Intel's Response For Q3 '07: Yorkfield

Printable View

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

10-04-2006, 06:11 PM
.sentinel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

Obviously you've never seen nor heard anything about SSE4.. I think I'll just let you remain ignorant and laugh at you :banana:

Also, if this chip is real, it will be on 45nm, smaller process than what Core 2 is on now, so it will consume less energy and have less leakage.

Are you bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:ting me?
10-04-2006, 06:35 PM
fhpchris

Quote:

Originally Posted by en4cer

:eek: :eek: OMG.... IT'S GOING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!! :slap: :stick:

Let's reserve judgment until the product is on the market shall we?

Or when people @ XS get working engineering samples.... ;)

Really, how can I get editied by saying something ontopic, yet NN_step gets to post like 6 messages flame baiting other people?

I do not understand perky?
10-04-2006, 08:00 PM
Fred_Pohl

Quote:

Originally Posted by nn_step

Funny fact that most people miss is that K8 still beats Conroe in interger performance...

They probably miss that "fact" because it's pure fiction. :slapass:
10-04-2006, 08:08 PM
The Ghost

http://www.overclockers.ru/images/ne.../05/amd_02.jpg
10-04-2006, 08:35 PM
arisythila

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Ghost

http://www.overclockers.ru/images/ne.../05/amd_02.jpg

Mmmmmmm!

~Mike
10-04-2006, 08:54 PM
fhpchris

more pictures and power points :(

vaporware = :slap:
10-04-2006, 08:58 PM
xenolith

Remember guys, the enthusiast/performance market is relatively small. As long as AMD meets price point projections and continue to grow in the larger market segments (i.e., servers, mobile, OEMs, etc.) they'll be fine as a business.
10-04-2006, 09:01 PM
zabomb4163

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theli

I'm wondering, what exactly are the advantages of reducing 90nm to 65nm and on to 45nm? Someone mentioned reduced power consumption.

http://www.intel.com/technology/sili...nm_silicon.htm

"More than 20 percent improvement in transistor switching speed or more than a five-fold reduction in transistor current leakage."
10-04-2006, 09:23 PM
Entity_Razer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

I think I'll just let you remain ignorant and laugh at you :banana:

No your not.....

Stop the pissing contest and get back to your daily routines :p:

We'll see once ES samples hit Xs won't we? and NN almost always had a ES sample up till now so... :) or he could at least get one so lets just wait and find out instead of making this into a pissing contest
10-04-2006, 10:20 PM
zakelwe

The original quote from VR-zone says 12MB L2 cache 2x6MB.

Should that not be 4x3MB for Yorkfield ?

I do like AMD's new naming convention for the series. It's easy to be underwhelmed by AMD bare figures as they tend to be smaller than Intels, but that does not mean it will not be competitive.

Regards

Andy
10-05-2006, 01:30 AM
metro.cl

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakelwe

The original quote from VR-zone says 12MB L2 cache 2x6MB.

Should that not be 4x3MB for Yorkfield ?

I do like AMD's new naming convention for the series. It's easy to be underwhelmed by AMD bare figures as they tend to be smaller than Intels, but that does not mean it will not be competitive.

Regards

Andy

yes but because it is shared between two cores the said 2x6mb (or 3x2x2) the thing is that one core can get a max of 6mb if necesary from the cache
10-05-2006, 01:50 AM
kemo

All the rumors about yorkfield doesn?t make any sense to me old road maps said it has two quad cores each sharing 6mb of cache now they are saying quad core with 6 X 2mb of cache I think it is better to wait and see official road map from Intel

Edit : penyrn is merom replacement (old road map)
________
ultimate fighters
10-05-2006, 03:03 AM
perkam

Quote:

Originally Posted by fhpchris

more pictures and power points :(

vaporware = :slap:

K8L is obviously superior to Conroe if Intel needs Yorkfield to compete with it...with that in mind, K8L has always been a future product.

Vaporware only occurs when you have a product launched or announced but nowhere to buy it...calling this vaporware would be like calling ddr3 vaporware because it isn't here yet.

Perkam
10-05-2006, 03:34 AM
Vassili

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

K8L is obviously superior to Conroe if Intel needs Yorkfield to compete with it...with that in mind, K8L has always been a future product.

