I highly doubt, it has absolutely nothing to do with Intel itself running scared, which is the context of the discussion, not the fans running scared.Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
I dunno. Maybe we should ask Dave (Movieman) if he's running scared of AMD with his brand new i7 hardware? :rofl:
It's better when both chips are at their max average overclock, so I think there are two sides to that argument: At stock vs. overclocked. I don't think it has to be anymore complicated than that, at least in my opinion.Quote:
OTOH: I am tired of the "Q6600 is better than the best AMD has to offer" crowd posting their tripe. That hasn't been true for months but they still post it in a sad attempt to make their opinion "more true" than reality. It would be nice to see the "best" Yorkfields fall short. And guess what? It could happen. If they didn't have a "secret" we probably would have seen leeks. We haven't. That means SOMETHING is going to happen soon. Or not. The only thing we can really say NOW is that we don't know yet.
I thought it was appropriate for the situation. Saying that you think Intel is running scared of an unreleased chip, all while their own newest chips are dominating benchmarks, is quite the assumption, is it not? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie FX
i am exactly where you are at with this, and your post has made it easy for me to say it :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by nanohead
fair enough, you just seemed very dismisive of something quite reliable thats allo, each to thier own i suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
all the same i find it very exciteing news, also you will probaly notice that i have never made a comment on the new releases on any thread.
all because i take it all with a pinch of salt, until now that is....
this is looking goood people :up:
Well you are wrong and way out of line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Trooper
It is ok to post and disagree with what I said.
It is not ok to make me out to be an idiot. It shows a distinct lack of respect for a fellow human and it also shows the level of your intelligence.
I made an observation based on 20 years of watching the industry and I have never seen intel react like this before. Why that warrants a personal attack is beyond me.
The fact is AMD has a cpu that has been clocked to over 4ghz on air several times now and I think that would be enough to make intel sit up and take notice.
100% agree with this statement, all the while they are making a transistion to IMC? you better believe they are quaking, one false move here and the middle of the road intel guys will go AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie FX
i have found that Intel guys dont give a monkeys, they go where the speed and stabilty is, if they think that for one second AMD is better, they will move.
More loyalty is held on the AMD side of things i believe, the Intel guys just want to 'drive' the fastest car, whether that is Ferrari or Porsche is irrelavent for them.
I don't think Intel fans are nervous, with the slowest 920 Nehalem outperforming QX9650 occasionally in several benches. I'm one of the few people who would like AMD to do better but very skeptical after the Barcelona debacle. 40%+ performance improvement over Clovertown and all we see is actually the opposite of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
And are you implying that the Phenom 9950 outperforms Q6600? I highly doubt that.
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/1...urs/page30.php
In terms of relative performance, Q6600 does outperform the Phenom 9950. If you're talking about $/performance ratio, that's a different story.
Yukon Trooper just doesn't get it, he is like most of the other fans and refuses to believe that AMD is capable of overtaking intel here.Quote:
Originally Posted by soundood
It was only a few months ago that nvidia fans were singing from the same songbook.
AMD were as quiet as a mouse before the 4 series launch and it's exactly the same here except for the hardspell leaks and Coolaler but they were silenced pretty damn fast. Not a peep out of them since.
Nehalem hasn't been paper launched for no reason. Yes it looks good but AMD don't need to take the performance crown they can do it with price just like HD4870 has done.
We all know only a tiny percentage of cpu's sold are EE's so that's where AMD should slot in quite nicely and I believe intel knows it.
AMD can make their money in the server space where intel still can't compete above 2 way.
cant buy i7 today here, so its a paper launch from Intel if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie FX
If Deneb will be 4ghz clockable, BEditions, cheaper, and able to match i7 then amd has a nice suprise going on.
