But is wery good for FSB oc.
Amd dont offer (for now)in any case not multipler not fsb
Printable View
But is wery good for FSB oc.
Amd dont offer (for now)in any case not multipler not fsb
Even, if we can't overclock, the point could be price/performance vs overclock Intel price / performance. We don't know what will be the barcelona performance...
Ok, AMD doen't want give benchmarks, and Intel cut again price in July but who know? (probably some xtreme members but that is not those who posts fake cpuz :( )
And who know how a 65nm barcelona will compete with a 45 nm penryn even unlock?
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=199501467
anyone know the validity of this statement (on page 2), refering of course to the IMC supporting both DDR2 and DDR3Quote:
In terms of on-chip features, the four cores of Barcelona are expected to each have their own, 512-kB L2 cache, and to share a 2-MB L3 cache. The processor will support a fast, DDR2/DDR3 memory interface.
Anand:Quote:
Originally Posted by VulgarHandle
.Quote:
We asked AMD's Phil Hester when he expects to see DDR3 make sense for the desktop, and he gave us an unusually candid answer. According to Hester, it won't be until late 2008 or early 2009 that DDR3 will make economic sense to move to. Given that Phenom will be DDR2 from the start, it looks like AMD's transition to DDR3 will be much like its transition to DDR2: it will complete well after Intel has made the move
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sho...spx?i=2987&p=2
Since DDR3 is for AM3 with serial VIDs I would say no.Quote:
Originally Posted by VulgarHandle
Real World Tech has just updated their article on Barcelona:
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cf...WT051607033728
Excellent article with very high technical details.
I admit that it's mostly chiense to me, So if you can crack it down it or draw any performance estimations from this, Please do.
i readed it too, very nice :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Face
AMD show us all please :slobber:
@Face
A very educative article, but not enough detailed to make perfromance estimations. IMO, K10 will be a FP monster. It will outperform any x86 for FP per clock per core. For non-SSSE3/SSE4 optimized applications it will perform roguhly same as Core2 at same frequency. It will be slower than Core2 for arithmetic and logic calculations, at same frequency.
On 4P+ it will dominate for sure and maybe on 2P. On 1P, Core2 will remain holding the crown.
Hmm let's see if what the last "expert" said will hold true when K10 arrives.I think not.
if you think in 1P K10 is better i'm with you :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
sourceQuote:
...
David Kanter once again struck a gold vein for hard-core enthusiasts and engineers, by posting an article that goes in-depth with AMD K10. While Phil Hester claims that AMD never called Barcelona/Agena/Griffin processor line K10 (nor K8L, which was invented Charlie and then "confirmed" by another AMD executive), their own software guide calls for 10h family of processors. You do the math, and while you're doing it - head over to RealWorldTech and enjoy.
...
amazing
erm... don't get too excited *cough*R600*cough*
According to the writer of the article, Barcelona is a "solid improvement across the board" over AMD's current chips, and it should give the firm decisive advantages in the high-performance computing and multi-processor server markets.
With 2P, 4P I do agree and think it will dominate - Caneland\Tigerton should narrow the gap though.
I think 1P and desktop varients would(and should) edge current Conroes, even if just by a marginal gap.
When Penryn is out my guestimation is that they will perform toe-to-toe and that should be a nice battle to witness.
Madcho, I truly believe 10h will spank Conroe/Penryn across the board in 1P configs (including int besides the fp domination) and all that while consuming less energy and working at lower clocks.
Intel however could try to pump Penryn derivatives to well above 3 Ghz and try to counteract.
10h is low TDP, :banana:, oc will be great :slobber:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
This is just an Inq link to the Real World Tech article previously mentioned, how that makes it amazing :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho
I bet Penryn will wipe the floor with K10 on the 1P configuration as much as Core2 did to K8. Anyone interested about placing bets PM me.
Time caught up..no k10!Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho
Just like theinqs track record :DQuote:
Originally Posted by madcho
Maybe try with David Kanter, from what he says this remains to be seen, he looks like he knows much more than you tho' :fact:Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
K10 better beat Core 2 with overclocking not just at stock for me to consider it a success. Some how I doubt we'll see K10 much above 3 Ghz.
c'mon amd; i want a barcelona / X4 :); intel are way too smug at the moment; they're annoying me.
i think K10 at 2.6 will match 3ghz c2q.Quote:
Originally Posted by frankR
In the better case intel will release this year penryn 3.3ghz. And i don't think intel could do it before early 2008.