K8L = Future product
Yorkfield = Future product

Both companies are working on a better products, or should the company that has the best product at this time, stop working on future products until the other company has some better products?:slap:
10-05-2006, 04:05 AM
onewingedangel

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

K8L is obviously superior to Conroe if Intel needs Yorkfield to compete with it

I expected better from you...

Intel are releasing yorksfield as it will be cheaper to produce and consume less power, as well as give them a good deal of time to improve yields on the 45nm process. A 3.73 clock on 45nm is also very conservative considering you can get this on 65nm so I suspect the idea is to further reduce power consumption rather than ramp up clocks to beat amd's new design.

Whatever the whole amd vs intel pissing match will result in, the most presient bit of information for me is that intel will be moving to 45nm 9 months after amd get to 65nm. Amd is not catching up in process technology like we all thought.
10-05-2006, 04:57 AM
Sanborn

I'm not really sure how people expect Altair with 4mb total of L2 thats 2.9Ghz at 65nm to compete with a product that has 3x the amount of cache...a Ghz faster (not that it matters anymore)....at a smaller size.

and question: how much will lets say...normal temps of a Core 2 Duo be lowered if it were a 45nm ?
10-05-2006, 05:00 AM
The Ghost

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sanborn

I'm not really sure how people expect Altair with 4mb total of L2 thats 2.9Ghz at 65nm to compete with a product that has 3x the amount of cache...a Ghz faster (not that it matters anymore)....at a smaller size.

hasn't this been done already ?
10-05-2006, 06:14 AM
milkcafe

here are the High-end cpu 3dmark06 cpu score comparision

the Kentsfield , Clovertown and the Tulsa are very strong

I want to know the score of Yorkfield and Altair FX

AMD Athlon(tm) FX57 @ 4208 MHz
3DMark06 CPU Score 1696 Marks
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/9243/cpu42089kx.jpg

Intel Core 2 EXtreme X6800 4MB L2cache 2.93GGHz
3DMark06 CPU score　2512
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images...a7RG_2_2_l.gif

AMD Athlon(tm) FX62 @ 3676 MHz
3DMark06 CPU Score 2787 Marks
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=329639

Intel Core Duo T2600 @ 3516 MHz
3DMark06 CPU Score 2874 Marks
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=303322

Intel Pentium 965XE @ 6172 MHz
3DMark06 CPU Score 3314 Marks
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=86920

AMD 2x Opteron 275 @ 2797 MHz
3DMark06 CPU Score 3824 Marks
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=91145

Intel(R) Xeon(R) Woodcrest CPU 5150M @ 2.66GHz
3DMark06 CPU score　4085
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=491849

Intel Conroe X6800 @ 5058MHz
3DMark06 CPU Score 4387 Marks
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=440284

Intel XEON 5160M @ 3000MHz (Woodcrest 3.0GHz 4MB L3cache )
3DMark06 CPU Score 4526 Marks
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=519723

2x AMD Opteron(tm) 8220 SE processor @ 2800MHz
3DMark06 CPU Score　4782 Marks

Intel XEON 5150M @ 3333MHz (Woodcrest 3.0GHz 4MB L3cache )
3DMark06 CPU Score 4525 Marks
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=531132

Intel Core 2 Quado QX6700 Kentsfield 8MB L2cache @ 3709MHz
3DMark06 CPU Score 5564 Marks
http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co.../3700_3D06.gif

Intel(R) Xeon(R) Clovertown 2.66GHz (2x Intel Woodcrest Xeon 5150 CPU)
3DMark06 CPU score　5581
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/5765/3dmarkkk6.jpg

Intel Core 2 Quado QX6700 Kentsfield 8MB L2cache @ 4104MHz
3DMark06 CPU Score 6057 Marks
http://www.tyrou.net/screens/12856-3d06.png

Intel XEON 7140M @ 3400MHz (Tulsa 3.40GHz 16MB L3cache )
3DMark06 CPU Score 6632 Marks
10-05-2006, 09:16 AM
Theli

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

K8L is obviously superior to Conroe if Intel needs Yorkfield to compete with it...

A regression fallacy, I'm afraid. And a premature one at that. All it would take is for Intel to think that the K8L or any future AMD product-line will be superior to Conroe, or that consumers will at some point in the future wish for something faster than the Conroe, for them to want to keep developing new technologies. I'd say that the probability of that is around 100%. Again, I think we'll have to wait for benchmarks before we can be certain.
10-05-2006, 10:50 AM
Mr.X

Will Yorkfield need a new socket and/or chipset? I assume it will but i just want to make sure.
10-05-2006, 10:55 AM
uOpt

They are going back to individual L2 caches?

Interesting...
10-05-2006, 11:07 AM
nn_step

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theli

A regression fallacy, I'm afraid. And a premature one at that. All it would take is for Intel to think that the K8L or any future AMD product-line will be superior to Conroe, or that consumers will at some point in the future wish for something faster than the Conroe, for them to want to keep developing new technologies. I'd say that the probability of that is around 100%. Again, I think we'll have to wait for benchmarks before we can be certain.

:stick: why would you say that conroe is better than K8L
10-05-2006, 11:34 AM
arisythila

Quote:

Originally Posted by onewingedangel

I expected better from you...

Intel are releasing yorksfield as it will be cheaper to produce and consume less power, as well as give them a good deal of time to improve yields on the 45nm process. A 3.73 clock on 45nm is also very conservative considering you can get this on 65nm so I suspect the idea is to further reduce power consumption rather than ramp up clocks to beat amd's new design.

Just because its cheaper to produce doesnt mean its going to cost less.... Im pretty sure Intel uses binning, and im PRETTY sure that Intel also charges ALOT more than it cost to make. I know this, because they are still in business. I also know the same thing about AMD. We were up into the 1000 dollars for a processor, when Intel had a far crappier product than AMD, Intel was STILL selling those processors for 900-1000 dollars. Even tho, the AMD part @ 900-1000 dollars was a faster product.

Now that Intel has a faster processor, It no longer cost 1000 dollars for AMD top of the line processor. Its more like 700 dollars. I really cannot say the same thing about Intel. Intel will always sell thier top of the line processor at the top of the line prices. AMD tends not to do that. If AMD is on top they will, Of they are on the bottom they wont.

Another reason I buy AMD. I dont have to pay top of the line prices for :banana::banana::banana::banana:.

~Mike
10-05-2006, 11:45 AM
vitaminc

Quote:

Originally Posted by arisythila

Just because its cheaper to produce doesnt mean its going to cost less.... Im pretty sure Intel uses binning, and im PRETTY sure that Intel also charges ALOT more than it cost to make. I know this, because they are still in business. I also know the same thing about AMD. We were up into the 1000 dollars for a processor, when Intel had a far crappier product than AMD, Intel was STILL selling those processors for 900-1000 dollars. Even tho, the AMD part @ 900-1000 dollars was a faster product.

Now that Intel has a faster processor, It no longer cost 1000 dollars for AMD top of the line processor. Its more like 700 dollars. I really cannot say the same thing about Intel. Intel will always sell thier top of the line processor at the top of the line prices. AMD tends not to do that. If AMD is on top they will, Of they are on the bottom they wont.

Another reason I buy AMD. I dont have to pay top of the line prices for :banana::banana::banana::banana:.

~Mike

it seems you don't grasp the idea of tiered pricing, and obviously you have not pay any attention to the numerous BIG price cuts Intel went through before C2D.

the price of the latest XE or FX edition is a extremely poor indicator of price/performance. its more a statuary tag.

EDIT: btw, i would cross fingers about a single die quad core yorksfield just to be safe.
10-05-2006, 12:18 PM
nn_step

Quote:

Originally Posted by vitaminc

it seems you don't grasp the idea of tiered pricing, and obviously you have not pay any attention to the numerous BIG price cuts Intel went through before C2D.

the price of the latest XE or FX edition is a extremely poor indicator of price/performance. its more a statuary tag.

EDIT: btw, i would cross fingers about a single die quad core yorksfield just to be safe.

I believe the point both of you are trying to make is that AMD and Intel will only keep prices low IF they don't have the absolute best on earth. As LONG as they are both competing performance will always be good and the Prices will always be low

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