It's kinda hard to know how Deneb will perform, but I remember that ES which got a "pretty decent" superpi time. If that one was real, it will be a huge improvement over the existing AMD Quads:)
If Deneb will beat Yorkfield or Nehalem for stuff like gaming is impossible to say right now. Which means that the AMD users will find arguments for AMD victory, and the Intel users will find arguments for Intel victory. But then, this is an AMD forum, Intel biased nonsense doesn't belong here - there is another forum for that kind of stuff.:rolleyes:
I think it will be much worse, but I hope you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie FX
They also said that Barcelona would bring 40% over Core 2 and the only people who don't realise how well that turned out are the clowns on AMDZone.Quote:
AMD have said themselves that it will bring 20% ipc improvements over Barcelona
Is the launch of Nehalem any more or less papery than previous Intel new architecture releases?Quote:
What makes me so positive is the way intel are going about things with this massive paper launch of nehalem, they are throwing everything at it to the detriment of the current penryns which are a great cpu in their own right.
Hope springs eternal. :ROTF:Quote:
I just get the feeling intel are running scared atm. I have never seen them react this way in my 20+yrs of being around pc's.
Here's hoping.:toast:
I never understand why Intel fans always seem to lurk and appear from nowhere:sofa: in these types of threads.......its like they are holding on for dear life on the edge clawing on to something they may lose any second. why must they constantly reaffirm their position by patting eachother on the backs constantly? Are they that insecure......That "mine is bigger than yours" logic usually means shortcomings in other areas:shrug:
The 48xx series was a new architecture, Deneb is just a shrink with some extra cache, so your Nvidia comparison is poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie FX
So lets say deneb comes out to be a dud (lets pray it doesnt) but if it does come out like the phenoms, what are the chances they go out of buisness?
I think most are going to be surprised with Deneb. Everyone, even the guys who think it is going to be outstanding. AMD has learned their lesson with Barcalona and I am sure they will not let it happen again.
You do realise Deneb isn't a new architecture, don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by m411b
You do realize that Deneb has not been released yet, dont you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
So you do hold irrational hopes for Deneb and are unaware that it isn't a new architecture?Quote:
Originally Posted by m411b
It not being released is irrelevant and in fact saves you from disappointment that will soon be yours.
So you are threatened and thats why you are in the AMD section starting sh|t!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
"shrinking" the die is much more than just making the size of everything smaller, you have to redesign the architecture as well, at least from what I understood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
48xx are based on R600 no new architecture. So recycling is not so bad :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
LOL!!! How am I threatened?Quote:
Originally Posted by m411b
What kind of tenuous grasp on reality do you have?
Is there something particularly special about the AMD section that I need to know about?
One thing I have noticed though in this section is a number of people holding quite irrationally optimistic views on Deneb's likely prospects.
As much as any new generation of video card is generally referred to as a new architecture, I believe it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
Do we say that the GTX280 is just a recycling of the 88xx series?
You do realize that AMD as said and yes even Dirk, that there ahve been a lot of improvements along with this die shrink. It will be better the 65nm. They said on the record that it has better then expected improvements ion Power Consumtion, and other tweaks. I don't expect it to beat i7 at 8 threads LOL.. but it will be a faster chip then current Phenom's. Which is still better...it is not going to be the same or worse. and it isn't to be priced high. And it is the first 3.0ghz quad from AMD, even 3.0ghz 65nm chips compete comparable in a lot of cases, if this is faster, then it is still better and a desired change. I have AM2+ boards all over my house..so it is a direct fit, no need to spend more then a chip upgrade. Did i ramble off pace here...LOL I am tired and hungry and work is driving me crazy....Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
No they're not, they have the R700 series chip in them. That might be similar to the R600 but it actually functions a lot differently. I'll search for the article, the way the data was handled and everything was different.
AMD's credibility is in tatters in respect of at least their CPU's, so I have relatively low expectations for them, hopefully they can restore my faith, I'm just not counting on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by charged3800z24
Sure Deneb will be better than Phenom, but I very much doubt by the 15 to 20% margins many are claiming, except in niche applications.
