Printable View
thanks brent, i usually try not to let my emotions get the better of me, even though i'm probably one of the most pro-amd guys around :lol2:
however, sometimes i just read what people say the wrong way... (yourself included..sorry.) but you're right. we all need to learn to concede a point to the opposing side a bit better, myself especially :fact:
but that aside.. it's time to get back on topic :woot:
Get back on topic ? AMD section hasn't been "ON TOPIC" since conroe launched lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzimark
I only wished people would share results and answer questions instead of speculate...on topic was a lost cause a LONG time ago :lol:
Perkam
how about for the 65nm K8 then? It's alerting quite for a chip that is suppose to be out in December.Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzimark
perkam... sadly true. i know i'll be sharing quite a bit once i get my hands on revG... for now, AM2 is just not worth talking about, since performance is so similar to 939, and most serious benchers have switched to C2D..
for not speculating.. we need someone to get ahold of an ES in order to do that. where oh where is our good buddy s7e9h3n when we need him? :para: :shakes:
From Monza (Italy) in the World Cyber Games 2006 Amd present a preview of the 4x4 Quadfather, the bases of the k8l
http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/cpu/1585/titolo.jpg
http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/cpu...istema_1_s.jpg
for more info read here
I couldnt agree more..... :lol2:Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
maybe Pentium EE? HThreading is a miracle -)Quote:
Originally Posted by Esticbo
Looking forward to it.
Or a Sin against God, all depends on how you look at itQuote:
Originally Posted by MAS
will this be beter then kentfeild
Yeah,it seems that all that talk that FX62 is not the gamers CPU is down the sewer :D .Indeed it can handle the power of single G80.Let's see some SLI benches.I guess it will hold it's own even there.It basicaly matched the C2D XE at the same clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by PallMall
What happened with all the doomsday predictions for FX and how only Conroe will be able to make G80 scream ? :p:
Edit: PallMall your math is a bit wrong :D,since FX would score (with perfect scaling) 2.93/2.8 * 10000 = 10646 :). So almost the same.
PS We know that thanks to IMC A64 scales almost perfectly with clock increases.
Aren't those scores held back by the GPU though?:)
Yeah G80 is surely the bottleneck :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by red
On a serius note,we should wait for Sli numbers.
Looking on VictorWangs benches, you expect the 3DMark06 score to get a 600 point CPU score for 133mhz :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
VictorWang got 11314 with a 3.7Ghz C2D. So if the C2D gains 800points on 800Mhz. How likely is it that a FX62 would gain 600points on 133Mhz? IF we asume the 10000 and 10500 numbers are correct.
Different arch. you can't make direct comparisons based on clockspeed in any bench like that, particularly with one so crappy as 3DMark06 which is more of a glorified GPU bench then a system/CPU benchmark.
of course. thus why it's 3Dmark, not SYSmark :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by mesyn191
does anybody have 4x4 2xopteron 2XX @3GHz system?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
nope just some people have 2P or 4P systemsQuote:
Originally Posted by MAS
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
http://www.amdboard.com/65nm_120605.html
see, i still have this lingering feeling that the 65nm cpu's released this quarter aren't just "rev.g" as we think of it
i know, i know, lots of info pointing at q3'07 for k8l....but...there's just such little info out on just what exactly is coming out..
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35382
Go A1:pQuote:
The problem is the first rev of parts, the A0 silicon, is a little on the buggy side, but it does work. A1 fixes a lot of those bugs, and is due to be in AMD's hands literally any day now.
Once A1 is up and running, it should be more than demoable, but give it 2-3 weeks before we know for sure. The first major event after that is the analysts meeting, so I am guessing that is where it will break cover for real with a possible showing to the privileged few before that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PallMall
You seem to be missing a very important point. If you substitute a $225 E6400 for the XE6800 in those tests, the E6400 would be as close to the FX62 as the FX62 is to the XE6800. The E6600 and E6700 would both outscore the FX62. GPU limited tests are not good measures of CPU performance.
If you agree with me that it does nothing to support what he was trying to say then what was your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzimark
Sysmark is pretty much useless as well BTW, the only synthetic general purpose benchmark that is worth a damn would be SPEC2K INT/FP and even it is highly inaccurate, only useful for making ball park comparisons.
AMD is using 4 stressor technologies at the initial announcement, they published results of their 65 nm at the fall 2005 IEDM in December. This was the publication that generated the '40% improvement' headline.Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
Here is a link to the key data:
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cf...3005001504&p=7
The actual paper was published in the IEEE proceedings of IEDM 2005, which can be found at about any major library (academic/engineering library).
When examining the parametric transistor data, it is not quite that impressive and aligns with the current leaked roadmap of max 2.6 GHz 65 nm parts at first launch.
In their paper AMD states DSL, embedded SiGe, stress memorization, and sSOI as the 4 stressors. Interestingly, after IEDM sSOI disappeared from any bulleted list for any public presentation to date, implying they are holding that more secret or dropping it from the implementations.
Going back to the IEDM 2005 publication, AMD presented data on their 2nd major embedded SiGe revision, the first revision did not show a huge improvement. In the send revision they are getting a decent improvement in PMOS. Interesting, and not touted by AMD, was a blurb that they had data on 3rd generation embedded SOI which improved PMOS about another 10%.
If you compare the data at 65 nm at the IEDM 2005 to the Intel 65 nm Process, AMD is about 10-12% slower than Intel's process, however, the 3rd generation puts PMOS at about the same performance to about 5% higher if they implement that SiGe. I personally believe that will come later on as this is typically how AMD pushes process technology -- get it working and tweak it up over time.
For NMOS, AMD has not published anything encouraging and, going by the 65 nm data currently available, lags Intel by about 10%. Considering the rumor mill is full of leaked roadmaps with the max 65 nm release speed of 2.6 GHz, it is likely AMD has spend most of the time just trying to get yield and has not improved much from this initial disclosure.
While I cannot link the PDF file for the IEDM paper (copyright violation), I can certainly give you the citation such that you can go look it up yourself. I would need to dig it up, it is xeroxed somewhere and buried in my pile of papers.
JJ
K8L cores were renamed
Athlon 64 FX -> Altair FX -> Agena FX;
Athlon 64 X4 -> Altair -> Agena;
Athlon 64 X2 -> Antares -> Kuma
no stars in roadmaps ))))