I'm very confident about oc of K10, TDP are low and vcore too :toast:
Who created the R600? AMD or ATi?Quote:
Originally Posted by eXceededgoku
Now, who's fault was the R600 really? ;)
8.38 drivers show us XT is faster than GTS640 in evry games, wait 3 or 4 months and the XT should beat a GTX :love:
Let us not forget that this thread is not about graphic cards ;)
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
And add [H] on that list of "don't want them to get at it early" for me too :devil:
And yeah, AMD is "saying" to release those boards you were seeing with their own chipsets along with the Agena FX release (after Barcelona for server).
I would "guess" (because even inside the industry you cannot do more than that right UNTIL the very last minute) mid Q3 for the Agena FX, the AMD boards and the 'ol 65nm XTX. But I know Computex is hot on the agenda so you never know.
Additionally competition is so rough 'n aggressive right now, with Intel on the upper edge obviously and already shooting its prices down, let alone then. Price wise AMD cannot match that with their new offerings already (unless some lower clocked ~1.9-2.3GHz Kuma better a E6750/E6850 :eek:) and would therefore rely on the mid-higher range for fame 'n fortune I feel.
We enthusiasts are not even 0.1% of their intended market. The world is mostly based on price and then performance along with local availability and "trends" when buying, with the server/workstation/OEM market the largest and most profitable by far, and yet they look to good performance, business relationship, low TDP of the biggest factors.
I have no idea how they perform, too much gobble wobble around, not just online, even inside the industry professionals. Though AMD vs Intel processors have always been top notch when released, whereas ATi vs nV is a different story altogether, more usual to see them on par with each other.
People have to realize the Core 2 Duo architecture is damn very good for it's time to level, let alone beat. Early stages I reckon the Penryn: Wolfdale/Yorkfield at 3.33GHz will not be much of an improvement over a QX6800/QX6850 at 3.33GHz. And I have seen early performance to base this on, although they were not tuned and tweaked at best for release, they were ES samples that Intel saw fit to pimp.
But I predict that the Barcelona cores will be hits in the OEM/Server/Workstation (Home/Business/Governmental) markets (like SP/DP/MP - SMP, MIMD, NUMA, MISD, ASMP and multi-node configs for supercoms due to low TDP etc). I suspect their highest will do well for desktop range too (no idea how well), but how the middle and low end stack up is probably what will decide their outcome in the desktop market I feel.
I'll wait as I deem it only sensible to and hardly believe much around until I see it tested by someone trustable and with credibility beyond site hit gathering. Could easily turn out just as what happened with R600 now. (the highest main one not released - although we haven't seen the XT's stable performance yet, but promises from AMD for the new 8.38 driver and the one after it that supposedly fixes the AA issues- hopefully in the next 2 weeks a decent "valid" review should be out rather than a preview, as far as I'm hearing from some reviewers). ;)
http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/1...tsfinalci9.gif
ho hum; i hope something turns up in the next 6 months.
multicores was/is supposed to reduce the "need" for higher clocks as the only performance measure...but it is now more cores and higher clocks as fab processes continue to improve and shrink.
Which makes me hungry for more cores and more speed.
...waiting like a drooling vulture...:slobber: :brick: :rolleyes:
it seems in the intel camp that only a few motherboards are capable of achieving high fsb's with current quad core chips. (eg. EVGA 680i, p5k)...so i'm not rushing into an intel quad at this stage.
I reckon AMD X4/barc/agena/some variant of...will be a quad core option. I hope they overclock well...or i might just update to a newer sli board when it arrives and plonk in a yorkfield....impossible to predict...i just hope that AMD come up with the goods.
...and then intel will bring out Nehalem in 2008 and the tables will turn again probably.
AMD shows sunny side of Barcelona:
http://news.com.com/AMD+shows+sunny+...l?tag=nefd.top
I'm surprised that only Cnet has reported about this as of yet and I couldn't find it mentioned anywhere else. Im sure they weren't alone while demonstrating. Maybe tommorow.. But at least it seems like wer'e getting close to seeing some numbers at last.Quote:
AMD demonstrated its Barcelona quad-core server chip for reporters and analysts here Monday, comparing its performance to one of AMD's dual-core Opteron processors. This marked the first time AMD shared Barcelona performance information with anyone outside of its server partners and internal folks, said Randy Allen, corporate vice president for server and workstations at AMD.