You're not worth it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Reported for flame baiting.. :) Have a nice day, and thank God for the ignore function.
You are right, the memory controller is no longer a ring based controller its point2point how most memory controllers work. Not to mention its TMU increase and SP tweaks and increases.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRT-Maverick
The R700 is a vastly improved R600 major changes being what I mentioned and some other low level tweaks in there that I cant remember off top of my head.
wasn't r700 a redsign of shaders ? (because of poor AA and AF on both 2900 Xt and 3870)
http://images.bit-tech.net/content_i...rv670-flow.jpg (3870)
http://prohardver.hu/dl/rev/2008-06/...v770_block.jpg (4870)
up util this point, i was sort of going along with what you were saying, this statement however is nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
here is the math,
2.8 gig = current max offiical clock from AMD
3.0 - 3.2 gig = estimated speed from Deneb
= 15% to 20% increase.
considering most Phenoms will hit 3 gig now, this doesnt seem to 'out there' and some of the lucky guys like Hondaman and charged, are hitting 3.5 gig on water with current Phenoms, then.....
it isnt that much of a leap of Imagination to envisage that the new chips will hit 4 gig? is it?
for me a quad core AMD chip at 4 gig is something to shout about.
and as far as i am concerned a die shrink = new manufactueing process = new architecture, even if this resembles the same architecture as before.
its a differant chip, and no amount of 'its rubbish because' will persaude me otherwise, maybe they will listen to you over at the Intel Forums.
not here
I am talking about IPC, I guess I should have been clearer, but I would hardly be shocked if a 3 Ghz Deneb isn't 20% faster than a 2.6 Ghz Phenom.Quote:
Originally Posted by soundood
Isn't 2.6Ghz the fastest available stock speed?Quote:
here is the math,
2.8 gig = current max offiical clock from AMD
I suspect hitting 4 gig will be notably less common than it is for Penryn Quads.Quote:
it isnt that much of a leap of Imagination to envisage that the new chips will hit 4 gig? is it?
That is quite a perverse interpretation you got going for yourself there. :shakes:Quote:
and as far as i am concerned a die shrink = new manufactueing process = new architecture, even if this resembles the same architecture as before.
Bulldozer will be a new architecture, not Deneb.
....Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
ITS not 2.6ghz vs 3.0ghz = 20% performance boost... IT are Phenom 2.6ghz vs Denab 2.6 thats give = 20% performance boost
The "it's only a die shrink" people remind me of the movie "Life of Brian" about the Romans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
"Deneb is just a shrink. Well okay they did add some cache. Oh yeah and they also increased it to 48-way instead of 32-way. And yes they also probably optimized some of the routines in the processor. And changed cool and quiet for efficiency. Perhaps they tweaked the HT. And perhaps they worked on things we don't know about. But other than those minor things it's just a shrink so what can we expect."
Well not only do I not believe that there will be a 20% IPC boost in going from Phenom to Deneb, I am amazed how many people just believe what they want to believe, rather than what is likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lastviking
Quote:
and as far as i am concerned a die shrink = new manufactueing process = new architecture, even if this resembles the same architecture as before.
ok, if you cant get your head round it, here is the 12 year old version,Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
something made smaller than previous example = new method to make it smaller = a shrinking of previous method, or completely new method.
now even if it looks the same, (Just smaller) doesnt mean this is the same architecture, changes will have to have been made to facilitate the shrinking process
even just shrinking a wire, means this is an architectural change.
plain enough for you?
So what is your fearless prediction for IPC improvement for Deneb over Phenom?Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
I understand what you are saying, I just think it is a ridiculous take on the shrink.Quote:
Originally Posted by soundood
Why should I make one because of a request from a known Intel fanhat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
You don't appear to accept what would be a logical amount even if it was "just a shrink" as you claim; attempting to understand anything more than that might push past the limits of your abilities.
