AMD K8L ES coming in December

Printable View

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

10-09-2006, 06:38 AM
alayashu

k8l = k9.

Quote:

K8L is just a bump to try and close the gab abit.

you can't judge how it behaves since there are no public benches yet.

btw the clockspeed advantage you're reffering to isn't valid as the most powerfull 2 cpus from intel and amd have both 3ghz (woodcrest vs 2220 opty). 65nm vs 90nm.
10-09-2006, 06:42 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by alayashu

btw the clockspeed advantage you're reffering to isn't valid as the most powerfull 2 cpus from intel and amd have both 3ghz (woodcrest vs 2220 opty). 65nm vs 90nm.

How much can you OC a K8 today on air? How much can you OC a Core 2 on air? Thats right, about 1Ghz more.

Why should Intel release a 3.5Ghz Core 2 if they already can clear any competition with a 2.4Ghz. Its about $$$. Whenever AMD comes out with something, you release higher speedgrades and harvest the cash again. Its the same reason we had very expensive X2s until Core 2. Now they are cheap as hell. Its all about competition.
10-09-2006, 07:31 AM
***Deimos***

Quote:

Originally Posted by alayashu

k8l = k9.

you can't judge how it behaves since there are no public benches yet.

btw the clockspeed advantage you're reffering to isn't valid as the most powerfull 2 cpus from intel and amd have both 3ghz (woodcrest vs 2220 opty). 65nm vs 90nm.

both 3Ghz huh?
thats as useful comparison as back when Intel P4 reached 2Ghz, and AthlonXP also reached 2Ghz.
10-09-2006, 07:52 AM
The Ghost

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

Doesnt matter much, if a 45nm Core 2 is 3.733Ghz and a 65nm K8L is 3.2Ghz. Aswell as the cost of production. Its factors that cant be left out either. So any clock to clock advantage gets eaten up. And currently Core 2 leads the clock to clock and clockspeed advantage. So process size matters alot.

Also 45nm Core 2 does have improvements in form of SSE4 parts and more cache, plus maybe a few minor other parts.

I wanna see K9/K10, K8L is just a bump to try and close the gab abit.

how are you getting that the 45nm core 2 is going to be 3.73ghz ?

i see how you just listed off all the 45nm core improvements , quite impressive , does your core 2 not show sse4 on it ?

remember one thing , this is a first for intel , four cores on one cpu , amd's cpu's was buoilt from the ground up to be multible cores , the conroe was not
10-09-2006, 07:52 AM
nn_step

Quote:

Originally Posted by savantu

Are you on drugs or something ? :stick:

no, but if you don't believe me... Feel free to do some reading on Modern fabrication processes
10-09-2006, 07:55 AM
The Ghost

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

How much can you OC a K8 today on air? How much can you OC a Core 2 on air? Thats right, about 1Ghz more.

Why should Intel release a 3.5Ghz Core 2 if they already can clear any competition with a 2.4Ghz. Its about $$$. Whenever AMD comes out with something, you release higher speedgrades and harvest the cash again. Its the same reason we had very expensive X2s until Core 2. Now they are cheap as hell. Its all about competition.

do you remember the pressler ? it ran as high as 4.5ghz on air , why didn't intel release it while it was losing market share against the K8 ?
10-09-2006, 08:03 AM
syne_24

Quote:

Originally Posted by brentpresley

Possible, but my gut tells me that if Intel got even a HINT that AMD was going to try to shoot for the performance crown I bet we would "magically" see some 3.2 - 3.4GHz Core 2 Extreme editions pop up FS. I wouldn't be surprised if Intel has binned a few dozen thousand chips that clock well just for a situation like this.

Keep in mind, we are not dealing with the same Intel from the past 10-15 years that was pretty comfortable sitting on it's laurels and letting AMD have x% of the market.

Netburst was a mistake. A mistake that cost Intel the performance crown for about 3 years. Intel is PISSED about the loss of face AND the loss of marketshare. I don't think we will see them make a MAJOR screwup like Netburst again for a LONG LONG TIME.

Have no doubts, we are witnessing the first salvos in a war of attrition. Intel will take the lead, and them AMD will take it back. And Vice Versa for YEARS to come.

The ONLY winners are going to be us, the users.

Welcome to the NEW ERA of dirt cheap super-chips.

(now if we could just get this kind of war in the GPU arena we would be set).

right on..:toast:

If Intel can continue to keep their pricing/performance like they did with C2D then it will force AMD to do the same; which greatly benefits us, the consumer. Frankly my old days of buying $1K cpu is no more, since C2D clearly demonstrated price/performance cant be touch. In this industry if you choose sides you will lose; I choose the company with the greatest price/performace and if AMD can bring that to the table, then I'm all for it. Very exciting years to come.. :)
10-09-2006, 08:10 AM
SMa

Quote:

Originally Posted by syne_24

If Intel can continue to keep their pricing/performance like they did with C2D then it will force AMD to do the same; which greatly benefits us, the consumer.

Short-term: yes, long-term: no
cheap chips = less funds for research and development.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Ghost

how are you getting that the 45nm core 2 is going to be 3.73ghz ?

Probably he got that from here:
http://resources.vr-zone.com//newspi.../Yorkfield.GIF
even though that's about Yorkfield.

I expect K8L to be very strong clock for clock,
if Intel thinks 3.73GHz is needed to counter a 2.9GHz cpu it must be serious.
I'm very curious about how well both K8L and 45nm Core2 will oc.
I hope we'll finally see some real competition, after K8 >> Netburst and Core 2 >> K8.

Do 65nm K8's oc better then the 90nm ones? And how much?
10-09-2006, 08:54 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Ghost

do you remember the pressler ? it ran as high as 4.5ghz on air , why didn't intel release it while it was losing market share against the K8 ?

Thermal issues? Core 2 dont have the same issues.
10-09-2006, 09:00 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Ghost

Does your core 2 not show sse4 on it ?

remember one thing , this is a first for intel , four cores on one cpu , amd's cpu's was buoilt from the ground up to be multible cores , the conroe was not

No my Core 2 Duo shows SSSE3, or Supplemental SSE3 if you like.

AMDs CPUs are build for multiple cores? Thats the dumbest thing I heard in a long time. If you said multiply sockets yes. But the other one is complete lack of the basics. How is it an X2 communicates and make a L1 cache snoop on the other CPU? Yes that correct, more or less like the P4D way without the FSB latency and just remove the MCH with the SRQ. The Core 2 got direct L1 links and shared L2 cache. Why do you think K8L gonna get shared L3? Its to skip another step instead of the SRQ. So thats the most bull thing I heard in a long time. Core 2. L1->L1. K8L L1->L2->L3->L2->L1. And a K8 is L1->L2->SRQ->L2->L1. :fact:

And the Yorkfield will do like Core 2 Duo, just with 4 cores and 1 12MB shared cache. Now, next time. say MULTIPLE SOCKETS. :slapass:
10-09-2006, 09:02 AM
nn_step

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

Thermal issues? Core 2 dont have the same issues.

:stick: Yes it will, most of the time to get more speed you need either a better design (not really possible for Conroe without a massive redesign) or more voltage.
So to give Conroe more speed they would have to increase the (stock) voltage.
And that will start to geometrically increase power usage and Geometrically increase Heat output.
10-09-2006, 09:13 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by nn_step

:stick: Yes it will, most of the time to get more speed you need either a better design (not really possible for Conroe without a massive redesign) or more voltage.
So to give Conroe more speed they would have to increase the (stock) voltage.
And that will start to geometrically increase power usage and Geometrically increase Heat output.

Cept that alot of people can already get 3.3-3.5Ghz on stock voltage. Or like me, 3Ghz on 1.24V :cool:
10-09-2006, 09:21 AM
The Ghost

Quote:

AMDs CPUs are build for multiple cores? Thats the dumbest thing I heard in a long time. If you said multiply sockets yes.

same thing , this what core 2 is lacking

Quote:

The Core 2 got direct L1 links and shared L2 cache.

yes each core has a direct link for each core , not every core , core 2 shares L2 cache with all cores , amd cpu's have a direct link thru the x-bar

Quote:

Why do you think K8L gonna get shared L3?

why do you think that amd is going to have such a small L3 cache ? 2megs compared to yorks 12meg cache ? why do you think that amd shrunk the L2 cache for ? because it has L3 cache , shared L3 cache will have little evvect on the K8L other then it will store more info that can be shared with 4 cores

Quote:

Now, next time. say MULTIPLE SOCKETS.

shows how little you actually know about the K8 , i said it right the first time
10-09-2006, 09:24 AM
The Ghost

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

Cept that alot of people can already get 3.3-3.5Ghz on stock voltage. Or like me, 3Ghz on 1.24V :cool:

i do not see how that means anything for a quad core where there will be more heat in a more confined place , smaller die means that you have less area of contact to get rid of the heat
10-09-2006, 11:45 AM
Shintai

Seriously Ghost, get a schematic of both Core 2 and K8 and check. the crossbar is the SRQ interface. There is no direct links in K8 or even K8L. K9 will most likely have direct links like Core 2.

Multiply cores and multiply sockets cant be compared, specially not when you speak about direct links that you didnt even understand in the first place.

Why K8L got small L3 cache? Same reason K8 now got small cache. It hardly got any benefit for K8 unlike for Core 2 with its higher latency to main memory.

Sorry Ghost, but you seem too fanboism or even shilled. No need to fool people or make something up you want to. But trying to twist the facts is not helping AMD in any way. Anyway, i´m done. reality will soon catch up with you, when AMD demonstrates K8L and we see benchmark numbers. If it was a Core 2 killer, you would have seen the numbers by now to stab Intels Core 2 sales where it hurt.
10-09-2006, 11:50 AM
nn_step

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

Sorry Ghost, but you seem too fanboism or even shilled. No need to fool people or make something up you want to. But trying to twist the facts is not helping AMD in any way. Anyway, i´m done. reality will soon catch up with you, when AMD demonstrates K8L and we see benchmark numbers. If it was a Core 2 killer, you would have seen the numbers by now to stab Intels Core 2 sales where it hurt.

funny I didn't see Any K7 or K8 benchmarks 9 months before release. :stick:
10-09-2006, 11:51 AM
vitaminc

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Ghost

Quote:

Originally Posted by shintai

AMDs CPUs are build for multiple cores? Thats the dumbest thing I heard in a long time. If you said multiply sockets yes.

same thing , this what core 2 is lacking

Ghost you really have no jack idea on what you are talking about.

There's a extremely big difference between multi socket and multi core designs, and K8 isn't really designed for multi-core otherwise you would seen quad/hex/oct K8 already.

K8 is better at multi socket design and is jack :banana::banana::banana::banana: for multi core design. Exactly why AMD need to make K8L for the shared L3 cache and core to core arbitration.

If people can get 3.3-3.5GHz on stock, that means Intel could release higher frequency chips in the same TDP rating. Not magic.
10-09-2006, 02:52 PM
The Ghost

Quote:

Originally Posted by vitaminc

Ghost you really have no jack idea on what you are talking about.

There's a extremely big difference between multi socket and multi core designs, and K8 isn't really designed for multi-core otherwise you would seen quad/hex/oct K8 already.

K8 is better at multi socket design and is jack :banana::banana::banana::banana: for multi core design. Exactly why AMD need to make K8L for the shared L3 cache and core to core arbitration.

If people can get 3.3-3.5GHz on stock, that means Intel could release higher frequency chips in the same TDP rating. Not magic.

maybe you should read more posts here instead of posting , unless it is something that you do know

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...t=55889&page=3

this is obviously some thing that you do not know about
10-09-2006, 03:01 PM
The Ghost

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

Seriously Ghost, get a schematic of both Core 2 and K8 and check. the crossbar is the SRQ interface. There is no direct links in K8 or even K8L. K9 will most likely have direct links like Core 2.

Multiply cores and multiply sockets cant be compared, specially not when you speak about direct links that you didnt even understand in the first place.

Why K8L got small L3 cache? Same reason K8 now got small cache. It hardly got any benefit for K8 unlike for Core 2 with its higher latency to main memory.

Sorry Ghost, but you seem too fanboism or even shilled. No need to fool people or make something up you want to. But trying to twist the facts is not helping AMD in any way. Anyway, i´m done. reality will soon catch up with you, when AMD demonstrates K8L and we see benchmark numbers. If it was a Core 2 killer, you would have seen the numbers by now to stab Intels Core 2 sales where it hurt.

we know who knows what and who does not know , i said that amd designed the cpu to be dual core from the start , would you believe it if amd said it ?

http://multicore.amd.com/en/Products/
Dual-Core Processor Overview

AMD64 processors were designed from the start to add a second core
Port already existed on crossbar/SRI

keep on going , you are showing exactly what you do know
10-09-2006, 03:41 PM
vitaminc

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Ghost

maybe you should read more posts here instead of posting , unless it is something that you do know

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...t=55889&page=3

this is obviously some thing that you do not know about

or if you could please use some primary sources as your backup. both AMD and Intel publish quite a few white papers and specs, and I am sure an AMD enthusaist like you should have read many.

and no, multi core and multi socket cpu design are NOT the same thing.
10-09-2006, 03:45 PM
IvanAndreevich

K8L looks cool, but I think it will have a serious clocking problem. K8 already has a clocking problem compared to Conroe and I can't see K8L clocking higher than K8. I think they might even have to drop the clock a little for the highest-end part to about 2.6 or 2.8 GHz max. And this biatch will run hot IMO.

So at stock it might win some from Kentsfield, but it won't overclock worth a :banana::banana::banana::banana:. That's right, I am betting Kentsfield will rape K8L while overclocked just because it clocks so well.

Not everyone needs a Quad Core. I, personally, don't really. What about dual core? If K8L will be strictly a Quad Core part, dual core market (majority of perofmance market anyway) will be owned by Conroe. I don't think anyone wants to argue how hard Conroe kicks K8's ass on any tech process.
10-09-2006, 04:05 PM
GOATSLAYER

please god let this thing rape C2D...
10-09-2006, 04:10 PM
vitaminc

Quote:

Originally Posted by GOATSLAYER

please god let this thing rape C2D...

With twice the # of cores, it better 'rape' C2D.
10-09-2006, 06:04 PM
The Ghost

Quote:

Originally Posted by vitaminc

or if you could please use some primary sources as your backup. both AMD and Intel publish quite a few white papers and specs, and I am sure an AMD enthusaist like you should have read many.

and no, multi core and multi socket cpu design are NOT the same thing.

do you need to be spoon fed ? check the link right above your post , that is a amd source

try doing a little more reading instead of insisting that you know all about amd cpu's , the best way to defeat them , is to read all about them
10-09-2006, 07:28 PM
Daved+

Quote:

Originally Posted by vitaminc

With twice the # of cores, it better 'rape' C2D.

Even with the same amount of cores, it better rape C2D

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

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:18 PM.

XtremeSystems