AMD will always be behind Intel in fabs. They just don't have the money to push to the next process as quickly as Intel. Let Intel spend all the money to work out the bugs, then AMD will follow.
Printable View
AMD will always be behind Intel in fabs. They just don't have the money to push to the next process as quickly as Intel. Let Intel spend all the money to work out the bugs, then AMD will follow.
Hopefully the K10 won't turn out like the R600. That would suck.
http://www.uberpulse.com/us/2007/05/...e_you_ship.php
In other news, Intel scores 4933 with 8 cores compared to "just over 4000" from the 16 Barcelona cores. This demo didn't have much to do with performance as much as it had to do with... Barcelona existing :down:
red,follow this link :http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/r...1703&forumid=1
It shows that seemingly "same" beta can bring diff. results.
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_quadfx/11.shtml
What are you trying to prove with that link? My point was that the POVray bench wasn't indicative of performance relative to Intel since obviously they could do better. Also, I don't think Intel would have done the stunt unless they knew how Barcelona performed with normal clocks in POVray. And something that has yet to be explained is why 16 K10 only scales 80% against 8 (presumably) K8 cores.
Yes that also,but also the fact that there are different betas of the same version that yield different results.So 8 Core(intel) Vs 16 K10 is not an accurate comparison since we know nothing specific about the (sub)version AMD used and the system specs.
:yawn2:
To put it simply, AMD didn't dare demo against Clovertown, Intel wouldn't have stuck their neck out unless they had an idea of Barcelona performance, 80% scaling for 16 K10 vs 8 K8 is not impressive.
It's a demo of multicore, not a barcelona demo, they don't want to say how it perform i think.
POV ray smp is always beta.
http://www.uberpulse.com/us/2007/05/...ll_unknown.php
They confirm that it's 16 K10 vs 8 K8 as reported before.
It's not a demo, it's a joke...Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho
Since March 2007Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho
http://www.intel.com/performance/des...drendering.jpg
98% faster when doubling core and now 16 K10 vs 8 K8 can't even not show 98% faster???
There's a lot more that can be done with K8 if the Intel handn't introduced core 2 so fast.
It isn't to bad though....comments such as "I'm tired of waiting for k10 "annoy me, as frankly ppl should just not visit the thread if they feel this way. Coming to this thread everyday hoping for some miraculous new news isn't going to push up the release date, and neither will whining about or bashing the company.
Perkam
Eh? 4X the cores and a slight frequency results in a 3.56X increase in throughput. Clock-normalize it and its about 3.48X.Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
I messed up my math, and as thus deleted my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
QFT *sits on hands*Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
Thankgod someone said it,
The more you hang off every bit of news, the longer it seems to take. And the more silly you look.
AMD are not the company to hurry and push things along just becuase they're getting beaten to a pulp. They're far more structured than that, They also have long had a policy of being tight lipped.. Everyone's said it a billion times, it's really getting old.
Just shutup and wait, or go buy a C2D, for the sake of everyone having to read your emo crap :p
Just 2 more months now :D
Hamid....open up photoshop or fireworks and pls resize that to max 1024xsomething.
Perkam
more info straight from the source:
more hereQuote:
Originally Posted by AMD
That graphic raises as many questions as it answers. Since AMD has already demonstrated they have working samples of Barcelona, why would we be interested in "estimates" and "internal simulations" instead of actual benchmarks? Also the Xeon 5355 is the 2.66 GHz part, which has already been superseeded. Also the Barcelona "simulation" assumes 2.6 GHz, is that clockspeed a given (for launch)?Quote:
Originally Posted by eXceededgoku
Didn't they already say 20% better on INT and 50% better on FP for SPEC at the same clock?
The FP was SpecFp_rate, which is mainly a memory bench. K8 already beat Intel here with 20% or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
INT might be rate aswell. But I havent seen the INT numbers.
sourceQuote:
The clock speed of AMD Barcelona was.....
I only see alot of speculation and some guessing maths. Just as good as any of us could do.Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho