!!!The Ultimate K8L Thread 2007 & Beyond!!!

10% faster on average at the same clockspeed ? Better be since it will be 25% slower wrt to clockspeed. ;)

A 10% average boost in performance over Conroe, doesn't seem like much, but when you think about it, it's very impressive because Conroe already has very high IPC.

It will be tough for AMD to beat Intel though. Even though there IPC may be higher, Intel's manufacturing process is second to none, and Core 2 can scale very well.

For quad core, AMD will probably exceed Intel though, because the monolithic design and higher bandwidth counts for more than in dual core.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMX

Ummm... The Palominos were shocking clockers and P4A series were the most common amongst the community and also 2.4B. Intel gained the performance crown with P4C series. At that time it was really back and forth but the P4C just settled it. Also you are another example of a blind over-exaggerating "fan boy" Jeez, its a disease on this forum recently, turning it into dumb/blind/propaganda/insult central. Why don't u go join [H] or something.

---

Now now, don't get out your pram over it m8......I'm an AMD FAN...so what?

I ain't being rude to anyone, and I don't blindly slate INTEL products. I own 2x INTEL pc's and 3x AMD aswell as numerous cpu's from both manufacturers. I merely prefer AMD is all.

No one in their right mind would insist C2D are garbage, or INTEL are useless. I've implied no such thing, only that I believe AMD's new architecture will run circles around the competition. Nor am I doubting the AMD GUY who posted figures, I am merely stating I think there will be even more of a performance gap come launch.

As for the remarks about joining other forums, you really need to get a grip of yourself and stop acting like a little INTEL FANBOY yourself. Jumping in and flaming ppl simply for expressing their opinion :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMX

No Steve, a highly informative AMD connected guy risks being embarrassed. And considering his strong links from the past, i doubt he will be.

---

I doubt he will be either. Why on earth would he be embarrased after claiming X% of performance gain if it actually turns out to be higher when the benchmarks are released? I just don't get that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMX

2.7ghz-3ghz on AIR is more common. Want to exaggerate more? This, my friends is what you call a fan-boy. Something this forum had very little of a while ago.

---

Did your intel fanboi friend say on air? No.

Besides, You also seem to be living in a time where air = stock cooler. :rolleyes:

I was not exagerating, go read the various Ocing threads. AM2 Rev 2's +3s will surpass 3ghz for most people. It's nothing special, just progress, and still typical SOI 'hit a wall' behaviour moved up a notch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64

Now now, don't get out your pram over it m8......I'm an AMD FAN...so what?

I ain't being rude to anyone, and I don't blindly slate INTEL products. I own 2x INTEL pc's and 3x AMD aswell as numerous cpu's from both manufacturers. I merely prefer AMD is all.

No one in their right mind would insist C2D are garbage, or INTEL are useless. I've implied no such thing, only that I believe AMD's new architecture will run circles around the competition. Nor am I doubting the AMD GUY who posted figures, I am merely stating I think there will be even more of a performance gap come launch.

As for the remarks about joining other forums, you really need to get a grip of yourself and stop acting like a little INTEL FANBOY yourself. Jumping in and flaming ppl simply for expressing their opinion :mad:



I doubt he will be either. Why on earth would he be embarrased after claiming X% of performance gain if it actually turns out to be higher when the benchmarks are released? I just don't get that.

---

I am all for what you say. Don't listen to the BS of some other ppl who try to put you down. People who tend to do that are only insecure with themselfs and have problems. :rolleyes: Some people need to go to anger management classes rather then taking it out on somebody else just because they want to think what they want to think about a subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serge84

I am all for what you say. Don't listen to the BS of some other ppl who try to put you down. People who tend to do that are only insecure with themselfs and have problems. :rolleyes: Some people need to go to anger management classes rather then taking it out on somebody else just because they want to think what they want to think about a subject.

---

Ha... hypocrite.

All i stated was I'm waiting for overclocking results then I make my decision (for eg whats the point of 10%+ more performance if early samples are crappo, like winchester almost). ANd these ppl, joining in 2007, and nov 2006, dec 2006 and the one in nov 2005 who is extremely weird and makes hideous comments are all so blind and oblivious to fact i state, and conclude i'm an Intel fanboy. Ha, I cannot believe this. THe sanctuary i thought would never turn into another "ordinary" forum.

I also looked some OCs in the AMD section (boy has this section been jumbled the f!!ck up since AM2, where is the organization we had with S939?) and no, not many are getting over 3.1-3.2 so easily.

