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

source - http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31729/135/

Quote:

---

There are lots of question marks surrounding AMD’s first quad-core CPU, the Barcelona server/workstation processor. How fast will it be and - most importantly - will it be able to outpace Intel’s quad-core Xeon 5300-series (“Clovertown”) processors. It will, says AMD, and in fact upgraded its performance expectations.

So far, we the company had claimed that Barcelona will surpass the performance of Clovertown by about 40% at any given clock speed. Now the company says that it believes that Barcelona will have a 50% advantage over Clovertown in floating point applications and 20% in integer performance “over the competition’s highest-performing quad-core processor at the same frequency.”

---

Please no more of those synthetic memory benchmarks, we want to see something REAL! Else I gonna get some Sandra SSE benchmarks....

Its the same old info we got for ages, nothing new.
And they are still too embarrased to add 2S dualcore K8 system that would trash the Barcelona.

the old info was 40 per cent advantage, now it's 50 per cent

“over the competition’s highest-performing quad-core processor at the same frequency.”

and this in a bench that k8 already kicks ass at, how does this look for gameing, media etc etc?

cant see a 2.5k10 besting a 3.33penyrn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MAS

There are lots of question marks surrounding AMD’s first quad-core CPU, the Barcelona server/workstation processor. How fast will it be and - most importantly - will it be able to outpace Intel’s quad-core Xeon 5300-series (“Clovertown”) processors. It will, says AMD, and in fact upgraded its performance expectations.

So far, we the company had claimed that Barcelona will surpass the performance of Clovertown by about 40% at any given clock speed. Now the company says that it believes that Barcelona will have a 50% advantage over Clovertown in floating point applications and 20% in integer performance “over the competition’s highest-performing quad-core processor at the same frequency.”

---

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.

Enough already with the extremely vague benchmark results.. disgusts me that all we hear are fluffed up numbers from AMD. I really have my fingers crossed that K10 will bring a breath of fresh air into the market but I'm beginning to get the feeling that this thing is going to crash and burn :( Please be amazing..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MAS

the old info was 40 per cent advantage, now it's 50 per cent

---

Old info was actually 46% (First 42%). And then some site made that into a nice round 50%.

And its no secret its still SpecFP_rate!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler

Enough already with the extremely vague benchmark results.. disgusts me that all we hear are fluffed up numbers from AMD. I really have my fingers crossed that K10 will bring a breath of fresh air into the market but I'm beginning to get the feeling that this thing is going to crash and burn :( Please be amazing..

---

Agreed, and I want K10 to be the monster they say it is to keep prices down and competition between these 2 giants in place.
Trust me, the last thing you ever want to see happen is AMD go out of business.Intels prices would skyrocket and R&D would get a budget that wouldn't buy a Big Mac.

Wasn't old info 40% better than Intel's top bin? Now it's 50% at the same clock. On a bandwidth bench. :slapass:

prices will go down - recollect Q6600 price in Q3 (266USD)

If they can pull a 50% better math score than I've seen on a dual clover then good luck to them. They will have the market.

AMD has corrected numbers because of penryn tests

"if intel may speed up 45nm shrink up to 40 per cent - why may not I up to 50 for absolutely new architecture?" - AMD thought

50% better fpu and 20% better integer at the same clockspeed as a clover!

from what i heard so far K10 will come at 2.4Ghz at launch and intel is already 3ghz with their clovers. So that doesnt sound good at all...
it means intel will need a 3.6Ghz quadcore to beat K10 in fpu and only a 3ghz quadcore to beat integer performance. intel already has 3ghz quadcores today! and they should be able to reach 3.6Ghz with 45nm easily just a few months after K10 is launched. this sounds like bad news...