The company ran a demo comparing the performance of two four-socket servers, one using the quad-core Barcelona chip and one using a dual-core Opteron chip. The demo measured the performance of the chips on an imaging benchmark called POV-Ray, and as you might expect, the quad-core chip finished its task quicker than the dual-core chip.
The quad-core chip processed about 4,000 pixels per second in rendering the image, while the dual-core chip could only hit around 2,000 pixels per second.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS, This doesn't indicate any performance levels, But it's a good sign to see they're out there.
Please take in mind that it could be complete BS, And I cant validate any of this so don't take this for granted.
It's not a benchmark, just the average plys\KNs reads from the game.
Zappa on a 32 threads AMD (Barcelona core):
http://216.25.93.108/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13936Quote:
Zappa Zanzibar X64: 28.7 ply; 24,375kN/s Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 8270 2612MHz, (32 threads)
Saw the Cnet article earlier and came here expecting lots of posts with more info about it + the usual fan-boy quarreling =)
Had to dig myself then, QX6800 does 2613 in POV-Ray according to Intel
http://www.intel.com/performance/des...iid=qc_tl+dis3
And X6800 only 1318.
So is this one of the benchmarks where AMD is already doing better than Intel, same as was the case with Spec-FP_rate benches released earlier? No more PER CORE than what current Opterons can do, not so very impressive.
And i dont get it from the Cnet article, is this meassured per processor or per 4 processors?
4-socket board with only 1 processor mounted, maybe thats what it means.Quote:
comparing the performance of two four-socket servers, one using the quad-core Barcelona chip and one using a dual-core Opteron chip.
ted3, based on the rough score of 2000 pixels/s for the dual-core Opteron system, it would suggest that it would be a comparison of dual-socket systems.
http://www.2cpu.com/review.php?id=114&page=11
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._11.html#sect0
It sure looks like its dual socket then. Hope for more news on this, the CNet article is messed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
And if it is 2 sockets, why does dual Clowertown score higher... Maybe its 2 Opterons vs 1 Barcelona.
no but:Quote:
Originally Posted by ted3
look like they have probleme to show high performance... That is probably why we wait always and always for something clear...Quote:
Allen said Barcelona was not running at the fastest clock speed that will be available at launch, although he declined to specify the speeds that will be available.
You v' probably miss that even "not true" quadcore are twice as fast than dualcore on povray. (perhaps, you doesn't mean 1 vs 1?)Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
Quote:
Originally Posted by ted3
Its possible, in some benches C2D can double the score of Yonah. Noone expected it but it still happened =)Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
AMD said about 70% faster than K8, This coud be true :DQuote:
Originally Posted by LOE
http://theinq.com/images/articles/POV_Barcelona.jpg
So umm .. 16 cores? i'm confused now.. am I missing anything, or that the Inq is misinformed?Quote:
The Opteron machine on the left was started first and the Barcelona box finished in far less time. The raw results were about 2200 pixels per second on the Opteron while the Barcelona hit "just over" 4000 on the POV Bench.
The systems it showed were identical 4S AMD development platforms running DDR2 memory and HE (65W) chips. Nothing was changed between the two platforms other than the BIOS.
doesen't make sense at all..(Clovertown X5365 8 cores 4677 POV-ray according to Xbitlabs)
http://theinq.com/default.aspx?article=39756
[edit typo]
70% now?Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho
It started with 42%, then 46% then 50% and now 70%?
Sounds like the 2 eggs that became 5 chickens.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._11.html#sect0Quote:
Originally Posted by Face
But they also state about 2000 for a dual dualcore FX74 setup (4 cores). And these 2000 should be with 8 K8 cores.
Sounds fishy...
I think they configured the bench differently or used some scene that most sites don't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGiv9Dtrc5Q
AMD man claims same GHz. So 16 K10 cores are just 80% faster than 8 K8 cores? Bad scaling anyone? If they compared with 8 K10, that 80% should be even smaller (or maybe K10 not that improved).
Without specific reliable information this is meaningless. AMD does themselves no favors by making tests like this public and not disclosing specifics, then they open to speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
40% between barcelona 2.4 and clovertown 2.66.
50% better at same clock with clovertown.