Jesus, I didn't know there was so many "girls" on this forum! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

GO BACK ONE PAGE.

One of the FEW guys we KNOW has access to K8L/K10 ES chips has posted a tidbit of info. His report matches up EXACTLY with what my contact at the DOE has hinted at.

NN_Step - yes, I'm thinking we are looking a P3 vs. K7. If this thing makes it by summer like we are lead to believe (right now, no reason to doubt that). It will be interesting to see if Intel is willing to one-up AMD by pushing what 45nm chips they can get from D1D (while waiting on the other 2 45nm fabs to ramp). 2007 is going to be a VERY INTERESTING year for us performance enthusiasts.

---

So you think that AMD will take the lead for a bit at first, and as Intel ramps up the clocks, the gap will close? (like P3 vs. K7)

GMX, yeah those threads are a real mess. I couldn't tell where you're supposed to post results anymore.

Anyway, I'm not gonna have an OCing aergument with you, it's way off topic. The threads are a mess enough as it is.

My comment was, in response to Shintai. 3-3.2 is normal for higher end Windsors. It may have been superchip clocks before, but it's pretty damn common now on GOOD air, or water. We can agree to disagree.



Back on topic. It would be great to see another K7 vs P3 performance scenario.

I don't think we will EVER see p4 vs A64 again. Intels blind pursuit for clockspeed is dead and buried. We're back to solid clock for clock competition. with intel clearly in the lead again. To be honest, the last few yrs have been dead boring, hence I prettymuch lost interest there for a while with AMD no longer fighting for a competitive product. I think, as someome mentioned this yr and 2008 will be very interesting. like good old times :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mAJORD

GMX, yeah those threads are a real mess. I couldn't tell where you're supposed to post results anymore.

Anyway, I'm not gonna have an OCing aergument with you, it's way off topic. The threads are a mess enough as it is.

My comment was, in response to Shintai. 3-3.2 is normal for higher end Windsors. It may have been superchip clocks before, but it's pretty damn common now on GOOD air, or water. We can agree to disagree.



Back on topic. It would be great to see another K7 vs P3 performance scenario.

I don't think we will EVER see p4 vs A64 again. Intels blind pursuit for clockspeed is dead and buried. We're back to solid clock for clock competition. with intel clearly in the lead again. To be honest, the last few yrs have been dead boring, hence I prettymuch lost interest there for a while with AMD no longer fighting for a competitive product. I think, as someome mentioned this yr and 2008 will be very interesting. like good old times :)

---

umm not exactly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

umm not exactly

---

Nitpicker!
I'm sure he means the path of solely following netburst is completely dead. Sure they may extract some good points out of it and implement it later on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMX

ANd these ppl, joining in 2007, and nov 2006, dec 2006 and the one in nov 2005 who is extremely weird and makes hideous comments are all so blind and oblivious to fact i state, and conclude i'm an Intel fanboy.

---

Personally, I said you were acting like a fanboy with the manner in which you slated me for expressing an opinion. You accused me quite openly of being a fanboy for being of the opinion performance advantage will be higher than stated for AMD's BARCELONA cpus. Yet immediately whine about being labelled a fanboy yourself. Then comment on this forum being full of nOObs and whiners:confused:

Back on topic.......

AFAIK another factor which will make INTEL's life that much harder is that AMD have already produced 45nm samples and therefore have basically nuetralised any advantage intel may have had in that area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64

Personally, I said you were acting like a fanboy with the manner in which you slated me for expressing an opinion. You accused me quite openly of being a fanboy for being of the opinion performance advantage will be higher than stated for AMD's BARCELONA cpus. Yet immediately whine about being labelled a fanboy yourself. Then comment on this forum being full of nOObs and whiners:confused:

Back on topic.......

AFAIK another factor which will make INTEL's life that much harder is that AMD have already produced 45nm samples and therefore have basically nuetralised any advantage intel may have had in that area.

---

actually no because Intel is going to have the advantage of 45nm and High-k over AMD for about 6-9months; at a price, much lower yields and a higher R&D cost

Yes, thats exactly what I meant. Thanks GMX


Soldner. Intel have done that and more with 45nm. (taped out, shown running systems of penryn) and are going to ramp up production later in the year. So I think neutralised is a bit of an overstatement.