From those number K10 needs to run at least 2.4Ghz to regain the performance crown in some server segments.
For the desktop segment id say at least 2.6Ghz are necessary.
If K10 can even reach 3Ghz then intel will lose its performance crown completely in all segments.

fpu (+50%/clock)
2.4ghz K10 = 3.6Ghz clover/ 3.4Ghz york
2.6Ghz K10 = 3.9Ghz clover / 3.8Ghz york
2.8ghz K10 = 4.2Ghz clover / 4.0Ghz york
3.0ghz K10 = 4.5Ghz clover / 4.3Ghz york

int (+20%/clock)
2.4ghz K10 = 2.9Ghz clover/ 2.8Ghz york
2.6Ghz K10 = 3.1Ghz clover / 3.0Ghz york
2.8ghz K10 = 3.4Ghz clover / 3.3Ghz york
3.0ghz K10 = 3.6Ghz clover / 3.5Ghz york

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

50% better fpu and 20% better integer at the same clockspeed as a clover!

from what i heard so far K10 will come at 2.4Ghz max and intel is already 3ghz with their clovers. So that doesnt sound good at all...

it means intel will need a 3.6Ghz quadcore to beat K10 in fpu and only a 3ghz quadcore to beat integer performance. intel already has 3ghz quadcores today! and they should be able to reach 3.6Ghz with 45nm easily just a few months after K10 is launched. this sounds like bad news...

---

EXACTLY the point I was trying to make. You said it better!:D
I'll be surprised if they can match what I'm seeing right now and thats at 3200 not 3600mhz.

Is Intel really threatened by SPECfp? Aren't AMD already ahead there? http://tweakers.net/reviews/661/2

movieman, is that a stock chip or no?

AMD clockspeeds will ramp as well ;) All these numbers are pointless, but AMD are releasing "easy" clocks on their chips so they dont need to worry about binning..once the initial rush is about dealt with they can think about binning and using the feedback they get from forums to see what the chips can REALLY do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by red

Is Intel really threatened by SPECfp? Aren't AMD already ahead there? http://tweakers.net/reviews/661/2

movieman, is that a stock chip or no?

---

X5350 at 3271 for that screenshot.

Machine runs 24/7 at full load at 3200 on air.
Saaya can vouch for that or gomeler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K404

AMD clockspeeds will ramp as well ;) All these numbers are pointless, but AMD are releasing "easy" clocks on their chips so they dont need to worry about binning..once the initial rush is about dealt with they can think about binning and using the feedback they get from forums to see what the chips can REALLY do.

---

I hope your right. Like I said, I want AMD to do VERY well with these chips.
MOST important to me and should be to all of us is the continued competition between these 2 companies.

I'm really getting fed up with these so called performances ratings.... Get the damn thing sampled and let some respected reviewers show the numbers..
Even beter get the damn thing in mass production so we get to play with it...

I don't know why AMD has to be this secretive about their upcoming line of products whether it's the R600 or the K10...
Intel had lots of C2D samples out in the open so we all knew what to expect...

Talk about bad marketing.... :rolleyes:
/waits for the next pricedrop from AMD to "compete" against Intel for the next 6-9 months...

The BS continues....No benchmarks, no system specifications, no numbers.....wrong asumptions("50% advantage over Clovertown in floating point applications" is not 50% faster)

The more bold claims AMD makes, the more I believe that K10 will be another failure, like 4x4. According to their K10 performance estimations based on hardcore marketing BS and their ridiculous statements:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AMD

The AMD Opteron™ processor continues to lead the industry in x86 dual-core performance.

---

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...l?redir=CPBM01
I don't believe that K10 will counter 65nm Core2.
From now on, I'll consider every word from AMD's mouth as FUD & BS.

Oh, and this part from the same link is so true:

Quote:

---

Saying you’re the “World’s Best Processor” is one thing.
Actually being the “World’s Best Processor” is another.

---

I clearly remember old quote was that it was 40% higher performer over Intels premier Quad Core.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

You have K10 sandra scores? Go ahead and get it, what are you waiting for?
AND BTW there is quite a difference between the spec benches and sandra, most of all the first one is and has been industry standard for years, and the other is a lame bench that has nothing to do with reality.