70% per core vs K8 at same clock.
simple;)
madcho: you are watching too many movies and you are consuming too much AMD marketing.
It's a little confusing. But I guess, they are comparing scalability: between 4S dual core K10 and 4S quad core K10.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
If it is quad vs dual K10, then 80% isn't bad. But in the video, they call one machine "Opteron" then the quad "Barcelona"..
http://www.uberpulse.com/us/2007/05/...ce_as_fast.php
And this site which I presume has been more informed than us claims that it's "one with the Barcelona quad core chip and the other with a shipping dual core processor."
quite true!Quote:
Originally Posted by frankR
I understood it like this:
both systems used 4 socket mobos,
Opreton was dual core, so that means 8core total and scored 2000
K10 was quad core , so that would mean 16cores total and it scored 4000
If this is true it looks very bad considering it is the NEW architecture!!
To be more specific, according to this vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGiv9Dtrc5Q
8 "Opteron" got 2200 pixels/second in 112 seconds and 16 Barcelona got 4000 in 56 seconds. About 80% scaling...
twice the pixels/second in half the time, that's theoretically 4x the performance with only twice as many cores, using same or less thermal envolope, and at possibly less speeds, if what the inq says is true (inq says 65w and not the highest clock to be released)Quote:
Originally Posted by red
if that's how the setup ran (4 quads new arc vs. 4 dual old arch), then it sounds good to me
50% to C2DQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
80% to K8
Duh....
At least read something before posting...
but 8 cores K8 vs 16 cores K10, and only 80% faster the last machine (with a heavy multithreaded app), doesn´t make sense at all, because we know K10 features, and with them in mind, it's obvious K10 will be a lot faster than K8 with same number of cores and same clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
1. You haven't understood what he said. 4 K10 CPUs are performing a little beat more than 4000 pixels/s, while 4 K8 CPUs are performing 2200 pixels/s. The 4 K10 CPUs finished one task for 56s, while the K8 finished the same task for 112s. That is 2X performance, not 4X.Quote:
Originally Posted by VulgarHandle
2. If something is said by the_INQ it is BS or FUD by default.
again, 16 K10 cores performed a task in half the time as 8 K8 cores, at twice the performanceQuote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
assuming POVray scales like most say it does, that would mean you would need 32 K8 cores to match the 16 K10 cores (double the K8 cores to match the pixels/s, then double that to match the time)... theoretically
No, you don't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by VulgarHandle
It is 2x performance. The task is to process n pixels. K10 processing 4000+(it is said more than 4000, not exact number. So I assume 4400 pixels/s according to the times) pixels per second and finishes the processing for 56 seconds. For the same task the K8 needed 112 seconds because it was processing 2200 pixels/second.
It is like you have two cars on a drag race and the faster car finishes the race after 56 seconds with average speed of 200km/h. The slower car finishes the race after 112 seconds with average speed of 100km/h. The faster car is 2 times faster than the slower car, not 4 times.
Got it?
and BTW, K10 server will continue be calling "Opteron". So the fact Randy Allen calls Opteron to the dual core machine, doesn't mean it is a K8.
Again, I think tht two machines are K10, one 4S dual core, the other 4S quad core. So they are only showing scalability between them.
"twice the performance"
?
pixels/second isn't similar to frames per second. I think it just means how much pixels are processed in a second. For example, if a scene has 50,000 pixels and CPU A finishes in 10 seconds, it processed 5000 pixels/second, and if CPU B finished in 30 seconds, it processed 1667 pixels/second.
He labeled one machine "Opteron", one "Barcelona".
http://www.uberpulse.com/us/2007/05/...ce_as_fast.php
"Anyway, the demo compared two AMD 4-sockets systems: one with the Barcelona quad core chip and the other with a shipping dual core processor."
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39756
Inq mentions everything similar except BIOS... K10 would need a new BIOS. ding
besides, won't all future Opterons based on K10 be quad-cores? I doubt the "Opterons" in this test were K10
the drag strip is not a good example, because they both have 1 engine, but what you are saying is that one car has a better motor, so it not only finishes in a faster time, but accelerates faster which helps it get the better timeQuote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
so, is the ~4000 pixels/s due to more cores, or better cores?
is the less time due to more cores, or better cores?
i assume the more pixels/s and less time are due to both more cores and better cores
if you were to pit 8 K8 cores against 16 K8 cores, would it still perform more pixels/s at a ratio of 2:1 AND less time at a ratio of 2:1 like this?
red, Have you heard in the video to Randy Allen calling the quad core as Barcelona? I'm not. He says dual core solution, and quad core solution. Why do you give credit to written sources (Inq between them), and not to Randy Allen mouth?