Chad no hard feelings here really, you dont seem confrontational at all, hence why i still reply to you, and your not on my ignore list.
but,
for someone that quotes themself to be a 'overclocking newbie' in an intel forum only two months ago, to then come on here and spew IPC performance is sort of grating.
i do truly believe that you have no idea what your talking about now.
so i wish you all the best over at the intel forum, but remind you that you are not the first, and wont be the last intel boy to come over here, and question our logic.
WE are AMD here, and WE know what we are talking about, we niether want to bench against Intel or compare.
i wish you the best for the future, you are now on my ignore list
bye :up:
Ahhhh so you are all bluster and are easily exposed when called upon it.Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
Face it, Deneb will clearly have less IPC than Penryn and will be lucky to equal Conroe.
I can't help it if you have silly ideas, including that I must be an Intel boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by soundood
Unlike AMD tragics, I will buy from either side depending on who has the edge.
Quite clearly at this point in time, that is Intel, but it may change again in the future.
Well you for sure have made up your mind. So why bother argue? No one will bend their believes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Face it, everyone with a supporting motherboard has a new upgrade option without having to buy a brand new motherboard and DDR3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
Ok both statements listed above are complete bull. Easier to hit 4 on penryn than it will be on Deneb? You gotta be kidding me; clearly you dont own a Q9300/Q9400 on any kind of SLI or Xfire board :yepp: Show me ONE person on these forums who has 533mhz FSB+ and runs any kind of multi GPU setup without using an ES (you wont find anyone).Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Again its been said multiple times from several sources that Deneb will be close to or match penryn which @ 4ghz (or even close) will make it quite competitive with i7 in most games. Deneb will lag in multi-threaded setups however their power consumption will be significantly lower which will still make them competitive in the server markets.
The key thing you fail to grasp is how cache dependant AMD cpus are and always have been. Do you remember the days of 128kb Semprons whooping 6mb P4EE's? No. So what do you think its going to happen when they give current Agena's who are about 25% down from i7 50% more cache and up the extensions by 33% and reduce the latency on the L2 and L3 caches by the same amount?
Ive constantly swapped between intel and amd depending on which is the better of the 2 processors and in this occasion Deneb will end up on top for a whole host of reasons:
Primarly the main reason why I moved back to AMD was because of Intel's move to integrate the IMC to the CPU. That was also the same reason I left AMD 3 years ago. Why? When they moved the MC to the cpu die they sacrificed reliability to save die space and as a result there was significant corrpution and instability with a whole host of A64s. It happened when clawhammer was first launched and happened again with Winchester.
Just like now the initial samples did not show any issues UNTIL it went retail. I gaurn-damn-tee you the intel forum is going to be filled with people having stability issues with RAM. Infact its already started with people not being able to change their memory dividers on certian boards. If its bad now on bloomfield, lynnfield will be even worse why do you think it was delayed because they had to re-wire the CPU socket?
Just like we saw with Penryn we will be limited by the multiplier (since it will be locked on retail chips in addition to the ram multi) I seriously doubt we will see *ANY* i920 or i930 over the 3.5 mark for anything other than benchmarks because there isnt a single board that is able to get over 200 QPI with any sort of reliability. And dont bother citing the one 920 on the forums now because the load temp he is getting is 80c*+ on suicide runs, it by no means is stable nor is it even retail chip to begin with.
AMD's platform for better or worse is far more mature than intel's so even if its 5 or 10% slower than i7 Ill take that anyday if it means it wont crash all the time and I dont have to spend my money on very expensive DDR3 which will be a requirement to even get i7 close to the 3.5 mark
IPC is not everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
One of my expert friend says that the main problem with the K10 is in the memory subsystem. So I hope they could achieve some improvements in it.
