TechReport on Barcelona

Quote:

---

How nice and competitive is this alpha BIOS?

---

not at all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nasgul

How nice and competitive is this? :confused:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y21...l/CRAPPOLA.png

---

That's one reason I think the Anand preview didn't really show the full performance of the K10. It also doesn't seem that AMD will be shipping a lot of these systems now if the AMD supplied Anandtech system has such problems. AMD was rushed to get barc out the door by their stated release date, and they didn't quite get it ready. Hopefully, yet again AMD will just manage to hang on.

after reading this thread with a lot of crap in it,thx to savuntu and mr smartass...

juste making a few point

Server <-> desktop
Desktop parts will be faster,do you really think with wider prefetch and 4 cores DDR2 667 ECC can provide enough bandwidth?

No clear winner
in the benches i've read,there is no clear winner here
barcalona sometimes beats a 2.33 clover, and sometimes it's the other way around.

AMD is back
looking at the benches,K10 isn't as bad as some people had wished for..
It's actually quite good imo
finally bringing quadcore to the scene,which is really important in the server market. They don't need high clocked parts,cause who is insane enough to buy the most expensive?
they just need fresh money,new better products provides this
2.5 ghz will be sufficient if you ask me, and those parts are coming real soon (i hope :) )

Actually Intel is only stronger in the desktop. K8 already do quite well against Core 2 in the server space. In the desktop it gets molested by the Core 2.

So if anything, its only gonna be worse when the Core 2 is released from FB-DIMMs and the 5000 platform. So if you are hoping for something..dont..it will just backfire as the K10 expectations alot had.

But again, highend is low volume.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Actually Intel is only stronger in the desktop. K8 already do quite well against Core 2 in the server space. In the desktop it gets molested by the Core 2.

So if anything, its only gonna be worse when the Core 2 is released from FB-DIMMs and the 5000 platform. So if you are hoping for something..dont..it will just backfire as the K10 expectations alot had.

But again, highend is low volume.

---

dualcore against dualcore they went well,but AMD didn't have a quadcore for a very long time, now they have one,and its a decent product,not a miracle but a good and solid product with a wel thought concept.
I desktop AMD will need have more horsepower, so hopefully it will have higher clocked parts
and a better B3 revision soon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

I would love to see a quote of any somewhat knowledgeable person who was being serious about an increase greater than ~40-70% over C2Q.
I'm guessing some noob in the 30k 3dMark06 K10 thread said the 170%.

I was expecting about equal to C2Q, hoping for a 10-20% advantage but we still have yet to see Phenom on an AM2+ board. Still won't push Phenom way ahead of C2Q but probably equal, possibly slightly ahead.

I'm still holding out to see how Phenom OCs and if Penryn is worth it over a Q6600.

---

I agree. I believe AMD's executives specifically said Barcelona would be 40% faster than the Xeon 51xx Clovertowns, and I've yet to see a 40% gain in performance over a clovertown in a benchmark, though, there haven't been many reviews or benchmarks run on their chips.

But, do keep in mind, there has to be a substantial overall performance gain over C2D for AMD to continue being competitive. It's much like the 8800 series vs HD 2900XTs. Yeah, the HD2900XT is a pretty good graphics card, but becuase it wasn't that much better than the 8800GTS//GTX//Ultras, their sales still suffered. If Phenom isn't going to be spectacular in comparison to a Q6600//QX6700//QX6800//QX6850, I really don't see any point in buying an AMD system. Price would be the final determining point; and seeing how AMD's in financial troubles and the whole "monolithic core" thing going on, I don't see how AMD can afford to play another price war unless they manage to live for another 2 years and hope to win that lawsuit against intel :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeardyMan

Sure i'm not blind , i see and read what i see and read

It's clearly that AMD has regained the performance crown, it's just a hard pill for the intel boys to swallow.


:D

---

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sorry kid, K10 can't even touch Conroe let alone penyrn. K10 is much more expensive to manufacture than K8. It is inferior in performance even to the Conroe, so there is no hope of matching penyrn. The penyrn will be much cheaper to produce and it will have 5-10% performance increase along with the lower TDP and superior transistors. AMD is far from taking the performance crown. AMD right now needs to worry about staying alive more than trying to take the performance crown.
For 3 years AMD beat Intel, all it did was made Intel get a bloody nose. In one year, AMD ended up in the intensive care unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard server mobos aren't the best choice for overclocking :yepp:

I also wonder what kind of chips are those - B1 or B2

---

The 3GHz CPU was obviously multiplier-unlocked, which makes it much easier to overclock in any old board..

IIRC, at launch, Opteron was only doing 1.8GHz, which of course was nowhere near as fast as 3.4GHz Xeons/P4s... oh, how the things changed a few months later. So, it's still too early to tell. Maybe they'll be able to compete with 2x2-core Pentium-M chips.

Also, I think their reverse-HT gambit might pay off to improve IPC on a single thread, once properly supported by the OS and enabled on the chips.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss

@Gothrak :slap:

After reading your poorly written BS without facts, data and logical explanations and my nick-name in the same post, it is my pleasure to respond. I don't believe that I can change your blind fanboyism about your favorite company, nor I think that you'll learn something. But its kind of fun to frustrate people like you. :D

---

is it my fault you're always full of BS,and sorry english is only my third language....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss

It is not the RAM that provides bandwidth, but it is the memory controller(s). For example K10 with DDR2-667 provides more bandwidth than K8 with DDR2-1000.
Memory bandwidth is not CPU performance. It can help in certain cases, but until we have a proof(backed up with DATA) we can't conclude anything.
The fact that K10 has two optimized(each much more advanced than the one on the K8) memory controllers and a shared L3(which all can be dedicated to a single core if needed) leads to the conclusion that K10 should perform well even with the high latency rDDR2-667.
In a case you didn't know, the cache memory reduces the impact of the RAM latency and bandwidth(i.e. Core2).

So anyone with some basic knowledge about CPU architectures won't expect a dramatical performance improvements from a faster RAM.

---

i have basic knowledge about cpu architectures :rolleyes:
indeed,we need proof backe up with data,so proof me there is no bandwidth difference between DDR2 667 ECC and DDR2 1066 on K10...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss

Then you must be blind. When you are talking about performance in 2P environment, the clear winner is Clovertown(X5365). You can cry as loud as you want about the clock advantage it has, but it is almost a year old CPU and blows away the Opteron 2350.
What makes the Opteron 2350 attractive is:
1) the overall system energy efficiency
2) overall system price
Thats why it will gain some market share for AMD. Those who are looking for a TOP performance are looking at Intel.
No matter how hard AMD tries with their K10 barely reaching Core2 IPC and their 65nm SOI they are not going to come close to the performance crown in 1P and 2P.

---

i was talking about 2GHz barcelona vs 2.33 ghz Clover,and there is no clear winner there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss

It is VERY important for AMD, but not for the mobile/desktop/workstation/server markets. Quadcores already exist for many years, and if you talk about x86 Intel have sold millions already.
If no body buys them, then no body will produce them. So, there are people and companies who need the best performance and are willing to pay a premium for that.

---

so you say quadcore isnt important for the server market?? :rofl: :ROTF: :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss

Yes! AMD needs money or it'll die sooner than most people here expect. When AMD will make some profits and pay off the loans, we can say that they are saved from the disaster. Until then, we can only hope they survive.

Sufficient to compete in 2P and 4P environment until Nehalem.

Don't be surprised if AMD paper-launch the parts you hope to arrive soon.

---

so you have crystall ball and knows how nehalem will perform?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iddqd

The 3GHz CPU was obviously multiplier-unlocked, which makes it much easier to overclock in any old board..

IIRC, at launch, Opteron was only doing 1.8GHz, which of course was nowhere near as fast as 3.4GHz Xeons/P4s... oh, how the things changed a few months later. So, it's still too early to tell. Maybe they'll be able to compete with 2x2-core Pentium-M chips.

Also, I think their reverse-HT gambit might pay off to improve IPC on a single thread, once properly supported by the OS and enabled on the chips.

---

reverse-HT.... reverse-HT... he said... *falls down to the floor laughing*

No offense, but that doesn't exist. There are no whitepapers, no evidence at all that sometone has even figured out how to do it much less implement it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iddqd

The 3GHz CPU was obviously multiplier-unlocked, which makes it much easier to overclock in any old board..

IIRC, at launch, Opteron was only doing 1.8GHz, which of course was nowhere near as fast as 3.4GHz Xeons/P4s... oh, how the things changed a few months later. So, it's still too early to tell. Maybe they'll be able to compete with 2x2-core Pentium-M chips.

Also, I think their reverse-HT gambit might pay off to improve IPC on a single thread, once properly supported by the OS and enabled on the chips.

---

Reverse-HT???? Are you kidding?

This is a must see... :D :D

http://youtube.com/watch?v=F7LNUkHa7U8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

i was talking about 2GHz barcelona vs 2.33 ghz Clover,and there is no clear winner there...

---

E5335 is only 2.0ghz not 2.33ghz. That's the one where's no clear winner in techport review.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

For 3 years AMD beat Intel, all it did was made Intel get a bloody nose. In one year, AMD ended up in the intensive care unit.

---

There's fantasy and then there's reality...

http://www.electronics.ca/presscente...sed/Page1.html

In the first-half of this year, AMD reached already the top10.

Not bad for "intensive care unit", imagine what will happen now, that AMD have a more competitive product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoubleZero

E5335 is only 2.0ghz not 2.33ghz. That's the one where's no clear winner in techport review.


There's fantasy and then there's reality...

http://www.electronics.ca/presscente...sed/Page1.html

In the first-half of this year, AMD reached already the top10.

Not bad for "intensive care unit", imagine what will happen now, that AMD have a more competitive product.

---

at anand there is no clear winner to me,and that is done with 2.33 ghz

you are completely right on your other statement
i will just sit and wait what higher clocked barca's and phenoms will bring us :)
if that doesnt do the trick i'll buy intel for my next setup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

at anand there is no clear winner to me,and that is done with 2.33 ghz

you are completely right on your other statement
i will just sit and wait what higher clocked barca's and phenoms will bring us :)
if that doesnt do the trick i'll buy intel for my next setup

---

I suggest you read this before you comment : http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...4&postcount=97

Quote:

---

Of all the tests performed at AnandTech, Barcelona won 5 and Xeon won 3. The total percentages by which each one beat the other were 27.13 and 73.94. This means that when Barcelona won, it won by much less percentage-wise. And when Xeon won it, won by a a lot more. These tests do not demonstrate the performance AMD's website indicated they should, nor do they include the fastest Intel parts available today.

If we then look to a much more comprehensive benchmark at The Tech Report we find Barcelona winning 3 tests, and Xeon winning 23 tests. The total percentages were 123.63 and 634.26. It's also worth noting that the bulk of the large Barcelona percentage shown here comes from a single test which included a 121.14&#37; improvement over Xeon in memory bandwidth using a 1 GB test set. If we remove that test, then Barcelona's three wins only total a 2.49% over Xeon's. And if that memory test had used data sets of anything at 64MB or below, then it would've shown Xeon winning by similar percentages at various data set sizes.

All told at both sites, Barcelona wins 8 and Xeon wins 26. The total percentages across 38 benchmarks were 150.76 and 708.2 values. The average winning percentages are 18.85% for Barcelona and 30.79% for Xeon. If we remove the one benchmark which had Barcelona winning by 121.14%, then the results are average winning percentages for Barcelona of 4.23% on only 22% of the benchmarks. And 32.19% for Xeon on 78%. This indicates that in those instances where Barcelona wins, it wins by a much smaller margin than Xeon. So small that it's hardly worth mentioning, especially when you consider there are two faster clocked processors available today from Intel.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoubleZero

...

There's fantasy and then there's reality...

http://www.electronics.ca/presscente...sed/Page1.html

In the first-half of this year, AMD reached already the top10.

Not bad for "intensive care unit", imagine what will happen now, that AMD have a more competitive product.

---

Oh yes...did it ever occurred to you that AMD's rise was due to ATI's acquisition ?

Secondly , would you bet for AMD staying in top 10 this year ? ;)

And you should read this conclusion from AT early preview of K10:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3091&p=13

Quote:

---

Conclusion

It's close to a nightmare to try to review a server CPU in a few days, but we hope we have at least provided you with an idea what AMD's newest quad-core is capable of. We'll summarize our preliminary results with this small table.
The Opteron 2350 (2 GHz) vs. Xeon "Clovertown"
General applications Opteron 2350 (2GHz) equates to Xeon clock speed of:
WinRAR 3.62 2.7 GHz
Fritz Chess engine 1.8 GHz
HPC applications
Intel optimized Linpack 1.9 GHz
3D Applications
3DS Max 9 2 GHz
zVisuel 3D Kribi Engine 2.33 - 2.4 GHz
zVisuel 3D Kribi Engine (AA) 2.4 GHz
Server applications
Specjbb 2.4 GHz
MySQL 2.33 GHz


Considering that AMD prices this Opteron 2350 under the Xeon 5345, AMD has an attractive price/performance offering for most applications. The only exception is a chess engine and highly optimized Intel binaries. Although our testing is not finished yet, there is very little doubt that AMD's newest chip is very energy efficient

---

Don't judge the K10 by the benches seen at Tech-Report and Anandtech.

There is strong evidence suggesting that the chips used in those reviews, were bug ridden.

According to Dave Graham over at AMD Zone who has connections with AMD:

Quote:

---

i've been asked to pass this to my FAE @ AMD.

what people have been benching is the B1 chip stepping with a BIOS patch applied to get around errata #281 (conspicuously absent on that errata worksheet). BA is the production stepping that fixes this issue on the NB itself and will handle some of the performance "issues" people have been :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:ing about. B2 steppings are the "SE" or higher rated parts.

cheers,

dave

---

I knew something had to be wrong with those benches! The SSE performance in particular, was just too low considering the K10's enhancements in that area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

And you should read this conclusion from AT early preview of K10:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3091&p=13

---

ill take performance leader for energy efficienty leader on desktop any day :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

Don't judge the K10 by the benches seen at Tech-Report and Anandtech.

There is strong evidence suggesting that the chips used in those reviews, were bug ridden.

According to Dave Graham over at AMD Zone who has connections with AMD:



I knew something had to be wrong with those benches! The SSE performance in particular, was just too low considering the K10's enhancements in that area.

---

I cant understand how people believe AMD sent out bugged systems for review. I would near blindly accept this if they obtained them from a third party but AMD sent them, Seriously, Do you think this is likely?

Also it is pretty funny that a lot of amd fans are saying "I am not disappointed, k10 is great, I am very very happy with it,BUT ALSO DONT BELIEVE ANY OF THE REVIEWS i AM BASING THIS GREATNESS ON BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN DONE WITH BUGGED CHIPS AND MAKE IT LOOK BAD" LOL



What you see is what you get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

ill take performance leader for energy efficienty leader on desktop any day :p:

---

In case you missed it,look at what freq. intel quad must work to attain the same level of performance(i even bolded it for you).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallag

I cant understand how people believe AMD sent out bugged systems for review. I would near blindly accept this if they obtained them from a third party but AMD sent them, Seriously, Do you think this is likely?

Also it is pretty funny that a lot of amd fans are saying "I am not disappointed, k10 is great, I am very very happy with it,BUT ALSO DONT BELIEVE ANY OF THE REVIEWS i AM BASING THIS GREATNESS ON BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN DONE WITH BUGGED CHIPS AND MAKE IT LOOK BAD" LOL



What you see is what you get.

---

They had to meet the launch date.

For God's sake, did you even read the reviews? In some benches, there was practically NO IMPROVEMENT over the K8, and in certain synthetic benches ie memory latency, the performance was worse compared to the K8.

These chips were bugged, thats a fact. The reviews were not done on retail samples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

Don't judge the K10 by the benches seen at Tech-Report and Anandtech.

There is strong evidence suggesting that the chips used in those reviews, were bug ridden.

According to Dave Graham over at AMD Zone who has connections with AMD:



I knew something had to be wrong with those benches! The SSE performance in particular, was just too low considering the K10's enhancements in that area.

---

:ROTF:

Still playing the old disk ?

The systems were sent by AMD , secondly IBM published benchmarks too and they used a B1 chip , Anandtech used B2.So AMD screwed IBM and the public ? Mind you , AMD's own benchmarks were done on B1 or earlier.

Bx chips do not have performance bugs , they have only different scaling capabilities.End of story.