VulgarHandle, there will be dual and quad Opteron K10.
I thought I heard him call the dual solution Opteron and the quad Barcelona... His statement can go both ways but uberpulse clearly says they used a dual core solution shipping today, Inq says Barcelona machine requiring a new BIOS. And I have a birdie telling me it's 16 K10 vs 8 K8. The "poor" scaling could mean
a) News are wrong and it is dual K10 vs quad K10 (decent scaling of 80%)
b) K10 needs HT3
c) If that demo was with HT3, HT3 is insufficient
d) POV-Ray not a good indication of K10 improvements
e) K10 is a dud
I guess this has been discussed already, but what do you make of the guy's analysis:
....Quote:
AMD's official Barcelona show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGiv9Dtrc5Q
In POV-Ray, 4 Barcelona (16cores total) got about 4000 pixs /sec.
while the 4 Opteron DC(8 cores total) in the same frequency got about
2200 pixs /sec.
Compare with the test provided by xbitlabs:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/intel-v8/povray.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._11.html#sect0
Two X6365(Quad Core Xeon @3.0GHz), 8 cores total can do 4677 pix/sec.
And two FX74 (Dual core K8 @ 3G, 4Cores total) can do 2020.
combine all the facts above together, we can find out that the test
systems in AMD's show are running at about 2GHz. At these frequency,
the 16 cores Barcelona system even can't beat current 8core Xeon
system.
Remember the Quad core Barcelona will top at 2.5GHz! And Intel's
Harpertown in on the way.
the problem with that is that all his analysis points to the scaling of POVray to be completely dependent on core speed, not number of coresQuote:
Originally Posted by Sumanji
so in his analysis, 8 3.0ghz intel beats 16 2.0ghz barcelona, which tells us nothing
based on his analysis we would need either 2.0ghz intel's or 3.0ghz barcelona's....
I don't think they were running the same POV-Ray bench. There are different scenes and settings and whatnot.
I really wonder what's wrong with the idiot "journalists" and "analysts" who didn't have the sense to ask a simple question to clarify. It just boggles the mind how stupid and ignorant these people are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumanji
Exactly red.The previous results (from Xbit etc.) cannot be compared to these results.To my knowledge,they used 4x opteron HE dual core that ran at 2.2Ghz.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5992
This conclusion might be a bit off because of recent FUD about better steppings but DailyTech says only 1.9/2.0GHz HE parts for K10. And the Youtube said equal frequency.
The photo shows the default benchmark image used in Povray 3.7. The image is 512x512, which matches up with the score; 4000+ pixels/s at 62s.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
Core 2 QX6700 gets ~2700. 8 K8 cores get only 2200 and 16 K10 get 4000? lol
Perhaps because AMD doesn't want to answer clearly because there barcelona is buggy...Quote:
Originally Posted by DeepThought86
It 's fantastic, since months we have only bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:, AMD doesn't want to provide something else than "estimate" or look this is faster and this will be not our faster cpu... And there is still blind people...
In fact, this bench is 1 barcelona with 3 cores desactivates, underclock at 100 Hz versus 32 opteron K8 overclock at 5 GHz...
Don't you see that they try deseperatly to show something but have nothing to show...
They were using 68W models, so somewhere around 1.8GHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_quadfx/11.shtml
From here, Opteron 280 2.4GHz to FX74 3GHz is a 25% difference, which is directly reflected in score...
Lowest clocked 4 socket Opteron HE is 8212 with 2GHz...2/2.4=0.83. 0.83*1711=1426, or 356 per core for a 2GHz deduced POVray score.
Score would be 2900 for 8 K8 2GHz cores or 5700 for 16 K8 2GHz. Nah.
http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?new...VzaWFzdCwsLDE=
Wouldn't middle of the year be like next month?
This is just 65nm facilities...Quote:
Originally Posted by XeRo
About barcelona and phenom:
With those high expectations in mind, AMD is preparing to launch its quad-core desktop processors, which will go by the name "Phenom," later this year and just after the company unveils its quad-core Opteron processor "Barcelona" for servers.