Dilluted the advantage I'd agree with though, as it seems, for once AMD may not be quite so far behind intel with process shrinks. IF they start producing in Q2 08 as claimed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mAJORD

Yes, thats exactly what I meant. Thanks GMX


Soldner. Intel have done that and more with 45nm. (taped out, shown running systems of penryn) and are going to ramp up production later in the year. So I think neutralised is a bit of an overstatement.

Dilluted the advantage I'd agree with though, as it seems, for once AMD may not be quite so far behind intel with process shrinks. IF they start producing in Q2 08 as claimed.

---

Actually you can thank the world's largest R&D company for AMD having a superior process (at the same nm), IBM

Yeah true, I guess one should probably refer to it as AMD/IBM when talking about process alone :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mAJORD

Yeah true, I guess one should probably refer to it as AMD/IBM when talking about process alone :)

---

speaking of which AMD's current 65nm process is the same one that IBM is using for their 5Ghz 16 Stage Power6 processor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mAJORD

So I think neutralised is a bit of an overstatement.

---

Your right, perhaps it is a little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

speaking of which AMD's current 65nm process is the same one that IBM is using for their 5Ghz 16 Stage Power6 processor

---

Yeah, K10's frequency numbers seem low to me. I know it's a different design 'n all, and call it a hunch but i'm thinking it's going to clock alot higher. I don't remember seeing much documentation with an AMD stamp on it (such as the ones gOJDO posted) about clocks. I can't imagine AMD designed silicon that would only scale a few hundred Mhz for their server chips.

whats the deal with Intel, last i heard something like q1 '08 for 45nm chips now? :( they can't give AMD too long to compete on 65nm with em. They need to get quad desktop chips under 200 bux by christmas ;) so i can buy one :P haha and everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

speaking of which AMD's current 65nm process is the same one that IBM is using for their 5Ghz 16 Stage Power6 processor

---

Even though the IBM 5ghz 16 stage P6 CPU and AMD's upcoming K10 may be on the same process, it largely depends on the architecture for how it clocks. Let's hope its great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serge84

Thats not AMD's style. AMD is not that other company. They show benchmarks on release. I was never much for benchmarks anyways because they mean nothing in the real world, thats why i don't use benchmarks myself usouly only a validation and cpu speed, with memory speed, timings, and so forth.

---

In this thread, we avoid reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous

In this thread, we avoid reality.

---

reality has nothing to do with Rumors :p:

45nm has been delayed till 2008 for the other side. No advantage. Both will come out at nearly the same time agenst the 2 companies. Fab techniques give no real big advantages. Its the same arc. Not C3D. Besides AMD will use SGOI High K metal gates in their 45nm tech like IBM will. So infact Intel will be behind in fab processes. (It seems useless not bringing up intel in the forums because everybody else doesn't seem to get this is a AMD FORUM so I give up.)

We are talking about IBM giving technology to AMD so AMD is no better then IBM and we know IBM is number 1. They arn't worth 80billion for nothing. Intel can never compare to IBM. AMD is with IBM so if you mess with AMD you mess with IBM.

Again I already explained why they have lower clock speeds a few pages back and I will not repeat myself. Unless you care to give proof of any cpu that did not stat at its lowest cpu speed at launch? Pentium 1 did not start at 266mhz did it? P2 did not start at 500mhz did it? P3 did not start at 1.5ghz did it? P4 did not start at 3.8ghz did it? AMD K6 did not start at 550mhz did it? K7 did not start at 2.2ghz did it? K8 did not start at 3ghz did it nor did dual cores? SO NO NO NOOO!!! (So I like repeating myself)

Conroe never started at its max. 2.9ghz is not conroes stock limit at launch. They will rase it to 4ghz with wolfdile. So what makes you think K10 is some how limited to clock speed? This would be a 1st in history I would say. Cus every cpu starts its life at a very low clock speed and never its max. Unless you completly want to disregard the course of history? You bring down your IQ level each time you say K10's max is what they show now. Its just rediculess and illogical. Sometimes I think they should put more of these logic transistors into ppls heads rather then C2D's 45nm die smirk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

Not if K8L is only 10% faster IPC. K8 vs. P4 was a bigger gap (more like 20%).

---

K8 over P4 was much more than this.... depending on the app.... P4 just blew chunks when it came to IPC. I will dig some papers, but 0.9 to 1.2 IPC range was about average. K8 was getting significantly higher than this.... which, of course, is how AMD put the :slapass: on Intel in the P4 days.