Printable View
http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/167/167267_1.shtml
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php?ti...me=0&endtime=0
http://img2.pcpop.com/ArticleImages/.../000377897.jpg
http://www.rubyworks.net/quarkimages/Barcelona.jpg
http://www.planet3dnow.de/news_image..._cloverton.jpg
:) Isn't that cute that they show Clovertown's increased TDP..while they're still lower than AMD's for the most part?:p:
Max "idle" TPD?
Yay more slides and no product to back up the marketing spew.
well, they actually show +%, so the dual core would be 120w not 80w, and quad-core would be 180w not 120w, and so on down the line with their respective +%Quote:
Originally Posted by red
lol amd is just getting stupid with the comparatives slides.
same cpu cores same watts or lower and they :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: about it, they should really get to work and improove the arch... to beat intel
Didn't you claim K8L to be 25% better? :DIt better with with those quad clocks..
Vulgar, I think your math is wrong?:(
yea no kidding.Quote:
Originally Posted by metro.cl
but ALL companies do it, if you don't have the best product you need to market whatever you do have.
Yeah, that. I am seriously considering framing this :)Quote:
Originally Posted by red
And the guy who made this doesn't understand what "Thermal Design Power" is. Note: there is a reason why it is not called "Power" or "Thermal Power".
wow stop throwing processors at mobo's and start adding cores to cpus.
ClovertonQuote:
Originally Posted by red
Dual Quad % +
80W 120W 50%
80W + 50% = 120W for dual core
120W + 50% = 180W for quad core
their claim, not mine.. math is spot on..
That would be fine if we could have low-cost 4 socket boards. But we don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by wangerin
As far as we can tell the number of CPU sockets in board classes will not change for AMD quad-cores. That means more than 2 sockets you go really deep into server class pricing, server class space requirements, same as socket 940 and same as Intel.
Right now Intel doesn't have Core2s for more than 2 sockets so AMD is still leading.
But if AMD maxes out at 2.5 GHz and keeps the same socket number as in 940 and 1207 then they are in trouble.
The 'Extreme' dual core Woodcrest 3GHz 5160 is 80W. The 'Extreme' quad core 2.66GHz Clovertown is 120W.:stick: You aren't reading the chart correctly. On the left side are dual cores, separated into 3 rows of performance, mainstream, energy efficient. On the right side is quad cores..:)
umm that isn't an AMD slide
oh i see, it's the percentage of watts increased to go from dual to quad...oops
Umm.. Once again, thanks for the very insightful comment:rolleyes: I totally thought that was an official slide from AMD, greyness and all.
So anyone have have any idea how much of an improvement clock for clock these should be..combined with the low clocks..for total guesstimated performance:D
First, remember that the angle of the dangle is perpendicular to the heat of the meat, and proportional to the mass of the a$$, making it better for the eater and tighter for the .....pipelinesQuote:
Originally Posted by red
so i'd like to predict it to be at least 1% better clock for clock...
AMD will be a laggard till K8L, but if Intel did not believe K8L was a major threat, then it would not have needed to make plans for yorkfield to launch simultaneously so soon after core2 launch.Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGGER
Perkam
i like the chart. Saying that their native quad core will perform better than the kentsfield. Who knows maybe it can, what i DO know is that a little slide of a chip that doesnt seem to yet exist surely isnt out performing squat!
I never liked the MCMs as I don't like hot chips. If Amd will be first with a native quad then hey, they've done a good job. I'm not impressed however how long it took (is taking?) for the K8 65nm shrinq. They better be faster with their 45nm chips or they will be in trouble.
I would consider a Kenty if they were cheaper though. Imo, $500 or so and it would be a nice price. :)
its gonna be 25% over C2D, i just don't like the wattage claimsQuote:
Originally Posted by red
:confused: So this means @ the same clock barcelonas twice as fast core for core??? Or am I missing something here??? WTF is a tick?Quote:
Originally Posted by red
Anyone else see the 2.5GHz limitation as a "good thing"?
AMD is currently in a rut in terms of performance. There's no way they'll release K8L without taking back the performance crown, or at least being very competitive (ie either win or tie). This means that AMD thinks that 2.5GHz will be enough against Kentsfield.
Or may be AMD can't reach higher frequencies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
It may be very competitive against QX6700 but what about higher clocked Kentsfield or even Yorkfield?
It's not a question of being able to reach higher frequencies. AMD can obviously do so if it's designed to go to 2.9GHz. It's a matter of yields. 2.9GHz is doable, but yields are obviously lower. Therefore, going higher is to be avoided unless necessary.
It will be another slap in AMD's face if the "glued"/MCM/whatever Intel's quadcore outperforms the "unglued"/native/whatever AMD's quadcore.
Well I think the following probably holds true, or at least I guess more people will assume roughly this
1) AMD Barcelona will be a lot more powerful than K8
2) It will have a great punch per Mhz
3) It will be at least a match for Kentsfield.
I guess the unknowns are how high it will clock and how it does against Yorkfield for price and performance. I still think that the 2 core versions of Barcelona or Yorkfield might be a more clever bet for the thrifty home user though. I know it's not as sexy though.
I guess we all wish it was closer though. It's not even 2007 yet and 2H2007 seems a long way away.
Regards
Andy