Let us not forget that this thread is not about graphic cards ;)
Printable View
Let us not forget that this thread is not about graphic cards ;)
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
And add [H] on that list of "don't want them to get at it early" for me too :devil:
And yeah, AMD is "saying" to release those boards you were seeing with their own chipsets along with the Agena FX release (after Barcelona for server).
I would "guess" (because even inside the industry you cannot do more than that right UNTIL the very last minute) mid Q3 for the Agena FX, the AMD boards and the 'ol 65nm XTX. But I know Computex is hot on the agenda so you never know.
Additionally competition is so rough 'n aggressive right now, with Intel on the upper edge obviously and already shooting its prices down, let alone then. Price wise AMD cannot match that with their new offerings already (unless some lower clocked ~1.9-2.3GHz Kuma better a E6750/E6850 :eek:) and would therefore rely on the mid-higher range for fame 'n fortune I feel.
We enthusiasts are not even 0.1% of their intended market. The world is mostly based on price and then performance along with local availability and "trends" when buying, with the server/workstation/OEM market the largest and most profitable by far, and yet they look to good performance, business relationship, low TDP of the biggest factors.
I have no idea how they perform, too much gobble wobble around, not just online, even inside the industry professionals. Though AMD vs Intel processors have always been top notch when released, whereas ATi vs nV is a different story altogether, more usual to see them on par with each other.
People have to realize the Core 2 Duo architecture is damn very good for it's time to level, let alone beat. Early stages I reckon the Penryn: Wolfdale/Yorkfield at 3.33GHz will not be much of an improvement over a QX6800/QX6850 at 3.33GHz. And I have seen early performance to base this on, although they were not tuned and tweaked at best for release, they were ES samples that Intel saw fit to pimp.
But I predict that the Barcelona cores will be hits in the OEM/Server/Workstation (Home/Business/Governmental) markets (like SP/DP/MP - SMP, MIMD, NUMA, MISD, ASMP and multi-node configs for supercoms due to low TDP etc). I suspect their highest will do well for desktop range too (no idea how well), but how the middle and low end stack up is probably what will decide their outcome in the desktop market I feel.
I'll wait as I deem it only sensible to and hardly believe much around until I see it tested by someone trustable and with credibility beyond site hit gathering. Could easily turn out just as what happened with R600 now. (the highest main one not released - although we haven't seen the XT's stable performance yet, but promises from AMD for the new 8.38 driver and the one after it that supposedly fixes the AA issues- hopefully in the next 2 weeks a decent "valid" review should be out rather than a preview, as far as I'm hearing from some reviewers). ;)
http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/1...tsfinalci9.gif
ho hum; i hope something turns up in the next 6 months.
multicores was/is supposed to reduce the "need" for higher clocks as the only performance measure...but it is now more cores and higher clocks as fab processes continue to improve and shrink.
Which makes me hungry for more cores and more speed.
...waiting like a drooling vulture...:slobber: :brick: :rolleyes:
it seems in the intel camp that only a few motherboards are capable of achieving high fsb's with current quad core chips. (eg. EVGA 680i, p5k)...so i'm not rushing into an intel quad at this stage.
I reckon AMD X4/barc/agena/some variant of...will be a quad core option. I hope they overclock well...or i might just update to a newer sli board when it arrives and plonk in a yorkfield....impossible to predict...i just hope that AMD come up with the goods.
...and then intel will bring out Nehalem in 2008 and the tables will turn again probably.
AMD shows sunny side of Barcelona:
http://news.com.com/AMD+shows+sunny+...l?tag=nefd.top
I'm surprised that only Cnet has reported about this as of yet and I couldn't find it mentioned anywhere else. Im sure they weren't alone while demonstrating. Maybe tommorow.. But at least it seems like wer'e getting close to seeing some numbers at last.Quote:
AMD demonstrated its Barcelona quad-core server chip for reporters and analysts here Monday, comparing its performance to one of AMD's dual-core Opteron processors. This marked the first time AMD shared Barcelona performance information with anyone outside of its server partners and internal folks, said Randy Allen, corporate vice president for server and workstations at AMD.
The company ran a demo comparing the performance of two four-socket servers, one using the quad-core Barcelona chip and one using a dual-core Opteron chip. The demo measured the performance of the chips on an imaging benchmark called POV-Ray, and as you might expect, the quad-core chip finished its task quicker than the dual-core chip.
The quad-core chip processed about 4,000 pixels per second in rendering the image, while the dual-core chip could only hit around 2,000 pixels per second.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS, This doesn't indicate any performance levels, But it's a good sign to see they're out there.
Please take in mind that it could be complete BS, And I cant validate any of this so don't take this for granted.
It's not a benchmark, just the average plys\KNs reads from the game.
