Official AMD Barcelona Thread

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-04-2007, 10:52 AM
frankR

I've waited so I don't have to deal with it. :D
06-04-2007, 11:16 AM
eXceeded

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankR

I've waited so I don't have to deal with it. :D

:mad:
06-06-2007, 05:02 AM
informal

SInce that K10 thread got closed,I will post my reply to Vapor here :) :

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vapor

Because of the scaling of Cinebench, you can't compare 4 core vs. 2core. We'll need an underclocked Quad-FX system and C2Q system to do full comparisons....

EDIT: and everyone, stop attacking/bashing gOJDO....final warning, seen it in way too many threads.

Yes you can compare it per core.Read again what i wrote.
Scaling is 1.85 for dual core K8.
K10,1.6Ghz ,4core - 814.
K10,1.6Ghz,2 core - 440(with scaling of 1.85x from 2 to 4 cores)

K8,1.6Ghz,2 cores(1MB of L2)- 445!!!

So by this we get that K10 is supposedly slower than K8 per core in this test.And test was done on AM2 mobo!
This tells me that that was some early buggy revision with who knows what deactivated trough bios,with sole purpose of demonstrating the performance/watt claims AMD made in the pas(Double the cores ,keep the same total system consumption and double the performance
06-06-2007, 05:06 AM
Lightman

It is possible that many of new features in this Barcelona sample was not working/broken.
Cinebench itself was ran in 32bit mode under 64bit OS.. how strange.
My old X2 3800 clocked@2550MHz was getting 874 points under 64bit OS/test.

This test proves that CPU is 'working' not only in Task Manager, but I wont be judging my opinion based on just one benchmark with preproduction sample run under unknown circumstances.
06-06-2007, 06:46 AM
madcho

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

SInce that K10 thread got closed,I will post my reply to Vapor here :) :

Yes you can compare it per core.Read again what i wrote.
Scaling is 1.85 for dual core K8.
K10,1.6Ghz ,4core - 814.
K10,1.6Ghz,2 core - 440(with scaling of 1.85x from 2 to 4 cores)

K8,1.6Ghz,2 cores(1MB of L2)- 445!!!

So by this we get that K10 is supposedly slower than K8 per core in this test.And test was done on AM2 mobo!
This tells me that that was some early buggy revision with who knows what deactivated trough bios,with sole purpose of demonstrating the performance/watt claims AMD made in the pas(Double the cores ,keep the same total system consumption and double the performance

i think cinebench was writed for K8. 440-445 about the same. Barcelona can run DDR2-800-ECC, it was 666. maybe this could slow it.

And maybe K8 apps can't be faster on K10. :rolleyes: ( or it's dual X2 :mad: )
06-06-2007, 06:51 AM
gOJDO

Quote:

Originally Posted by madcho

Barcelona can run DDR2-800-ECC

It can't. The highest it can run is DDR2-667.
06-06-2007, 06:55 AM
Lightman

Quote:

Originally Posted by gOJDO

It can't. The highest it can run is DDR2-667.

It's like saying single-core K8 AM2 can't run DDR2-800...
Officially only dual cores can work with DDR2-800 and single cores max is DDR2-667... but why on earth I have working option DDR2-800 in BIOS???
06-06-2007, 09:56 AM
DeathReborn

Quote:

Originally Posted by gOJDO

It can't. The highest it can run is DDR2-667.

Official support for it, yes but it can run DDR2-800 & DDR2-1066 if you wanted it to.
06-06-2007, 10:10 AM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathReborn

Official support for it, yes but it can run DDR2-800 & DDR2-1066 if you wanted it to.

Since when is OC the norm on server chips ?
06-06-2007, 11:01 AM
[XC] Teroedni

Quote:

Originally Posted by savantu

Since when is OC the norm on server chips ?

True
But the big question here is how effective the Barcelona Memory controller is?
For all we know Ddr2 667 10,7gbs may give Barcelona more than enough Bandwitch.

Also keep in mind that Amd may bump up ddr2 support when their processors are released.
06-06-2007, 11:09 AM
Ubermann

Quote:

Originally Posted by savantu

Since when is OC the norm on server chips ?

Since everyone started using opterons for OC ?
06-06-2007, 11:19 AM
Periander6

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ubermann

Since everyone started using opterons for OC ?

I think he's talking about server chips actually used in servers. :)
06-06-2007, 04:35 PM
fhpchris

Here is my 25 seconds on my FX60...

2850 mhz.. 285 TCCD

K10 fails hard, it cant even beat K8.
http://www.sspmustang.com/OT/ggseanpwntby2850tccd.JPG
06-06-2007, 07:15 PM
frankR

Either Barcelona is having serious problems, or AMD is intentionally showing us junk. I'm losing any confidence I had left with AMD pulling off the upset against Intel with K10. At this point I think AMD will be lucky to repeat Barcelona like R600.:(
06-06-2007, 07:19 PM
fbmbirds

Amd fx 60
06-06-2007, 07:24 PM
awdrifter

Maybe that is the ipc performance is just the same as K8, but it'll clock higher like the Netburst Intels.
06-06-2007, 08:03 PM
SEA

Maybe. But most likely L3 cache was disabled in bios "in purpose" to show or it was pre-release sample with disabled L3
06-06-2007, 08:12 PM
nn_step

don't you just love how much FUD that Intel seems to love pumping out lately?
If I got a Nickel for every bit of FUD that came out about K10, I'd have a :banana::banana::banana::banana:load of nickels
06-06-2007, 08:17 PM
red

Intel demoed the dissapointing POVray and Cinebench tests? :rolleyes:
06-06-2007, 08:23 PM
nn_step

Quote:

Originally Posted by red

Intel demoed the dissapointing POVray and Cinebench tests? :rolleyes:

kinda like how nVidia demoed the disappointing x1800xt scores that later turned out to be an overclocked x850xt
06-06-2007, 08:35 PM
Mav451

Quote:

Originally Posted by nn_step

don't you just love how much FUD that Intel seems to love pumping out lately?
If I got a Nickel for every bit of FUD that came out about K10, I'd have a :banana::banana::banana::banana:load of nickels

What's really disappointing is the kind of shrill coming from Anandtech. Anand used to be a balanced guy, comparing AMD and Intel, but ever since Conroe he's been decidedly pessimistic and negative on AMD. The moment I saw his review being quoted and plastered all over the "official" Intel slides, I knew his time of being an impartial reviewer was over.

Kinda sad, since Anandtech was a reasonably good place for reviews in a time when THG was the #1 Intel fanboy site. However, THG has since toned it down considerably, and Anandtech has instead taken that #1 spot.
06-06-2007, 09:28 PM
tictac

K10 doesn't run CPU-Z ? :shrug:

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...=1342&Itemid=1
06-07-2007, 06:30 AM
dcm0

Quote:

Originally Posted by nn_step

don't you just love how much FUD that Intel seems to love pumping out lately?
If I got a Nickel for every bit of FUD that came out about K10, I'd have a :banana::banana::banana::banana:load of nickels

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mav451

What's really disappointing is the kind of shrill coming from Anandtech. Anand used to be a balanced guy, comparing AMD and Intel, but ever since Conroe he's been decidedly pessimistic and negative on AMD. The moment I saw his review being quoted and plastered all over the "official" Intel slides, I knew his time of being an impartial reviewer was over.

Kinda sad, since Anandtech was a reasonably good place for reviews in a time when THG was the #1 Intel fanboy site. However, THG has since toned it down considerably, and Anandtech has instead taken that #1 spot.

Exactly !
06-07-2007, 06:48 AM
dinos22

i don't know why go attack anandtech

they are probably one of the most reliable review sites out there. if it hurts you that Wes and Gary tell it like it is because you are a fanboy of the brand that gets plastered that is entirely your problem and you should not blame them

i know that nn_step is clearly one sided much like the Iraqi Minister for Information :rolleyes: but it seems that he's not alone here
06-07-2007, 06:59 AM
red

What is wrong with being pessimistic and negative towards AMD? What positive do they have to...be positive about?

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page