Interesting performance analysis between Core 2 and K8. http://realworldtech.com/page.cfm?Ar...2808015436&p=1
Sentential this guy has posted basicly 3 pages of bull, he really hasnt got a clue what he is on about.
read back (if you can be bothered)
its sort of funny, the inane comments he has come away with
we really need to start to ignore these intel fanboys and wannabes, heres an idea, shall we have like an International Alarm?
like the US Advisory System or something?
hows this one?
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/k...lert-small.jpg
that way we all know when something is up....:rofl:
Chad Boga heres yours
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/k...d/elevated.jpg
Maybe so but this is the same thing I told Gautam:
This is the same thing people were saying when AMD had 2 consecutive issues with scaling when a new fab process rolled out. I and others said this was bad news for AMD long term and now look at where we are.Quote:
So you're telling me that Nelhalem using tri-channel ram WITH an imc that is ring-bus based controller and 8 threads only beats Penryn by maybe 5% in heavily multi-threaded games? And it does this while dissapating 175W+ (high 60s low 70s load temps, ie Smithfield)?... Wow intel is hosed
Just like back then the only thing AMD had to keep the Pent 4s at bay was efficiency because despite being a brand new tech it all scaled like crap. While going up against a 5 year old design (which is exactally what is going on now) that was worn out and well past its prime.
The fact that nelhalem scales poorly and has significant heat dissapation without bringing anything notable to the table in raw thoroughput is a BAD sign for intel.
The 9950 does outperform a Q6600Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-ph...cessor-tested/
In this review it's a back and forth battle, this was kinda neatQuote:
Originally Posted by Baam
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=206025
I'm sorry if I insulted you, because that was never the intention. I was trying to use a dash of sarcasm to embolden what I thought about your presumptions. I just think "Intel running scared" is a little adventurous in conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie FX
Yes, Intel sitting up and taking notice is one thing, but Intel running scared is something totally different.
Just back up a few steps. I'm not an Intel fanboy, and I think this where you have me all wrong. I don't know what you mean by AMD overtaking Intel, but I do believe they will put a competitive chip on the market, as they are kind of in a position where they have to, considering they can't afford to have another Phenom mishap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie FX
Look, I already said I'd love to go back to an AMD system, so please don't label me as an Intel fanboy, as that is another adventurous conclusion. Before my C2D system, I had a 3800+ X2 and X1900XT, but Phenom just didn't have the performance I was after when it was released. If AMD can release a chip that is similar in performance to Nehalem at a competitive price, I will hop back on the AMD train pronto.
Which brings me to my next point: It just seems that whenever a company neutral guy comes into these AMD sections, and even makes the slightest mention that Intel has faster chips, which is totally accurate, they get flame-basted like a midsummer Californian wildfire.
Not really. Intel targeted Nehalem for processing lots of threads vs. emphasis on single threaded performance. It still does quite well on single threads, at least as good as current C2D's, its just not a huge jump like some people are expecting for some reason. Intel (and IIRC AMD) has said many times that many-core is the future since the effort needed to get more single threaded performance became burdensome a long time ago and is now becoming impracticle. At some point in time you're going to see chips from Intel/AMD which have down right crappy single thread performance on a per core basis, but will have hundreds if not thousands of cores. Nehalem is just Intel's 2nd step in that direction (IIRC quad/dual cores were their first).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentential
QFT, Even giving a realistic opinion gets you labelled a fanboy ffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Trooper
you know just from reading the threads that have deneb in the name i have mentally created a list of people that just come to the amd forums to flame people. its the same people everytime and chad i really don't think you know anything about amd.
but at least soon all this flaming will end because if deneb does come out soon or shanghai at least then we will see how it is. i think deneb will be really well but theres nothing to say for certain yet. same thing with nehalem. don't tell me of all the benchmarks you have seen for it, if it has not been released yet you don't know how it will be. the original intent of this thread was to let people in the amd section know that deneb might be coming soon. instead this has turned into a flame war inbetween 2 unreleased processors with no one here being able to provide any information that will back it up. you can hope and guess what you think will happen but no one can say deneb sucks or nehalem sucks until they are actually released.