Zappa on a 32 threads AMD (Barcelona core):
http://216.25.93.108/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13936Quote:
Zappa Zanzibar X64: 28.7 ply; 24,375kN/s Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 8270 2612MHz, (32 threads)
Saw the Cnet article earlier and came here expecting lots of posts with more info about it + the usual fan-boy quarreling =)
Had to dig myself then, QX6800 does 2613 in POV-Ray according to Intel
http://www.intel.com/performance/des...iid=qc_tl+dis3
And X6800 only 1318.
So is this one of the benchmarks where AMD is already doing better than Intel, same as was the case with Spec-FP_rate benches released earlier? No more PER CORE than what current Opterons can do, not so very impressive.
And i dont get it from the Cnet article, is this meassured per processor or per 4 processors?
4-socket board with only 1 processor mounted, maybe thats what it means.Quote:
comparing the performance of two four-socket servers, one using the quad-core Barcelona chip and one using a dual-core Opteron chip.
ted3, based on the rough score of 2000 pixels/s for the dual-core Opteron system, it would suggest that it would be a comparison of dual-socket systems.
http://www.2cpu.com/review.php?id=114&page=11
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._11.html#sect0
It sure looks like its dual socket then. Hope for more news on this, the CNet article is messed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
And if it is 2 sockets, why does dual Clowertown score higher... Maybe its 2 Opterons vs 1 Barcelona.
no but:Quote:
Originally Posted by ted3
look like they have probleme to show high performance... That is probably why we wait always and always for something clear...Quote:
Allen said Barcelona was not running at the fastest clock speed that will be available at launch, although he declined to specify the speeds that will be available.
You v' probably miss that even "not true" quadcore are twice as fast than dualcore on povray. (perhaps, you doesn't mean 1 vs 1?)Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
Quote:
Originally Posted by ted3
Its possible, in some benches C2D can double the score of Yonah. Noone expected it but it still happened =)Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
AMD said about 70% faster than K8, This coud be true :DQuote:
Originally Posted by LOE
http://theinq.com/images/articles/POV_Barcelona.jpg
So umm .. 16 cores? i'm confused now.. am I missing anything, or that the Inq is misinformed?Quote:
The Opteron machine on the left was started first and the Barcelona box finished in far less time. The raw results were about 2200 pixels per second on the Opteron while the Barcelona hit "just over" 4000 on the POV Bench.
The systems it showed were identical 4S AMD development platforms running DDR2 memory and HE (65W) chips. Nothing was changed between the two platforms other than the BIOS.
doesen't make sense at all..(Clovertown X5365 8 cores 4677 POV-ray according to Xbitlabs)
http://theinq.com/default.aspx?article=39756
[edit typo]
70% now?Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho
It started with 42%, then 46% then 50% and now 70%?
Sounds like the 2 eggs that became 5 chickens.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._11.html#sect0Quote:
Originally Posted by Face
But they also state about 2000 for a dual dualcore FX74 setup (4 cores). And these 2000 should be with 8 K8 cores.
Sounds fishy...
I think they configured the bench differently or used some scene that most sites don't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGiv9Dtrc5Q
AMD man claims same GHz. So 16 K10 cores are just 80% faster than 8 K8 cores? Bad scaling anyone? If they compared with 8 K10, that 80% should be even smaller (or maybe K10 not that improved).
Without specific reliable information this is meaningless. AMD does themselves no favors by making tests like this public and not disclosing specifics, then they open to speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
40% between barcelona 2.4 and clovertown 2.66.
50% better at same clock with clovertown.
70% per core vs K8 at same clock.
simple;)
madcho: you are watching too many movies and you are consuming too much AMD marketing.
It's a little confusing. But I guess, they are comparing scalability: between 4S dual core K10 and 4S quad core K10.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
If it is quad vs dual K10, then 80% isn't bad. But in the video, they call one machine "Opteron" then the quad "Barcelona"..
http://www.uberpulse.com/us/2007/05/...ce_as_fast.php
And this site which I presume has been more informed than us claims that it's "one with the Barcelona quad core chip and the other with a shipping dual core processor."
quite true!Quote:
Originally Posted by frankR
I understood it like this:
both systems used 4 socket mobos,
Opreton was dual core, so that means 8core total and scored 2000
K10 was quad core , so that would mean 16cores total and it scored 4000
If this is true it looks very bad considering it is the NEW architecture!!
To be more specific, according to this vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGiv9Dtrc5Q
8 "Opteron" got 2200 pixels/second in 112 seconds and 16 Barcelona got 4000 in 56 seconds. About 80% scaling...
twice the pixels/second in half the time, that's theoretically 4x the performance with only twice as many cores, using same or less thermal envolope, and at possibly less speeds, if what the inq says is true (inq says 65w and not the highest clock to be released)Quote:
Originally Posted by red
if that's how the setup ran (4 quads new arc vs. 4 dual old arch), then it sounds good to me