Printable View
That is nothing new. Remember Hector's "late summer" launch and that September is still Q3;) They've been "no delay" since rumors popped up during Computex. Of course the more optimistic were hoping something closer to "mid-2007", around May I'm sure and that's not how it has turned out.Quote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
I read from "expert analyst" a Q4 delay (at best) becuase Barcelona has a lot of bugs and yada yada yada
softlayer said july ... :D
Quote:
Opteron
2000 QC Series Available
July 07
Opteron 2258
Opteron 2260
Opteron 2262
Opteron 2264
Opteron 2266
Opteron 2268
1.9 to 2.4Ghz if it holds.
http://www.softlayer.com/downloads/SL_Opteron2000.pdf
But here they say Q3 and with a *
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40465
Quote:
CHIP FIRM Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) has told its distributors and re-sellers to expect production quantities of its up-and-coming Barcelona chip in the middle of August.
That is the traditional time the channel gears up for its sales push although it is a generally quiet time for everyone else.
The long-toothed will remember that this er, phenomenon, has happened before. AMD makes a big push at Computex and then when all the fluff has settled, real chips start appearing in mid-August.
But it seems AMD fluffed its Computex launch a bit, and that caused a bit of a kerfuffle. µ
2.4GHz? That's 200MHz shy of their "simulated benchmark" PR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Not gonna cut it... they'll lose to Clovertown on everything but fp_rate.
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...0528-01175.txt
Intel's new result already beats AMD's paper result if you don't care for clock for clock comparison. Of course to say that 2.4GHz isn't good enough is to assume that they can't boost spec scores +8.3%, which is reasonably attainable with different configurations (unless AMD really optimized for the 2.6Ghz scores).
And were you trying to make a point, or you're just working on a low IQ?Quote:
Originally Posted by red
Why didn't you point out were he was wrong, instead of making a post worthy of a 12 year old girl. Or point to another article, story, rumour that could be more accurate?
Excuse, do i know you? Maybe from another one of the many accounts you use to spread your Intel propaganda?Quote:
Originally Posted by red
I didn't see any propaganda in that article, and i doubt anyone inteligent did... hell i doubt you even know the meaning of the word propaganda.
And please don't call me Scentia fanboy, or that reality will smack me in the face, or somenthing that dumb because, let me draw you a picture, just because i point out the redneck dumbasses that you are, that doesn't make me anything else.
Well at least the guy can make a blog, and write articles that are read and commented by many people (inclunding you, nice to see that spreading you usual crap is a full time job to you)Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
And that's a simple thing that i doubt even your grandchild will be able to do, let alone you.
Well... of course I don't care for clock-for-clock comparison... that's just silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
AMD projected 102 for 2.6GHz. Assuming exact scaling with frequency, they'd get 94 with a 2.4GHz Barc...which means 3GHz Clovertown would be nearly 13% faster on 2P int_rate. Also much faster on int and faster on fp, with fp_rate left for Barc.
One thing is unclear: is the Intel 106 result using Seaburg? Or Blackford? If Blackford, there is room for improvement with Seaburg.
I think my point was clear, and that was that he didn't have a clear one :rolleyes: So what was it again? I cannot point to a better article, story, rumor if I can't even understand what he is trying to get across.
I don't know you but if you are desperate to link to an AMD apologist with funny blogs like "Core 2 Duo -- The Embarassing Secrets", "Intel's Chipsets -- The Roots Of Monopoly", "Intel -- The Monopoly Under Siege", "Anandtech Melts Down", "Q4 06 Intel and AMD: Who Won?", "AMD Q4 Earnings -- Good Or Bad?", "The Dishonesty of Overclocking", "Intel's Bluff (Q3 06 Results)", "Tigerton or Kittenton? Memory Amnesia.", well yeah, that speaks for itself ;)
Calm down little boy :)Quote:
And please don't call me Scentia fanboy, or that reality will smack me in the face, or somenthing that dumb because, let me draw you a picture, just because i point out the redneck dumbasses that you are, that doesn't make me anything else.
Anyone know how long they've had that up at that site? Could be based on an old AMD roadmap, like the early spring one... before the Computex troubles were revealed...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
http://www.supermicro.com/products/m...00P/X7DB8+.cfm
It is Blackford I assume. The boost in scores is most linked to the new compiler I believe. Computex troubles, maybe it's AMD being funny again like in the past. Or not.
Computex sandbagging is more like it.
Thanks for looking up the mobo. Yeah, compiler, and tweaking the degree of hardware pre-fetching apparently boosted int_rate nicely. So Seaburg should provide some more...Quote:
Originally Posted by red
Re: Computex & "AMD fun", I don't think so... folks like to draw an analogy to the K7 thing, but this time AMD is already on record with 2.6GHz "simulations", Henri's early boasts (although he changed to pessimism in early June), PR boasts (yes some of those claims have already been busted), so what is the point in making people think you have a lot of problems, if you don't ?
It can't be good for business.
I wonder at what point in time over the next 2 months (assuming the 'launch' by mid-Aug is correct) the actual clock speeds for launch will become definitively known?
The Q2 CC & following Analyst Day in late July would provide opportunities to disclose them.
Nah, there's no motivation for them to do that...Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Besides, it was not just Computex demo parts... it was OEMs, mobo makers, and they pushed out the Phenom timing in their latest roadmap.
AMD is in such trouble they are hardly going to sandbag the whole world and try to make them believe they are in even worse trouble... there's no point to it.
If they had fast parts, they'd be seeding them everywhere right now, making sure incredible scores were leaking all over the net.
terrace215, look at Johan's quote i posted from Ace's.
Oh, you've seen the final benchmarks or the final product? Please show! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
If they sandbagged at computex they should fire everyone at marketing and management of the company. Because that would be the biggest PR blunder ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Look at Intel, they demo first Conroe, now Penryn and they are set on PR. It all takes care of itself for free. Massive PR for hardly any money.
Just think on what good any sandbagging would do. And then tell me.
Before K8 AMD was in full PR mode for over a year before.
"Sandbagging" in terms of not showing production ready(and bug free) MPUs!
That's why it is such a PITA to "write" a bios for that thing,since it needed some patchwork to run.
I say again,patience,AMD has a very strong product,and in a month(if all goes as planned) we will have server chips that will be reviewed.And there always are those power hungry Asus QuadFx mobos ppl could use to test Barcelona.
informal, all that Johan has hinted at is that results could be 1-∞% better, thanks again, hype and no numbers. You are very hopeful. Tell/show me/us something we don't know :) BTW, those poor Quad FX owners will have to hope that Asus gets a new BIOS for it.
Did you miss the part where I said a different configuration could significantly sway the score? We have no idea if AMD crippled the results or optimized them.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...528-01177.html
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...214-00467.html
For a supposed CPU test, spec can as be seen here, dependent on many other factors.
All that quote strictly says is that he KNEW the Computex samples had bugs, and underperformed in some benchmark for its speed. Probably the cinebench thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
So... okay, great. There's still the problem of Barc clockspeeds.
It could look like just hype... But it'sn't Informal but Johan from anandtech. And the point is:"And no, I am not speculating or guessing :-)" so I has probably in his hand something less buggy, and probably better than 1%. We have to wait to know the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
Wow they actually will materialize in Q3 hey?:clap: Hence another reason why the Inquire and Fud should be removed from the forum!
Do you ever actually do your research before you post?Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
I hate to say it, but Shintai is right (even though he is an A$$). K10 has the same number of SSE units as K8. They are now 128-bit wide versus 64-bit. They did not double in number.
Upgrades for K10 can be found here (credit to gOJDO) - go down to the bottom for SSE improvements.
The 4 dual precision SSE OPs per cycle is referring to packing 2 x 64-bit instructions into each 128-bit execution unit in a clock cycle. Not doubling the number of execution engines.