Core2 is 15% to 35% faster than K8.
Assuming K8L core is as fast as Core2's, the IMC would make it perform 10% faster.
About 20% to 40% faster than K8.
And being made in 65nm process it may overclock "easealy" to 3.6GHz.
Printable View
Core2 is 15% to 35% faster than K8.
Assuming K8L core is as fast as Core2's, the IMC would make it perform 10% faster.
About 20% to 40% faster than K8.
And being made in 65nm process it may overclock "easealy" to 3.6GHz.
But when K8L appears Intel will be almost releasing Yorkfield and Wolfdale, they will be 45nm, cheaper and better overclockers.Quote:
Originally Posted by doompc
The thing is that ... AMD has to work on its transitors to clock higher ... the core 2 duo basically relies on prescott transistors, which were made to clock mad high. that's probably why core 2 duo clocks that high. just a lil speculation though.
a set of interesting facts for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saiyan[CHW]
1) more stages means more clock speed
2) Smaller process can mean more clock speed
3) K8 has less stages (12int, 17 FP) and is on a larger process(90nm) vs Conroe (14int, 22FP, 65nm)
4) K8 Max Clock speed is (on average) 3Ghz
5) Conroe's Max Clock speed is (on average) 3.3-3.5Ghz
Just thought I should put those things out
Saiyan, yes.
Intel is already sampling 45nm Core2 cpus (Penryn, for mobile).
So even if K8L is clock-to-clock faster than Core2, Wolfdale will clock far higher than K8L.
Let's see what the IMC can do to help and how good is AMD's 65nm process.
k8 max clock speed is from 2.7 to 3ghz on air, allendale is 3ghz to 3.4, and conroe is from 3.3 to 3.7ghz, thats true, but again consider that k8l is going to be clocked lower than 3ghz initially, and that penryn will be clocked higher than 3ghz, assumed considerably, and it still doesnt look good, except for 8x4. k8l will not be considerably faster than core 2, since it doesnt introduce any revolutionary changes in architecture, and without them, its impossible to see sudden drastic changes in performance. core 2 wasnt that drastic of a change from core 1, and k8 to k8l is a very similar switch.
IIRC AMD has put out some marketing propaganda claiming that K8L will be 40% faster than K8 in certain server BMs. Which is where I think K8L will really shine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Although I pretty much agree with most of your selected 'facts', IMO you've skewed the avg max clock speeds a bit. Getting 3GHz from an X2 seems to be every bit as difficult as getting 3.6GHz from a C2D. I'd say that on avg C2D OC's ~500MHz higher than X2, not 300-500MHz. Not meaning to split hairs here but 200MHz is 200MHz or to use AMD marketing speak, on avg C2D OC's to '7000+' vs '6000+' for X2.
My hope is that they are able to produce these kind of results in the dual core processors in future revisions of the 65 nm series...
Intel is AMD's competitor... K8L will be competing against 45nm Core2. People are speculating/predicting a lot of things about K8L and 45nm Core2... what's the big fuss?Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
Are you alergic to the mention of Intel?
all the fanboys are didn't you knowQuote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
No, that was a simple K8 quadcore against dualcores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
max average whatQuote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
screenshot
or 1M
or 32M
or 3D benches
or prime
It's been december for so long!!!! When can I hold a brisbane!?!?!
I want one now!
Tomorrow, by the looks of it. I'm probably going to get one pretty much ASAP, unless they're crap...Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvermirage
I wonder if just the NDA lifts tomorrow, or if E-tailers will have them for sale tomorrow (meaning they already have them in the channel.)
I think that tomorrow is the release.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvermirage
I wanna see Nehalem, an Intel IMC will be interesting. :)
I stand corrected. My bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Probably not, they're starting to put so much cache on their chips an IMC won't give them very much in the way of performance gains. IMO thats an IMC's real benefit, it allows you to significantly reduce system RAM latency without requiring you to dedicate more and more CPU die space to cache, which is very important to AMD seeing as how they're almost always fab limited.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saiyan[CHW]
I think they'll reduce the cache size. (L2) Don't know anything about L1. Probably they'll gain performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by mesyn191
Oh they'll certainly gain performance, wether its significant and/or worth while vs. Intel's current practice of stupid size L2 cache or not is what is I'd question, for AMD it makes alot of sense though. I doubt they'll increase the L1 cache size at all, Intel doesn't seem to like doing this much, probably because it makes it more difficult to get a higher clock speed.
there is no reason to increase L1 Cache Size for AMD, increasing bandwidth on the other hand is a different matterQuote:
Originally Posted by mesyn191
Didn't suggest AMD would, I was talking about Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
AMDs and Intels L1 cache is very different. AMDs is twice as big, but basicly twice as slow. Overall the got about the same level of efficiency. And I doubt the benefit is worth it, if either AMD or Intel have increased it any further. I doubt cache is any problem for both in terms of clockspeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by mesyn191
Yes, Intel has always made processors with a small but vey fast L1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
I think that an Intel IMC will bring a lot of benefits... for example, more cache means more heat, if they include an IMC in Nehalem the processors won't like big L2, I think that in some years 2MB-4MB L2 will be samething standard for Intel and AMD.