It is about time some real benches and results pop out...

---

Its the same PR mentality. As if I compared K8 SSE vs Conroe in Sandra.

Also lemme give you a hint. Goto www.spec.org and check specfp_rate2000 benchmarks between a clovertown and a 2S K8. Or a K8 vs a 51x0

Its bloated PR. And real world will be a real pain whenever this chip gets released.

Way to twist the words of Movieman. He hasn't said anything close to that. He is rooting for something good.

I thought they will lunch the product today.. :D

Seeing how those are both claiming their future cpu's will be a 40% increase intel will still control the market since AMD price hikes their cpu's a lot more like they did with the x2's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erwinz

I thought they will lunch the product today.. :D

---

More likely R600 only. Or a showcase of it. Not sure how much, if any K10 will be shown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thunderstruck!

Way to twist the words of Movieman. He hasn't said anything close to that. He is rooting for something good.

---

Thank you. I just edited a small comment that was made.

Separate subject:
We have a big issue on this forum and it's called fanboys.
People just can;t get through their heads that both of these companies have made good and bad products over the years.
The past year was Intels time to shine, the year before was AMD's.
We should all root for both of them to do well as thats what keeps the technology advancing and the prices down.
Now I have a house full of Intels right now but that was just timing.
I also had a MSI dual socket 940 board with a single Opty 266(yes,266) in it that was a little beast in terms of what it could do.
2211mhz and would outdo my DX3600 system so you see it's not company that I look at but the product itself.
Ok, lets get back to smearing AMD for not showing some real world numbers here!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

More likely R600 only. Or a showcase of it. Not sure how much, if any K10 will be shown.

---

I really hope they do.. :) because amd have pride and will not use core2duo to demo there R600.. :) heheh :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gOJDO

The BS continues....No benchmarks, no system specifications, no numbers.

---

Your not wrong there, pretty sad isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

We have a big issue on this forum and it's called fanboys.

---

Don't get me wrong here but I'm only a fanboy of my wallet.... I like to choose the best of what's available when I need it..

Right now I'm debating whether or not I'm going to upgrade my system.... I like AMD but with todays pricecuts from Intel ( E6600 @ 210 Euro's ) and no comparable AMD CPU (maybe a 6000x2) and no K10 in the next couple of months it's hard to stay loyal to a brand...
If AMD would actually show some real world numbers I'd might hold it off till Q3-4 but I'm not going to wait for air....

The way I see it is that AMD is trying to compete with air and just pray the consumers are willing to buy air... That's not going to work....
Lowering your price interests the average consumer but not the majority of users found here... For now AMD is fighting a lost battle as you can't fight a giant with empty hands...

AMD = so full of :banana::banana::banana::banana:, they're company logo is turning brown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightCrawler™

Don't get me wrong here but I'm only a fanboy of my wallet.... I like to choose the best of what's available when I need it..

Right now I'm debating whether or not I'm going to upgrade my system.... I like AMD but with todays pricecuts from Intel ( E6600 @ 210 Euro's ) and no comparable AMD CPU (maybe a 6000x2) and no K10 in the next couple of months it's hard to stay loyal to a brand...
If AMD would actually show some real world numbers I'd might hold it off till Q3-4 but I'm not going to wait for air....

The way I see it is that AMD is trying to compete with air and just pray the consumers are willing to buy air... That's not going to work....
Lowering your price interests the average consumer but not the majority of users found here... For now AMD is fighting a lost battle as you can't fight a giant with empty hands...

---

I understand your point. I don't usually buy with price as a consideration unless it's a huge difference but I do look for longevity and thats why I use dual socket workstation boards. They are built better and designed for a longer lifespan. The current clovertown boards that I use look like they will take me till at least 2009 as the 45nm Harpertowns that come next will drop right in and at most need a bios update. That's a huge plus to me and offsets the $450.00 price of the boards I have for the 2 clovertown systems.( Supermicro X7DAE and SM X7DAL-E)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

AMD = so full of :banana::banana::banana::banana:, they're company logo is turning brown.

