Printable View
http://tweakers.net/reviews/661/3
Based on this summary and the images posted above, we can infer that 2.3 K10 compared to 2.66 Clovertown..to trail in SPECjbb2005, to be beat in TPC-C, and finally match in SAP-SD. The others aren't worth mentioning for obvious reasons.
One word. Some stupid person had to put the company in a lock on Native quad. A K8 MCM quadcore at 2.5-2.7Ghz (With maybe a few special 3Ghz) would have been a very good thing (And massively cheaper to make). And AMD seems to have lots of issues scaling clocks on 65nm.Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
K10=prescott. :mad:
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
You are joking,aren't you? :confused:
Yes He's joking, prescott works higher in frequency :DQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
No, looking on the scores and failed ramping. And remember the 2.3Ghz is a 120W, not 95W. With 0-20% boost a possible 120-130W 65nm K8 MCM Quad at 2.7-3Ghz would be a better option. So its a step backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Why ? AMD is saying that not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
K8 is very strong to start with ; you simply can't leap forward by a mile when the bar is already set high.
If the graph is right, it got NDA all over it, so lets assume it is, K10 is like 10-15% faster then K8 clock for clock.
Not enough for desktop, but for servers AMD will put up a fight.
AMD has an official statement, that its K10 core is 40% faster than Clovertown clock for clock. That's been said, those graphics are likely to be fake.
be patient, its not much to wait till August :P
Really? Please let me see "We will beat Clovertown by 40% clock for clock in general".
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...arcelona_2ghz/
"We will be seeing a performance boost of 40-50 per cent above our highest frequency dual-core products that are available today," AMD VP Randy Allen told us.
The 40% is from 1 single benchmark, they never claimed clock for clock. And K8 already beats Intel in the same bench with about 20%.Quote:
Originally Posted by alayashu
Or about 5-20% faster clock for clock than K8. In other words, about Core 2 performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
Or 10-15% faster than C2D,since we don't know for sure how it will perform in desktop usage model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Uhm..no. In the best case it might be 5-10% faster on the serverside due to the FB-DIMM issue. On the desktop side it will be about the same +/-5%. So AMD needs to raise the clockspeed alot.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
How did you even come up with the 10-15% when its K8 vs K10 on an equal platform o.O
You need to use the K8 baseline for all comparisions with Core 2 and add K10.
How can it be 10-15% faster than Core 2, when its 5-20% faster than K8. And Core 2 is 5-20% faster than K8 on the desktop. :shrug:
And how do you know that??Please,stop guessing around when AMD is in question.Who knows,maybe it will be on par.But you make it sound like you personally tried it and it is set in stone.
So,did you try the desktop version with unreg. memory at 1066Mhz?No?So stop guessing.
Uhm. You do know the AMD powerpoint with K10 vs K8 right? Everything is detailed in it. What K10 speed, what K8 speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
So the guessing part is more or less over. There is no maybe´s or if's anymore if that powerpoint is correct.
I know you dont like the news, but get over it and look forward.
You mean the optimization guide?
What PDF?Those are for Barcelona (with reg ram) and in SPecRate...And those russian slides are also for server parts with the same reg. ram and with God knows what scaling going to multiple processors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
You yourself were bashing those specrate tests as unreliable for performance comparisons.So you don't know for sure what IPC gain will K10 have over K8 in int and fp workloads.Just get over it and look forward.
Powerpoint, not PDF.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=671
If you whine and complain, then atleast do abit of tiny research first. Instead of just cry and nag over we dont agree with you that K10 is the new wonder of the world.
Reread the edited post man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
And it seems you really want K10 to be a prescott(in your words).Whats up with that?Guessing and trolling about how "sucky" it will be is not a way to participate in news thread.
Notice the "projected" part? Also these are server chips without HT3 running slower memory and spec is by no means representative of desktop performance. A lot of work for K10 went into SSE improvements. It should be up to almost 100% faster than K8 at SSE calculations. I'm hope AMD will release more info at their Conference Call in a few weeksQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Since Shintai likes to think he knows IPC advantage K10 has over K8,let's see what Randy Allen had to say in ZDnet interview some months ago:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6...ml?tag=st.next
Quotes:
From the 1st page:
Quote:
"We expect across a wide variety of workloads for Barcelona to outperform Clovertown by 40 percent," Allen said. The quad-core chip also will outperform AMD's current dual-core Opterons on "floating point" mathematical calculations by a factor of 3.6 at the same clock rate, he said.
Quote:
Barcelona employs several features to improve performance, Allen said. Among them:
• It's AMD's first chip with a built-in level-three cache. Cache memory can respond faster than main memory, and Intel has relied on large amounts of cache to improve its processors' performance. Each Barcelona core has its own 64-kilobyte first-level data cache, 64KB first-level instruction cache and 512KB second-level cache; and the four cores together share a 2MB third-level cache, though AMD has said that size can be increased.
Quote:
• AMD redesigned the Barcelona core, marking the biggest changes since the company made its 2003 transition from its 32-bit Athlon chips to the current 64-bit lineup. The magnitude of the transition is about halfway between the small tweaks AMD has made to Opteron over the years and the clean-sheet redesign Intel employed in moving from NetBurst to its current Core design, Allen said.
Is Randy not telling the truth here about FP improvement?So he tells per core K10 is 80% faster clock for clock,3.6x faster considering all four cores.Quote:
• A faster floating-point engine performs mathematical calculations--long an Opteron strong suit, though not as important a part of the chip as that for integer operations. At a given clock frequency, a Barcelona core outperforms a current Opteron core by a factor of 1.8. By going quad-core, a Barcelona chip overall will provide a boost factor of 3.6, Allen said.
You are amazing. In that case, I will like to say than penryn, in certain mathematical extensive applications(divx) is up to 110% faster than Conroe. Or a factor of 2.2 from core to core! And what he refers to is only SSE loads. Also telling us the singlecycle SSE didnt give them a 100% increase in SSE loads, but "only" 80%. Core 2 got a factor 4-6x over Core in that area. Didn´t lead to any miracles.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
PR Spins FTW!
Anyway, now you are talking about Randy. Lets see what has changed since that statement some months ago.
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...arcelona_2ghz/
Funny eh? Where did the factor 3.6 go? 40-50% Over a dualcore 3Ghz. So a 2Ghz quadcore performs like a 4.2-4.5 K8 dualcore. I guess reality caught up again!Quote:
"We will be seeing a performance boost of 40-50 per cent above our highest frequency dual-core products that are available today," AMD VP Randy Allen told us.
Thank you Informal
Its good to see a possible 80% increase for each core:up:
Well Shintai seems to be testing these K10s ,so we can ask him up about the impressions,numbers,hard facts.Seems he even knows better than Mr. Allen. :)