I'm completely with you on this one, the problem that I have is that this chip is supposed to be the basis for all of their new cpus for the next 5 years or so and if this is all they have to offer they are in trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by mesyn191
I understand the arguement about threading, I do, but my concern is that we are comparing a brand new arch vs a design that is atleast 4 years old (Clawhammer -> Agena)
It would be one thing if Nelhalem was a 16/32 core chip with 64k of cache per core and it wound up peforming this well but its not, its a quad with hyperthreading and tri-channel RAM that provides zero peformance gain in multi-threaded games.
So what should we expect of lynfield? Is it going to be worse than C2D? By all accounts it should be. As for bloomfield and 1366 I believe this socket will quickly dissappear just like Socket 940 did back in the A64 days leaving only LGA1158 as being the widely adopted platform which will have less peformance, and poorer overclocking than bloomfield does.
Then what does this say of K11 when it arrives sometime late next year? Multi-thread or not if they dont get the peformance up they are going to get whomped by whatever AMD has to offer come next year.
This is the same arguement made about physics cards. Oh its wonderful this, oh its next-gen that. Bottom line is that it didnt deliver. Sure it may be future-proof but what good does it do if no one programs for it?
Hell 64bit procesors have been around over 5 years now and we have still yet to see any widespread adaptation to the new format. So what does that say to this philosophy of "more cores?"
Believe you me Ive got no axe to grind here, hell I argued that Pentium Ds were a better buy back in the hay-day of the A64s because of the early issues with AMD flawed initial mem-controllers and said that Conroe would *destroy* any market share AMD had gotten once it was released and I was ridiculed for it.
In this occassion I just dont see Intel as viable anymore. The heat dissapation issues with Nelhalem and its lack of ability to scale is going to ultimately doom Intel unless they can fix this with the 32nm process.
The only way that Intel is not going to get overrun next year is if they can get some serious clock scaling because if AMD makes any substantial changes to their arch they will quickly catch up to Intel and we will be right back to where we were back in the Netburst days. Intel will once again have a bloated chip that is only competitive due to its enormous cache size because it was made on a smaller fab process.
We are pretty much at the same exact apex right before the release of Clawhammer back in 2002. Intel had a faster chip that had significant heat dissapation and cost significantly more than the AMD equivalent. AMD chips were cheap as hell and when on certian combinations could come very very close to their Northwood counterparts. AMD was left with an ageing arch and were thought left for dead since they were a good 10-20% IPC below current HT enabled P4s.
Then AMD after many many delays finally got a viable new arch and then everyone hopped back on the bandwagon.
Only difference is I'm hopping on now while I can get top dollar for my existing C2D equipment
And just what exactly is there to know about AMD?Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
They have been behind in performance on the desktop ever since Core 2 was released and it doesn't appear that has any hope of changing until they release a new architecture.
It is difficult to imagine that Deneb will be a game changer, even if it does end up improving AMD's competitive position somewhat, but saying this apparently makes me a heretic.
Some people need to take a more rational approach.
I find it really strange how you have chosen to identify so closing with the corporation AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by soundood
Do you have difficulties forming normal relationships with people and have become attached to AMD as a result?
So stating your speculations as facts is a rational approach?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
5yr.? Source please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentential
Its my understanding that K10 has about as much to do with K8 as C2D had to do with the PIII, strongly related/inspired by yes but not the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentential
I'm sure I've seen benches where it does great in UT3 based games and that is heavily multi-threaded, AFAIK not much out there ATM to compare...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentential
Can you expand on this? I didn't know we had heard so much about Lynfield yet. Same in regards to K11 too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentential
AFAIK both major x86 CPU makers are going in the same direction, just taking slightly different routes to get there, if programmers want to get performance out of either of them they won't have much choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentential
Historically it normally takes ~10 yr. for any major architectural changes to achieve widespread use in programming. There were similar issues when switching over from 16 to 32 bit software IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentential
Thats generally about how long each major revision lasts generally speaking (or atleast these last couple of years it has been)Quote:
Originally Posted by mesyn191
K10 and K8 are pretty much identical iirc the only thing that seperates them is the cache sizes, latency and instruction sets but the basic building blocks are the same which is why their IPC is almost identical. K8 to K10 chips are about as similar northwood to prescott/pressler. Ya its a different chip but its more or less the same.Quote:
Its my understanding that K10 has about as much to do with K8 as C2D had to do with the PIII, strongly related/inspired by yes but not the same thing.
As far as conroe vs p3 ya you could make that arguement as well but the chief difference would be conroe's out-of-order read/write in its internal pipeline plus a whole bunch of tweeks.
Ive seen a couple crysis benchmarks and those are threaded, frankly I would like to see a world of warcraft comparison as that is probably the most highly threaded game I can possibly think of.Quote:
I'm sure I've seen benches where it does great in UT3 based games and that is heavily multi-threaded, AFAIK not much out there ATM to compare...
Lynfield is identical to Bloomfield with the exception that lyn is strictly dual-channel and in addition it incorporates a PCI-E controller on-die like Phenoms doQuote:
Can you expand on this? I didn't know we had heard so much about Lynfield yet. Same in regards to K11 too.
Again I agree, but Nelhalem is a step in the wrong direction. By all accounts it ought to slaughter Penryn by 30% or more because the main bottle-neck for C2Ds was the available bandwidth between the cores / memory. So one would think that there would be a difference between dual and tri channel. So far its only a measly 200 points... thats NOT a good sign.Quote:
AFAIK both major x86 CPU makers are going in the same direction, just taking slightly different routes to get there, if programmers want to get performance out of either of them they won't have much choice.
Ya again I agree, the problem is that Intel is betting the farm on the programs actually being there for this CPU to shine, so far it hasnt happened nor does it look like it will anytime soon.Quote:
Historically it normally takes ~10 yr. for any major architectural changes to achieve widespread use in programming. There were similar issues when switching over from 16 to 32 bit software IIRC.
it is hard having an educated conversation with you as you just make stuff up and so things without fact. and i can't believe you think others need to take a more rational approach when you don't know any facts at all. just because you believe intel is better and amd is completely behind in performance doesn't mean you need to come in here when amd is releasing a new chip and acting like ehhhhh its gonna suck. you have no basis for you information other than your opinion and because of that you having nothing to say of use my friend. :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Well, AMD is not hugely lacking in performance..They just don't have a high end dhip out yet. The Current Phenoms hold their own at their price. It is just right now AMD has a lil less edge in the market they are in. Just like Intel did a few years back. AMD stated back a few months ago ( I will try to find the source...) that they did not intend on stealing the performance crown yet, and will focus on the low and midrange in the desktop CPU side. There quad cores do well in the Multi server market, and shanghi will extend the performance quite well. They are focusing on servers where it is more profitable for them. The desktop side will just see a nice boost which is a plus for us AM2/AM2+ owners. And who knows, we might see a nice surprise with Deneb...they said they had better then expected results in the revisions made to the 45nm chips.
Edit for posting something stupid
+1 you always feel the need to enlighten people. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by charged3800z24
Well, I just hope the above mentioned "they said they had better then expected results in the revisions made to the 45nm chipset." statement from them is true this time. I remember around before the launch of the phenom they said the same thing about it and it was a let down to everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by charged3800z24
Phenom has finally grown into something worthy, I think, but at first it had a stumbling jump outta the gate.
I just wonder if the above statement applys to all us enthusiasts who are hoping to 3-4ghz on air easily....vs what they(AMD) are truely internally satisfied with ie: 3.3ghz or something meager...