---

Be nice, they may turn it all around in a few weeks and pleasantly surprise us.
Lets hope they do.

i was really excited when i read the thread title. i thought amd had some real benchmarks out, but its just one more "claim of performance" thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

More likely R600 only. Or a showcase of it. Not sure how much, if any K10 will be shown.

---

I sure hope they have something to tease us with during the R600 launch.. I am rooting for a 3GHz(ok ok, 2.4GHz..) quad-core K10 with some screaming benchmarks and some rediculous 3D numbers from R600. The market needs a breath of fresh air in both 3D and CPU areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

I understand your point. I don't usually buy with price as a consideration unless it's a huge difference but I do look for longevity and thats why I use dual socket workstation boards. They are built better and designed for a longer lifespan. The current clovertown boards that I use look like they will take me till at least 2009 as the 45nm Harpertowns that come next will drop right in and at most need a bios update. That's a huge plus to me and offsets the $450.00 price of the boards I have for the 2 clovertown systems.( Supermicro X7DAE and SM X7DAL-E)

---

I like the dual 1207/F mobo's but it's hard to go that direction if you know Intel has the better product atm... Chances are a single Q6600 outperforms a dual FX72 setup.... at half the price..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightCrawler™

I like the dual 1207/F mobo's but it's hard to go that direction if you know Intel has the better product atm... Chances are a single Q6600 outperforms a dual FX72 setup.... at half the price..

---

Can't disagree with that logic at all.
Keeping cost as a consideration today I think the best bang for the buck is a Q6600 rig.

Somebody please make this stop. I hear Movieman sobbing. Why spread a claim without proof?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alucasa

Somebody please make this stop. I hear Movieman sobbing. Why spread a claim without proof?

---

Not at all my friend, not at all. I want nothing but the best for AMD here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alucasa

Somebody please make this stop. I hear Movieman sobbing. Why spread a claim without proof?

---

Sure that isn't you sobbing about that powerbill with those FX70's? ;) Ok time to stop hovering over the News section, if anything big happens I'm sure someone will let me know :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Not at all my friend, not at all. I want nothing but the best for AMD here.

---

I was talking about you as a moderator rather than a computer user. :stick:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler

Sure that isn't you sobbing about that powerbill with those FX70's? ;)

---

Darn right, you are. I just need build a 8-core rig before I get rid of that piece of power mob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alucasa

I was talking about you as a moderator rather than a computer user. :stick:

---

AHH, just one small thing that I moderated here. Easy and a good group.
No problems..It is tough being in a conversation and moderating though.
There can be a perception that your taking sides and that I'd never want.

Movieman ,wasn't you the one mentioning some "beta" results that indicate Dual Core K10 @ 2.4Ghz outscores C2D @3.6Ghz in one particular app??
Has anything changed since then?In terms of leaked benchmarks of K10 ESs?

I'm not supporting 'apples with apples' comparison in respect to speeds. This is not todays thing. What's really important, is price. I don't care if AMD can make 2.4GHz part spin a Clover 3x if it costs 5x more in price. I will only buy what performs best at my price segment.

AMD started the price war(+1 thumb on that*consumer speaking*) and Intel followed. This is one thing we hope to 'expand' more although it's not so easy.

And back on topic,
I remembered last year's intel's 'in-house' conroe benchmarks and frankly I choose these over AMD's monthly 'podcast' news. At least they showed something to the world with some tech guys testing the beasts.

Lastly,
I really hope AMD can pull a good K10 because this is the way it should work. I'm a consumer I can only see a better future only if AMD can pull a product that brings profits and keeps the competition on par. But, what the hell does this secretive strategy really spells out?

who cares at this point?

woooooooooooooooot.... K10 FTW!!!!!!

Hmm...I wonder if the Tunis thing was another spin? I´m in about the same timezone as Tunis. And its been dead quiet :/

But it should last tomorrow aswell.

Where be the R600 stuff!

You know, we heard these exact same claims made by intel 3-6 months before we saw any benchmarks. Everyone with their x2's and A64's all said it was BS(I'll admit, even I didn't believe it), and everyone who loved intel all said watch. Ironically enough, we've even pretty much been told the same percentages.

I think Intel spoiled you guys with their early samples and benchmarks. Intel, for the most part, is the only chip company that does that really. You don't see NVidia showing early benchmarks, nor have you seen ATi doing so. The most they do is pass around Press Slides in a PDF.

What I find even funnier is the fact that AMD has pulled a huge upset once before, with no early benchmarks shown(A64 in the first place), and yet people still have trouble believing that their new chips could have a prayer.

Fact....history has a way of repeating itself.

p.s. About the clock vs clock part. Agena is coming at speeds up to 2.9 ghz AFAIK.

Perhaps AMD should take a page from Intel's book and show us something. I would rather not hear from AMD than read these fluff numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

AMD = so full of :banana::banana::banana::banana:, they're company logo is turning brown.

---

Umm Circa 1999.. Athlon blows Pentium 3 out of the water...

Circa A64.. Same thing repeats.

Who are YOU to say who is full of :banana::banana::banana::banana: and who isnt? Wait for the release. Either you will eat a shovel full of your own fanboy :banana::banana::banana::banana:, or you walk away with no turds on your bib. Either way, being a fanboy is the lamest thing you can be.

why would they do that? just to please a small number of forum-addicted guys?
they already showed K10 to VIPs and that's what counts for their pocket; public benches will be released at the right time for them.

I don't need prelim benchmarks to know that K10 will beat out Conroe and perhaps even Penryn. Fact of the matter is that at the end of the year when I'm looking to upgrade my C2D I will be getting 2xQuad Core agena's with a HT3 mobo and 8gigs of DDR2/3 (whichever is best at the time)

Are these benchmarks for SPecFP2006, or SpecFP_rate2006?

There is a huge difference.. If it's based on the former, then it could be a pretty good indication of how the K10 will perform on the desktop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haltech

Umm Circa 1999.. Athlon blows Pentium 3 out of the water...

---

How old were you back then if you have such a poor memory ?

K7 and P3 were on par IPC wise ( gains were ussualy were SSE/3DNOW was being used ).Late on P3's life , K7 managed to out do it , MHz wise.
Early P4 ( Willy core ) sucked = > early 2000 to early 2002 AMD on top. Anyway , their succes was shadowed by the crappy chipsets they had.

Quote:

---

Circa A64.. Same thing repeats.

---

Only in 2004 K8 managed to out do the top Northwoods and the victory was obvious with the advent of dual cores in 2005.My oh my how things turned in 2006

So out of 25 years of x86 history we have 4 years with AMD on top.Go eat your bananas now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

Are these benchmarks for SPecFP2006, or SpecFP_rate2006?

There is a huge difference.. If it's based on the former, then it could be a pretty good indication of how the K10 will perform on the desktop.

---

Ed's article is worth a look :

http://www.overclockers.com/tips01142/

This post on another forum is right:

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readm...msgid=23484492

>>Today's AMD PR claims 50% in floating point and 20% in integer at same clock. So even if there is 3ghz (Intel) vs 2.5 ghz (amd) frequency advantage, that would still translate into a 25% floating point advantage and a tie for integer.

Oh, no. You see, it is "up to", meaning the very best one they can find, in both cases. Furthermore, it is clearly the "rate" versions of SPEC_int/fp 2006 in both cases, in a 2P configuration.

AMD will lose virtually everything against 3GHz Woodcrest, outside of bandwidth-intensive FP apps, and that is once they manage the 2.5GHz parts. And don't forget they are stuck at 2.3GHz 95W at launch for a quarter, if DailyTech is right...

Penryn @ 3.33GHz (or higher) is going to blow Barc out of the water.

--------------

You want another indication for how bad this is for AMD? Look at K8 vs. same-clocked C2D on 2P rate for 2006 fp/int:

int: 3% faster
fp: 16% faster

And yet, consider the huge variety of applications where same-clocked Woodcrest/Conroe *blows away* same-clocked K8, despite the 2006 Spec int/fp rate marks!

So, how does a Barcelona core compare to a K8 core clock/clock?

"Up to" 17% faster for int
"Up to" 29% faster for fp

Trouble is: 95W K8 is 2.8/2.3 : 22% higher clocked than Barc.
120W K8 is 20% higher clocked than Barc.

So Barcelona integer performance *will not improve* from K8 levels, once clock is taken into account.

FP performance gets a bump, as expected.

Conclusion: 3GHz Woodcrest will continue to dominate on all apps except bandwidth-heavy FP stuff.

Then Penryn arrives. :)



------------------

I would add, it goes without saying that Woodcrest will maintain a large lead in gaming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

How old were you back then if you have such a poor memory ?

K7 and P3 were on par IPC wise ( gains were ussualy were SSE/3DNOW was being used ).Late on P3's life , K7 managed to out do it , MHz wise.
Early P4 ( Willy core ) sucked = > early 2000 to early 2002 AMD on top. Anyway , their succes was shadowed by the crappy chipsets they had.



Only in 2004 K8 managed to out do the top Northwoods and the victory was obvious with the advent of dual cores in 2005.My oh my how things turned in 2006

So out of 25 years of x86 history we have 4 years with AMD on top.Go eat your bananas now.

---

The Athlon 64 was launched in September of 2003, not 2004. Before that, blows were roughly traded back and forth between intel and AMD.

You're also forgetting the many times intel made an attempt to block AMD from competing completely. 1986/87, 1990, 1997, and 2005 all had lawsuits filed. The 1990 lawsuit being one filed by intel, yet won by AMD being one of the more important ones, because it was an attempt to block AMD from 486's. The 1986/87 was important as well, because intel attempted to stop amd from producing chips(which was a breach of contract btw)... So, out of 25 years, how many of them were strong armed by intel? As you know, a lawsuit doesn't occur over night, it takes years to get up the evidence to sue in the first place.

Sounds like a few people may have their history a bit messed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Ed's article is worth a look :

http://www.overclockers.com/tips01142/

---

Interesting article..

Is AMD's supposed lead in FP based on vector performance?

It would have to be, because the regular x87 FPU remained untouched as far as I know.

Although C2D has a higher theoretical throughput than the K10, I guess the k10 will be much more efficient in that regard.

One thing is clear though.. AMD needs to migrate to 45nm as quickly as possible, and when they do, they need to make sure that the 45nm version of the K10 is more than just a shrink.

Intel's Nehalem will undoubtedly have awesome performance, and will most likely outperform the K10 unless they make substantial improvements when they shrink it to 45nm.

^^ What |JACK- said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DilTech

The Athlon 64 was launched in September of 2003, not 2004. Before that, blows were roughly traded back and forth between intel and AMD.

---

Really ? And how did the 1.8GHz K8 fare against a 3.2GHz Northwood ?
Not well if you remember.
Only in 2004 did the K8 managed to get in front...

Quote:

---

You're also forgetting the many times intel made an attempt to block AMD from competing completely. 1986/87, 1990, 1997, and 2005 all had lawsuits filed. The 1990 lawsuit being one filed by intel, yet won by AMD being one of the more important ones, because it was an attempt to block AMD from 486's. The 1986/87 was important as well, because intel attempted to stop amd from producing chips(which was a breach of contract btw)... So, out of 25 years, how many of them were strong armed by intel? As you know, a lawsuit doesn't occur over night, it takes years to get up the evidence to sue in the first place.

Sounds like a few people may have their history a bit messed up.

---

Intel blocked AMD from reverse engineering its chips , which is perfectly legal.
Sounds like some have a weakness for the underdog whick blocks their viewing angle...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

..
Intel's Nehalem will undoubtedly have awesome performance, and will most likely outperform the K10 unless they make substantial improvements when they shrink it to 45nm.

---

Like what ?

If you remember AMD played all its cards , Intel still has 2 aces : IMC and CSI. What if Intel gains 40-50% only due to IMC+CSI ?

What can AMD do to match that ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

How old were you back then if you have such a poor memory ?

K7 and P3 were on par IPC wise ( gains were ussualy were SSE/3DNOW was being used ).Late on P3's life , K7 managed to out do it , MHz wise.
Early P4 ( Willy core ) sucked = > early 2000 to early 2002 AMD on top. Anyway , their succes was shadowed by the crappy chipsets they had.



Only in 2004 K8 managed to out do the top Northwoods and the victory was obvious with the advent of dual cores in 2005.My oh my how things turned in 2006

So out of 25 years of x86 history we have 4 years with AMD on top.Go eat your bananas now.

---

On par my ass. K7 cleaned the clock of a P3 without any sweat whatsoever, clock for clock, not to mention, the FIRST to hit the 1 GHZ barrier. Intel tried to pull a 133 fsb upset, but it didnt work. K7 NEVER lost the performance crown to a P3,P3 Coppermine NOR the Williamette version of the P4... Not even from the beginning. The K7 was intels wakeup call to AMds previous failed attempted to gain the stronghold. The chipsets werent the problem. it was the MB manf hiding the fact they were making boards from Intel... Asus whitebox anyone? K7 tested the current power supply limits, which had an affect on the stability of a machine. Some others had used cheap generic DDR modules that caused compatibility issues.

Your intel fanboism shows greatly and that is truely sad.. I can recall in the EARLY 90's where the AMD DX 100s were slapping Intel around like a step child.. I also find it hard to believe that Intel has had 25 yrs of success as the fasted chip on the market.. Try the Motorola 68XXX series chips that ate Intel for breakfast. Commodore Amiga, Atari ST and Macs all used these processors. Intel sat in the backseat...Thats how old i am...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Like what ?

If you remember AMD played all its cards , Intel still has 2 aces : IMC and CSI. What if Intel gains 40-50% only due to IMC+CSI ?

What can AMD do to match that ?

---

Well, I'm no engineer so I can't say what AMD needs to do..

But, they have a few years head start on Intel when it comes to IMC and direct connect bus..

There has to be other avenues left to explore though, and once AMD gets on 45nm, they'll have more space on die to add more features to the processor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Really ? And how did the 1.8GHz K8 fare against a 3.2GHz Northwood ?
Not well if you remember.
Only in 2004 did the K8 managed to get in front...


Intel blocked AMD from reverse engineering its chips , which is perfectly legal.
Sounds like some have a weakness for the underdog whick blocks their viewing angle...

---

AMD didn't launch a 1.8 ghz A64 first...

At launch was the 3200+, the FX-51. The 3200+ was a clawhammer at 2 ghz, and fx-51 was at 2.2 ghz.

@carfax
the benchmarks are specFP_rate2006 and specINT_rate2006 on a 2P servers.
Because of the ODMC and the point-to-point buses, the 2P K8 performance scales much better than 2P C2D.
The dualcore K8 is 2.5% faster than C2D in specINT_rate2006, at same frequency, while it is 15.5% faster in specFP_rate2006.
If we consider AMD's bold claims as true, then the 20% advantage over C2D in specINT_rate2006 will become 17% advantage over K8, while the 50% in specFP_rate2006 will become 29% advantage over K8. In average the K10 is 23% faster than K8.

But, these benchmarks are on 2P systems, where K8 shines and scales much better in performance than C2D, because it has an ODMC and a point-to-point buses.
On the desktop, the K8 has no advantage over C2D(no core-FSB-northbridge-FSB-core communication) by having a point-to-point bus. The 1P K8 system has no additional bandwidth provided by NUMA.
The average C2D performance advantage is 20%, compared to a same clocked K8. According to AMD's specXXX_rate2006 estimations, clock for clock, K10 will be 2.5% faster than C2D in average.

@savantu
Stop dreaming. IMC + CSI can't improve performance for 40-50%
For example, K7(Barton with FSB400) vs K8. K8 is a tweaked K7 core with ODMC and new point to point bus. It is only 10% faster clock for clock, due to architectural improvements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gOJDO

@carfax

If we consider AMD's bold claims as true, then the 20% advantage over C2D in specINT_rate2006 will become 17% advantage over K8, while the 50% in specFP_rate2006 will become 29% advantage over K8. In average the K10 is 23% faster than K8.

---

And not only are they for a 2P system, but that is *at the same clock*. But the K8 runs at 3GHz to K10's 2.5GHz, and 2.8GHz to K10's 2.3GHz (for 120W and 95W TDP bins)

So really, no int_rate improvement at all for K10 vs. K8, and a small FP improvement for K10 vs. K8, *because* the clock rate has fallen as IPC has improved. Now, of course, this is all per core, and K10 brings quad core. But it's going against Intel QC at 3GHz Woodcrest and 3.33GHz+ (Penryn).

If only AMD would release actual scores, with actual clocks and system configs. Why can't they do this?

Quote:

---

Umm Circa 1999.. Athlon blows Pentium 3 out of the water...

Circa A64.. Same thing repeats.

Who are YOU to say who is full of and who isnt? Wait for the release. Either you will eat a shovel full of your own fanboy , or you walk away with no turds on your bib. Either way, being a fanboy is the lamest thing you can be.

---

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.

^^ Ye, the HT/CSI is 100% useless on the desktop. And really only benefitting on 4S+, maybe even 8S+ first with the new quad FSB platform.

IMC is a semi joke. Core/Core2 already showed an IMC aint a winner. Also for those doing their homework, would know things like 1066->1333FSB gives 1-3%. There simply aint much to get there.

However, the IMC is a must for the HT/CSI style. But else its just a little useless checkbox for the desktop.

Ofcourse I wish as many others a system on a chip. Simply due to simplicity of it. But dont expect/hope it gives anything but cost savings on the desktop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

I'm one person out of thousands who now recommends Intel systems.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Core/Core2 already showed an IMC aint a winner.

---

people noticed windows run smoothly on imc-based cpu :)

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.

---

AMD isnt like Intel. AMD wont release leaks of benches until a week before its launched. Besides, we make up and extremely 1% of the market, so AMD could care less about what we all think on these OC forums.

If you notice, Intel has a much more influenctial crowd than AMD. A lot of guys here have inside connections, where AMd is more locked down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MAS

people noticed windows run smoothly on imc-based cpu :)

---

Gimme a break. I tried both. There is no difference. Its nothing more than a fud. And I never heard or seen it anywhere else.

Maybe you should send it to fudzilla or theinq.

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:

---

Only for the low end...

i've heard at least one K10 sample has been beeing to Moscow, RUS for some time :)

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:

---

This is not true!
Some AMD CPUs have better price/performance than some Intel CPUs and vice versa.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/d...ts/average.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/d...arts/price.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/d...arts/ratio.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...e-roundup.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MAS

people noticed windows run smoothly on imc-based cpu :)

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Only for the low end...

---

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

Who cares about stock clock :p:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

@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.

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!!!!

AMD did it before with the AMD64 over the P4.

no reason they cant do it again.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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:

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.

^^ :O now that's what I want but instead on K10 ;). Man all those cores must be starved for bandwidth....

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:

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.

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.

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

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