AMD: Barcelona quad-core 50% faster than Intel’s quad-core Xeon

Printable View

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

04-23-2007, 11:13 AM
kiwi

Who cares about stock clock :p:
04-23-2007, 11:14 AM
terrace215

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeloader

I own both, so a fanboy I'm not. Why am I saying that AMD is full of :banana::banana::banana::banana:,? Who's seen these benches beyond AMD walls?

Release some god damn benches by now and throw us a freaking bone.

AMD doesn't seem to understand their userbase. Sure us hardcore freaks account for maybe 1% - 2% of their total sales, but that 1% probably represents 10% or more based on word of mouth. I build atleast a hundred systems a year. They used to be about 85% based on Athlon 64's; now that number has dwindled to about 15%. I'm one person out of thousands who now recommends Intel systems. If you want me to tell my customers/friends to wait for something better from AMD, then let me know what's coming down the pipeline and what it's capable of.

I don't need to know every thing about the chip, but some nice video/audio encoding benches mixed with a few game benches would do just fine.

Sorry, those are all the benchmarks where Barcelona loses badly to current C2D and C2Q, let alone Penryn. They'll try to keep THAT under wraps for as long as possible.
04-23-2007, 11:15 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAS

E6600 and 6000+ seem not to be low end

PS new intel prices are not anywhere now

for instance now i can buy E6600 for 320USD, 6000+ for 250 USD

Then you need to shop a better place. :stick:
04-23-2007, 11:15 AM
eXceeded

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

IMC is a semi joke. Core/Core2 already showed an IMC aint a winner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gOJDO

WOW! Really, there are a lot of very stupid people.

*sigh*....
AMD gone Intel, AMD has always been more responsive. I can tell for sure.
04-23-2007, 11:18 AM
Starscream

Quote:

Originally Posted by gOJDO

This is not true!
Some AMD CPUs have better price/performance than some Intel CPUs and vice versa.

WOW! Really, there are a lot of very stupid people.

:stick: that chart doesnt show me anything tbh.
for people that DONT overclock wich is the majority and dont demand ot much from a PC wich is also the majority AMD is atm the best solution.

i can pick up a X2 3600 for 55 euro.
i can pick up a decent Nforce4 mobo for 45 euro.

cheapest core2duo is some 90 euro and then u stil got to add the motherboard.

So sorry but for people that dont overclock AMD is the cheapest thus best solution.
04-23-2007, 11:21 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by eXceededgoku

*sigh*....
AMD gone Intel, AMD has always been more responsive. I can tell for sure.

Wow, must be those 0.000000050sec less latency that does it for your super perception. :slap:
04-23-2007, 12:12 PM
gOJDO

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starscream

:stick: that chart doesnt show me anything tbh.

My point was that not all AMD CPUs have better performance/price than Intel CPUs.

Quote:

for people that DONT overclock wich is the majority and dont demand ot much from a PC wich is also the majority AMD is atm the best solution.

I agree. But there are people who DO overclock and are demanding more performance than the average user. For them, AMD is not the best choice.

Quote:

i can pick up a X2 3600 for 55 euro.
i can pick up a decent Nforce4 mobo for 45 euro.

Yes, thats an excellent budget combo, which costed 3 times more a year ago. Probably it offers the best performance/price, but not all people are looking for the less expensive CPU and mainboard.

Quote:

cheapest core2duo is some 90 euro and then u stil got to add the motherboard.

Also the C2D budget mainboards are little beat more expensive than K8 budget mainboards. On the other side, almost without a performance penalty you can use a DDR2-533 on a C2D system and save some money.

Quote:

So sorry but for people that dont overclock AMD is the cheapest thus best solution.

I disagree. Like I said eariler, some AMD CPUs have better performance/price than some Intel CPUs. For example the C2D E4300 and the E4400 are performing faster than X2 4400+ and X2 4800+, but are costing same. And if we consider the power consumption, the heat dissipation and the overclockability, than the C2D's are much better choice over K8.
04-23-2007, 12:20 PM
AbelJemka

Is an overclocker forum here but really how many people really overclock their machine? 5%? 10%? 20%? If someone has numbers please show me cause i think that an interesting point.
04-23-2007, 12:23 PM
Starscream

@gOJDO
dunno were ur from so i dunno the ram prices there but overhere there is almost no price diffrence between DDR2-533 or DDR2-667

cheapest 2048 kit 533 is 78 euro cheapest 667 kit is 80 euro.

and like said i didnt say AMD is best for everyone but AMD is best for those that dont overclock and dont need a Uber CPU.

and the cheaper nforce 4 mobos arent that bad, in perf and features the diffrence between them and the nforce 570s is verys mall, but the difrence in price is rather big.
and some of them cheap motherboards clock rather nicely

@AbelJemka
impossible to say how many people overclock.
i got a m8 that OCed his E6600 a full 200mhz and he now thinks hes the king. im leaving him int hat illusion.
04-23-2007, 12:27 PM
safan80

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

Separate subject:

We should all root for both of them to do well as thats what keeps the technology advancing and the prices down.
.....lets get back to smearing AMD for not showing some real world numbers here!:D

QFT!!!!
04-23-2007, 12:51 PM
Kunaak

AMD did it before with the AMD64 over the P4.

no reason they cant do it again.
04-23-2007, 01:05 PM
freeloader

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAS

shame on you :rolleyes: currently amd has the best performance/cost ratio - and you recommend people who obviously wil not OC expensive intel-based systems :stick:

Most of my customers care about performance only. Cost is an afterthought.
04-23-2007, 01:40 PM
[XC] Teroedni

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

That's the real key to this statement. What will be the highest speed that AMD will release this cpu at.
If they are going to make a 2400mgz as top end and are comparing to Intels clovertown at that same speed they may well be right but does it matter?
What I want to know is how their top quad compares to Intels top quad.
That's all that matters. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

So agree The future is quads:toast:
04-23-2007, 01:51 PM
Movieman

Quote:

Originally Posted by [XC] Teroedni

So agree The future is quads:toast:

I totally agree, I just like 2 of them on one board!:D
4 would be better.
04-23-2007, 01:54 PM
Metroid

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAS

shame on you :rolleyes: currently amd has the best performance/cost ratio - and you recommend people who obviously wil not OC expensive intel-based systems :stick:

Well AMD CPU's have got cheaper after an year or so of Conroe's Arrival, even now AMD does not have best performance/cost ratio. Keep in mind Intel lowered its prices. So it is difficult to think about it, AMD can win something and Intel others but that is related to low end customer.
04-23-2007, 01:55 PM
Mad1723

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

I totally agree, I just like 2 of them on one board!:D
4 would be better.

16 cores... Man that would be hugeeeeee power! Raw FPU would be off the charts :slobber: Encoding a movie in High Definition in 10 minutes :p:
04-23-2007, 01:59 PM
Metroid

Quote:

Originally Posted by [XC] Teroedni

So agree The future is quads:toast:

Well it depends, thinking about 5 years or so I would say yes. It is difficult to program using multi cores at this time but sure things will change soon.
04-23-2007, 02:42 PM
eXceeded

^^ :O now that's what I want but instead on K10 ;). Man all those cores must be starved for bandwidth....
04-23-2007, 02:48 PM
Metroid

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho

What like this?.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v85/Poncho/16core.jpg

The CPU is mislabeled in this shot. While it is technically a clovertown core, these are Tigerton CPUs. :D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v8...6core_cpuz.jpg

16 slobber's ;)

:slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber:
04-23-2007, 02:51 PM
AbelJemka

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metroid

Well AMD CPU's have got cheaper after an year or so of Conroe's Arrival, even now AMD does not have best performance/cost ratio. Keep in mind Intel lowered its prices. So it is difficult to think about it, AMD can win something and Intel others but that is related to low end customer.

Performance market is so small compare to mainstream and low end so i don't think u can simplify things so simply. For mass market AMD price or good cause mass marker not overclock cpu.
04-23-2007, 03:07 PM
Metroid

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

Performance market is so small compare to mainstream and low end so i don't think u can simplify things so simply. For mass market AMD price or good cause mass marker not overclock cpu.

I'm not simplifying anything, please read my statement again.
04-23-2007, 03:11 PM
Movieman

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho

What like this?.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v85/Poncho/16core.jpg

The CPU is mislabeled in this shot. While it is technically a clovertown core, these are Tigerton CPUs. :D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v8...6core_cpuz.jpg

Don't tell me all they will do is 1600..or is that all you can show:rofl:
Upgrade cpuz to 1.39 and it will at least get the socket type correct.:D
(Stands in line for Tigertons!):D
04-23-2007, 04:01 PM
kiwi

Some Sun/IBM/HP servers have 100+ threads :)

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