AMD 45nm Deneb Pictures, CPU-Z and Super Pi Results

Printable View

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

08-01-2008, 12:56 AM
Rammsteiner

Deneb being >= than Yorkfield isnt something new. Agena isnt all that far away from it if clocked up.

Anyhow, is Bloomfield going to be priced for 284$? That's indeed lower than expected however the price for Bloomfield's motherboards most likely wont be <100$ (at least for a while). Also you need 3 sticks of DDR3 although I dont think that would be a major money sink.

However, keep in mind you'll have locked multipliers etc. Deneb Black Edition/FX will offer unlocked multi's for not too much money.

Current Phenoms can clock well beyond 3Ghz on a SB750 board. Current Deneb results has been on SB600, curious what SB750 would do for Deneb.
08-01-2008, 01:16 AM
Helmore

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

Deneb being >= than Yorkfield isnt something new. Agena isnt all that far away from it if clocked up.

Agena being close to Yorkfield performance when overclocked is not really a fair comparison as you can also overclock the Yorkfield and then this gap will still be there. I sure do hope that Deneb will be >= Yorkfield (talking stock clocks for what's available in retail), they are after all releasing Deneb 1 year after Yorkfield was launched. What some people are claiming though is that Deneb will be >= to Yorkfield clock for clock, which I think is a bit unrealistic but I don't mind being wrong on this assumption as this would benefit us all.
08-01-2008, 01:31 AM
Rammsteiner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmore

Agena being close to Yorkfield performance when overclocked is not really a fair comparison as you can also overclock the Yorkfield and then this gap will still be there. I sure do hope that Deneb will be >= Yorkfield (talking stock clocks for what's available in retail), they are after all releasing Deneb 1 year after Yorkfield was launched. What some people are claiming though is that Deneb will be >= to Yorkfield clock for clock, which I think is a bit unrealistic but I don't mind being wrong on this assumption as this would benefit us all.

For if it wasnt clear, I mean equal clocks
08-01-2008, 02:03 AM
Epsilon84

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

For if it wasnt clear, I mean equal clocks

For Deneb to be >= to Yorkfield, it'll need to be 15 - 20% faster than 65nm Phenoms. This seems a bit unrealistic, when was the last die shrink (even with core enhancements + cache increases) that yielded a 15 - 20% increase in performance? Northwood was about 10% faster than Willamette, thats the biggest I've seen from a die shrink. In more recent times, Penryn is some 5 - 6% faster than Conroe. Off the top of my head, I don't remember any AMD die shrinks that have resulted in significantly improved performance, in fact performance went down slightly in the last K8 shrink from 90nm to 65nm.

Now obviously Deneb will increase performance some, the larger L3 alone guarantees that, but all I'm saying is that 15 - 20% is a LOT to ask for. K8 to K10 improved by about that margin per clock, and we're talking an architectural overhaul. You're asking for the same increase from a die shrink + some enhancements, it seems a bit optimistic IMO but time will tell. I personally think Deneb will be 5 - 10% faster per clock, putting it around Kentsfield levels but slightly slower than Yorkfield. Hopefully I am wrong and Deneb lives up to the hype you guys are heaping on it, but I've sort of lost confidence in AMD's ability to deliver, especially on the CPU side of things.
08-01-2008, 02:14 AM
Rammsteiner

I know, still I think it's not impossible. It's not only just larger L3 cache mind you. The L3 cache is now 48-way set associative instead of 32-way and there are a few more little tweaks.

We saw a 12% increase in SuperPI although that shows us in the end :banana::banana::banana::banana: all. Although Phenom scales badly in SuperPI so it's interesting at least.

Of course Deneb wont be >= Yorkfield in everything, no way. But I do think in quite a bit more programs than Agena >= Yorkfield is right now to such extend it's possible to say Deneb => Yorkfield.
08-01-2008, 02:16 AM
Helmore

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epsilon84

For Deneb to be >= to Yorkfield, it'll need to be 15 - 20% faster than 65nm Phenoms. This seems a bit unrealistic, when was the last die shrink (even with core enhancements + cache increases) that yielded a 15 - 20% increase in performance? Northwood was about 10% faster than Willamette, thats the biggest I've seen from a die shrink. In more recent times, Penryn is some 5 - 6% faster than Conroe. Off the top of my head, I don't remember any AMD die shrinks that have resulted in significantly improved performance, in fact performance went down slightly in the last K8 shrink from 90nm to 65nm.

Now obviously Deneb will increase performance some, the larger L3 alone guarantees that, but all I'm saying is that 15 - 20% is a LOT to ask for. K8 to K10 improved by about that margin per clock, and we're talking an architectural overhaul. You're asking for the same increase from a die shrink + some enhancements, it seems a bit optimistic IMO but time will tell. I personally think Deneb will be 5 - 10% faster per clock, putting it around Kentsfield levels but slightly slower than Yorkfield. Hopefully I am wrong and Deneb lives up to the hype you guys are heaping on it, but I've sort of lost confidence in AMD's ability to deliver, especially on the CPU side of things.