And again something look bad with barcelona:
Quote:
In addition, Sonderman said AMD will start delivering 45-nanometer processors by the middle of 2008 to compete with Intel's "Penryn" family of 45-nanometer chips, which are scheduled to hit the market late in 2007.
Wow. Comparing 2007 Barcelona with 2006 Clovertown now comparing 2008 45nm Barcelona with 2007 Penryn?
No products, no comparison. BTW, if AMD continue this trend of delaying products, then their 45nm K10 will compete against 32nm Nehaleem. This thread is tiresome and I am tired of waiting for K10.
AMD will always be behind Intel in fabs. They just don't have the money to push to the next process as quickly as Intel. Let Intel spend all the money to work out the bugs, then AMD will follow.
Hopefully the K10 won't turn out like the R600. That would suck.
http://www.uberpulse.com/us/2007/05/...e_you_ship.php
In other news, Intel scores 4933 with 8 cores compared to "just over 4000" from the 16 Barcelona cores. This demo didn't have much to do with performance as much as it had to do with... Barcelona existing :down:
red,follow this link :http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/r...1703&forumid=1
It shows that seemingly "same" beta can bring diff. results.
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_quadfx/11.shtml
What are you trying to prove with that link? My point was that the POVray bench wasn't indicative of performance relative to Intel since obviously they could do better. Also, I don't think Intel would have done the stunt unless they knew how Barcelona performed with normal clocks in POVray. And something that has yet to be explained is why 16 K10 only scales 80% against 8 (presumably) K8 cores.
Yes that also,but also the fact that there are different betas of the same version that yield different results.So 8 Core(intel) Vs 16 K10 is not an accurate comparison since we know nothing specific about the (sub)version AMD used and the system specs.
:yawn2:
To put it simply, AMD didn't dare demo against Clovertown, Intel wouldn't have stuck their neck out unless they had an idea of Barcelona performance, 80% scaling for 16 K10 vs 8 K8 is not impressive.
It's a demo of multicore, not a barcelona demo, they don't want to say how it perform i think.
POV ray smp is always beta.
http://www.uberpulse.com/us/2007/05/...ll_unknown.php
They confirm that it's 16 K10 vs 8 K8 as reported before.
It's not a demo, it's a joke...Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho
Since March 2007Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho
http://www.intel.com/performance/des...drendering.jpg
98% faster when doubling core and now 16 K10 vs 8 K8 can't even not show 98% faster???
There's a lot more that can be done with K8 if the Intel handn't introduced core 2 so fast.
It isn't to bad though....comments such as "I'm tired of waiting for k10 "annoy me, as frankly ppl should just not visit the thread if they feel this way. Coming to this thread everyday hoping for some miraculous new news isn't going to push up the release date, and neither will whining about or bashing the company.
Perkam
Eh? 4X the cores and a slight frequency results in a 3.56X increase in throughput. Clock-normalize it and its about 3.48X.Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
I messed up my math, and as thus deleted my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
QFT *sits on hands*Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
Thankgod someone said it,
The more you hang off every bit of news, the longer it seems to take. And the more silly you look.
AMD are not the company to hurry and push things along just becuase they're getting beaten to a pulp. They're far more structured than that, They also have long had a policy of being tight lipped.. Everyone's said it a billion times, it's really getting old.
Just shutup and wait, or go buy a C2D, for the sake of everyone having to read your emo crap :p
Just 2 more months now :D
Hamid....open up photoshop or fireworks and pls resize that to max 1024xsomething.
Perkam
more info straight from the source:
more hereQuote:
Originally Posted by AMD
That graphic raises as many questions as it answers. Since AMD has already demonstrated they have working samples of Barcelona, why would we be interested in "estimates" and "internal simulations" instead of actual benchmarks? Also the Xeon 5355 is the 2.66 GHz part, which has already been superseeded. Also the Barcelona "simulation" assumes 2.6 GHz, is that clockspeed a given (for launch)?Quote:
Originally Posted by eXceededgoku
Didn't they already say 20% better on INT and 50% better on FP for SPEC at the same clock?
The FP was SpecFp_rate, which is mainly a memory bench. K8 already beat Intel here with 20% or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
INT might be rate aswell. But I havent seen the INT numbers.
sourceQuote:
The clock speed of AMD Barcelona was.....
I only see alot of speculation and some guessing maths. Just as good as any of us could do.Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho