Shintai, why not wait barcelona availibity. You will not be able to convince those guys before.
Printable View
Shintai, why not wait barcelona availibity. You will not be able to convince those guys before.
Shintai you are really taking that article seriously? Anyway K10 has double the SSE throughput of K8. What are we even discussing here?
You chose beetwen what Allen has said, you don't care about what allen said June 29 2007 but you keep old allen mistakes? But probably, you've tested K10, and you even better know what is true beetwen allen x 3,6 and allen 40-50% better...Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
"Old Allen mistakes?"Quote:
Originally Posted by nemrod
Are you serious man? The guy who was behind K9(dual core K8) has made such a dumb mistake?Wow,just wow.
The June quote was probably the reference to low clocked 2 Ghz part(and we don't know what that number really represents,do we?)
Yes wow, just wow if not him the writer of the paper has not understand and fail to tell what Allen said.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
That is a transcript man.Transcript.And the per core reference has been repeated by Allen a couple of times.Still not clear?Quote:
Originally Posted by nemrod
Jesus, could the mods here do something about this thread crapping?...what was once a nice thread has turned into a flame fest... :(
could you read that february
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/V...118193,00.html
Quote:
Optimum Performance Levels
While special attention was paid to the power-saving design features in native Quad-Core AMD Opteron processors, equal emphasis was placed on delivering industry-leading performance. Quad-Core AMD Opteron processors are packed with core and cache enhancements designed to improve performance on a range of server and workstation applications. Cache-sensitive transactional applications such as Web, database and email servers can benefit from the addition of a 2MB shared L3 cache. Simulations conducted in AMD laboratories indicate that certain database applications will see performance improvements up to 70 percent and certain floating point applications will experience performance gains of up to 40 percent over platforms powered by current dual-core AMD Opteron processors. High-performance computing (HPC) applications can benefit tremendously from a doubling of Barcelona’s floating-point execution pipeline to 128-bit width, which includes an AMD-only doubling of instruction and data delivery capabilities. Finally, through enhancements to AMD Virtualization™ (AMD-V™), including Nested Paging, virtualization customers can enjoy additional application performance improvements over non AMD-V driven applications.
or june
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/V...118193,00.html
Is it a transcript?Quote:
With planned availability at launch in a range of frequencies up to 2.0 Ghz, AMD expects its native quad-core processors to scale to higher frequencies in Q407 in both standard and SE (Special Edition) versions. Designed to operate within the same thermal envelopes as current generation AMD Opteron processors, AMD estimates that the new processors can provide a performance increase up to 70 percent on certain database applications and up to 40 percent on certain floating point applications, with subsequent higher frequency processors expected to significantly add to this performance advantage.
“More than ever before, customers are expecting energy-efficiency and performance-per-watt leadership as much as absolute performance. With this new reality of computing, greater performance at the expense of greater power consumption is no longer an option,” said Randy Allen, corporate vice president, Server and Workstation Division at AMD. “AMD has prioritized production of our low power and standard power products because our customers and ecosystem demand it, and we firmly believe that the introduction of our native Quad-Core AMD Opteron processor will deliver on the promise of the highest levels of performance-per-watt the industry has ever seen.”
here's a roadmap from DT
http://www.dailytech.com/AMD+SecondG...rticle7913.htm
nemrod,both articles are mentioning the average per. figures(ie 2GHz K10 Vs the current K8s).
Those ZDnet quotes are especially for FP/SSE code!
Read this line please :Quote:
Originally Posted by nemrod
Designed to operate within the same thermal envelopes as current generation AMD Opteron processors, AMD estimates that the new processors can provide a performance increase up to 70 percent on certain database applications and up to 40 percent on certain floating point applications, with subsequent higher frequency processors expected to significantly add to this performance advantage.
Their talking about a 70% increase with the exact same power consumption.
I would say that is very Good:up:
That should apply to you also;)Quote:
Originally Posted by nemrod
not agree "up to" is not average. But it doesn't matter we will see that in a month or two and I'd like to be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
yes they put 2x more cores with the same power consumption. but as said we will see laterQuote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Teroedni
Well nobody knows for sure until K10 finally lands in reviewers hands.
It's incredible how lame Theinq can be : http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40749
1.In the Spec tests they compare the estimated perf of a 2.6GHz K10 vs. 2.66 Clovertown
2."Recently, we managed to sse the short of performance figures that AMD is promising for Barcelona."
Too bad the first 2 slides are form december 06 and the last 2 from february 07.
It's 2.6GHz, clear as day on the footnotes http://multicore.amd.com/GetFile.asp...trate_040207v2Quote:
But in the Integer test, a Barcelona 2.3GHz yields 21% higher score than Clovertown 2.66 GHz, but Floating Point test leaves a staggering 50% performance deficit for Clovertown
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...528-01175.htmlQuote:
and this is not something 45 nanometre Penryn can solve overnight
106 vs 102, 106 wins. On 65nm.
Wait a minute...Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
I see this:
and this:Quote:
These performance numbers were based on systems using tge Opteron 2356, or known to the world of us regular folk as AMD QuadCore at 2.3GHz
Where do you see 2.6GHz K10? :confused:Quote:
Barcelona 2.3GHz yields 21% higher score than Clovertown 2.66 GHz
And where are the slides?
Look on the picture. They estimated the performance at 2.6Ghz for barcelona. And gotta love memory intensive synthetic benches. (Last line on the text on the picture)
I probably need to wear eyeglasses from now on...
I don't see any picture there on inquirer! :confused:
Can you please explain why you link AMD slides with link to inquirer? I might miss something...
I'm 100% certain that their story is entirely based off this presentation which has been circling around, http://vd.verysell.ru/files/ie/252_1...ion_PUBLIC.ppt around slide 70. 2.6GHz clear as day.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...702235635.html
X-bit has them up too.
Basically, the SPECrate benches were run at 2.6GHz, the others were at 2.3GHz
I like people that this certain.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
But i am still not - Inquirer did not provide any link, but they stated 2.3GHz for Barcelona (even twice!) -Quote:
Barcelona 2.3GHz yields 21% higher score than Clovertown 2.66 GHz
It is the INQ afterall. Did you check the powerpoint? It says 2.6GHz K10 21% faster than X5355. That would just be a big coincidence that they improved a 2.3GHz K10 to also be 21% faster. Where do you think the TPC-C, SAP-SD, SPECweb benches surfaced from? No other place than the same place he's reporting these old specrate scores, that powerpoint.
The most important, isn't 2.3 or 2.6 in the text butQuote:
Originally Posted by SEA
These figures were from a few months ago,
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...702235635.html
its 2.6 vs 2.66.
Once again it confirms that K10 will be a rendering (and not only) monster,
the lowest end K10 should match/surpass the top performance Core2 chips
with ease here.
20% INT clock/clock advantage over C2 isn't negligible either IMO.
this is still the same FUD and even the paper's writer tell it
Quote:
These figures were from a few months ago,
/.../
The only real question that now remains is whther AMD can execute. Sadly, the company's recent track record does not bode well, with constant delays of products and events. And we'll also wait to see real tests of the Barcelonas rather than paper promises
:rolleyes: I've only said this many times... AMD compares their 2.6GHz K10 score of 102 to stuff before 4.16.07. This is the result AMD is referencing for Intel's INT score. http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...219-00526.html The best X5355 has since gone up to 101 http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...612-01275.html and a 3GHz score of http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...528-01175.html
clock/clock does not matter. What matters is wattage, performance, cost.
BTW, compare the percentages of http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...702235635.html to http://tweakers.net/reviews/661 and you might not be so impressed.