Yeah I also believe that a 5-10% increase in IPC is more realistic for Deneb, although the average will probably be closer to that 5% increase and DDR3 could increase that a little.
About that K8 shrink from 90 to 65 nm., AMD did not want to invest anything into that shrink and they only did the necessary things to get it working on 65 nm. and no optimizations at all. I believe they could have made their 65 nm. part on par of higher performance per clock compared to their 90nm. part but this was probably not worth the hassle. Getting a mature 65 nm. process up and running for Phenom was probably more important, though even there they haven't gone to the same extent as they did with their 90 nm. process and are now primarily focusing on their upcoming 45 nm. process.

@Rammsteiner: Is there any word on the clocks of the L3 cache on Deneb? Is there still a clock deficit between the L3 cache and the cores? I believe they could get a nice boost by clocking them at the same speeds, nothing ground braking probably and a downside might be a decrease (over)clocking potential. But these are all changes to the overall architecture of the chip, the cores them self could use a healthy boost and I don't think that adding some SSE instructions will do so right now.
08-01-2008, 06:45 AM
Epsilon84

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

I know, still I think it's not impossible. It's not only just larger L3 cache mind you. The L3 cache is now 48-way set associative instead of 32-way and there are a few more little tweaks.

We saw a 12% increase in SuperPI although that shows us in the end :banana::banana::banana::banana: all. Although Phenom scales badly in SuperPI so it's interesting at least.

Of course Deneb wont be >= Yorkfield in everything, no way. But I do think in quite a bit more programs than Agena >= Yorkfield is right now to such extend it's possible to say Deneb => Yorkfield.

Cache associativity normally increases with larger caches anyway, at least thats what I've noticed on Intel CPUs. I think its needed to help the cache 'scale', I'm no expert on this matter though, I'm sure someone like JumpingJack can give a much better technical explanation.

I agree the SuperPi result doesn't tell much about real world performance (when does it ever? :rolleyes:), which is why I'm hoping someone leaks results for more 'useful' benchmarks.

Its quite typical of an AMD pre-launch though, they are always so secretive! Sometimes I wish they would be a bit more open like Intel, they allowed Anandtech to preview Nehalem a quarter prior to release, and they did the same with Conroe too.
08-01-2008, 10:27 AM
cky2k6

i guess intel can afford to be more open. though at this point, amd might as well spill it cause they don't have much to lose...
08-01-2008, 02:00 PM
Donnie27

Quote:

Originally Posted by cky2k6

i guess intel can afford to be more open. though at this point, amd might as well spill it cause they don't have much to lose...

Just as I said before Barcelona launched, if AMD has something worth a damned, it would leak it as well. Sure it'd be on or featured on a biased AMD site like the AMD zone:rolleyes: Intel can afford to not be so secretive because just like Conroe and Penryn, they have another in the words of MaxPC, "Kick @ss" product.

Kind of Funny how lies are not thread crapping then folks wonder why so many :rofl: and :D are posted.
08-01-2008, 02:58 PM
Rammsteiner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Just as I said before Barcelona launched, if AMD has something worth a damned, it would leak it as well. Sure it'd be on or featured on a biased AMD site like the AMD zone:rolleyes: Intel can afford to not be so secretive because just like Conroe and Penryn, they have another in the words of MaxPC, "Kick @ss" product.

Kind of Funny how lies are not thread crapping then folks wonder why so many :rofl: and :D are posted.

Actually the only ':D' and ':rofl:' I see is from your FTW, QFT! posts. Maybe you might start to think that not the whole world is wrong, AMD zone visitor and a liar but the problem is somewhere around you:shrug:.

Also it might help to tell us where the lies are instead of just stating that people lie.

Besides that, AMD hardly leaks stuff in the first place. SB750 isn't anything to be shamefull about and it's not leaked. Only Anandtech got a way around the NDA and showed some results which actually prove my earlier statement (a lie?:ROTF:) that all Phenoms, at least B3, can do 3Ghz.

And if you read reviews which reward products with 'Kick @ss'... It gives me more and more the kind of idea who you are;)

Also, nVidia did leak things hear and there and you see where they're now with the GTX2x0 price drops. No offence, but leaks or not, it's no guarantee at all for the results of the actual product.
08-01-2008, 03:05 PM
BrowncoatGR

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Just as I said before Barcelona launched, if AMD has something worth a damned, it would leak it as well. Sure it'd be on or featured on a biased AMD site like the AMD zone:rolleyes: Intel can afford to not be so secretive because just like Conroe and Penryn, they have another in the words of MaxPC, "Kick @ss" product.

Kind of Funny how lies are not thread crapping then folks wonder why so many :rofl: and :D are posted.

AMD does not leak stuff. Just because Intel started previewing new tech early does not mean that all other companies do, nor that Intel has always done this.
08-01-2008, 04:43 PM
The Coolest

More interesting news on Deneb

http://www.expreview.com/img/news/20....0%20(2)_1.jpg

Source

Looks promising if true. Just for the record, if this image is legit, this is a newer revision than the one in the first post.
08-01-2008, 05:07 PM
JumpingJack

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR

AMD does not leak stuff. Just because Intel started previewing new tech early does not mean that all other companies do, nor that Intel has always done this.

Actually, this behavior of Intel is relatively new ... up until Conroe they were always very tight-lipped about up coming products.

EDIT: If I may speculate, as I recall this type of marketing/preadvertisement started essentially after Otellini stepped up. Otellini, as I recall, has expertise in the marketing field, not engineering .... engineers tend to hunker down and talk quietly about their stuff until it is ready, Otellini as a marketer may embrace the idea that getting some buzz started early is a powerful deal. A theory anyway.

Jack
08-01-2008, 05:20 PM
bowman

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Coolest

http://www.expreview.com/img/news/20....0%20(2)_1.jpg

Source

Looks promising if true. Just for the record, if this image is legit, this is a newer revision than the one in the first post.

If the voltages are accurate and the shot is legit, that's incredibly good. Monolithic quad die, 1.1V, 4GHz? Maybe enthusiasts might look at AMD once again..
08-01-2008, 05:28 PM
STaRGaZeR

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowman

If the voltages are accurate and the shot is legit, that's incredibly good. Monolithic quad die, 1.1V, 4GHz? Maybe enthusiasts might look at AMD once again..

Look at Overdrive voltages, 1.475v

Not so good in my book, but an improvement over Agena I guess...
08-01-2008, 05:28 PM
The Coolest

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowman

If the voltages are accurate and the shot is legit, that's incredibly good. Monolithic quad die, 1.1V, 4GHz? Maybe enthusiasts might look at AMD once again..

1.475v - look at the AOD window in the back.

Edit: STaRGaZeR was first :p:
08-01-2008, 05:32 PM
insurgent

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Coolest

Source

Looks promising if true. Just for the record, if this image is legit, this is a newer revision than the one in the first post.

The numbers on the next 3 frequency boxes look funny, the zeroes are big enough to touch the boundary and looking at other overdrive screenshots, I don't think that's how they should look like.
08-01-2008, 05:33 PM
foch3 -USA-

I wish I could believe..... That pic just can't be real, there is no way they have come that far in such a short time.
08-01-2008, 07:53 PM
ryboto

Quote:

Originally Posted by insurgent

The numbers on the next 3 frequency boxes look funny, the zeroes are big enough to touch the boundary and looking at other overdrive screenshots, I don't think that's how they should look like.

In the AMD sub-forum, users posted AOD screenshots that show the same small-font behavior in the first frequency box. People even zoomed in the CPUZ shot and tried to disprove the screen shot due to a lack of pixel distortion, but that theory was disproved to.
08-01-2008, 07:54 PM
ryboto

Quote:

Originally Posted by foch3 -USA-

I wish I could believe..... That pic just can't be real, there is no way they have come that far in such a short time.

On an SB750 board, the 9950 has been reviewed by Anand as reaching 3.5ghz stable, why would 4ghz be such a reach? no one said it was stable.
08-02-2008, 12:38 AM
JCornell

Quote:

Originally Posted by foch3 -USA-

I wish I could believe..... That pic just can't be real, there is no way they have come that far in such a short time.

That's rude for saying fake with no actual prove :yepp:
Lucky me no one mention it was fake at Nehalem thread :shocked:
08-02-2008, 12:42 AM
bowman

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Look at Overdrive voltages, 1.475v

Not so good in my book, but an improvement over Agena I guess...

Ah well. Too good to be true. Unless they've discovered a magical 45nm process that can somehow take 1.45 and live to tell the tale.. :yepp:
08-02-2008, 12:50 AM
informal

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowman

Ah well. Too good to be true. Unless they've discovered a magical 45nm process that can somehow take 1.45 and live to tell the tale.. :yepp:

Actually AMD's SOI can take much more voltage than intel's sensitive high-k bulk process,at 45nm.I wouldn't be surprised to see AMD chips run at higher than 1.4V for OCing purposes.
08-02-2008, 01:05 AM
KeZzZu

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Look at Overdrive voltages, 1.475v

Not so good in my book, but an improvement over Agena I guess...

well my celeron 440 ( conroe-L ) required 1.7vcore to get 4 ghz, so good result at least in my eyes.
08-02-2008, 01:08 AM
insurgent

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryboto

In the AMD sub-forum, users posted AOD screenshots that show the same small-font behavior in the first frequency box. People even zoomed in the CPUZ shot and tried to disprove the screen shot due to a lack of pixel distortion, but that theory was disproved to.

I'll check that, thanks. I just googled AOD images earlier and all the images I saw had similarly sized fonts, I can't account for the version numbers though.

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