Barcelona Launch Clock Speeds Changing?

Coming from Dave Graham,this info is very valuable ;)

http://www.dailytech.com/Barcelona+L...rticle8592.htm

Quote:

---

David Graham (Blog) - August 24, 2007 1:48 PM

AMD is changing its "Barcelona" launch plans again

Let's come right out and say it: when AMD announced that the launch clock speeds of Barcelona would start at sub-2.0 GHz, people were frustrated. This
long-awaited monolithic quad core release from AMD would be the pinnacle of their core design technology and would usher in a new era of powerful computing.

Sound about right? So, imagine the collective chagrin when a 1.6 GHz base clock speed was announced with top-end clock speeds ending around 2.0 GHz. In the interim, reports surfaced about AMD having issues with top-end core speeds, which was quickly countered by the 3.0 GHz Phenom demonstration, leakage, and other processor related functions.

We knew AMD was hard at work on perfecting the Barcelona core even before the official production launch and that the promise of HT3 in this generation of processors was going to be eschewed in favor of the more widely integrated HT1.x version.

Now, word is coming that AMD might drop the 1.6 GHz from the launch line-up in favour of a 2.1 GHz or 2.2 GHz core launch speed. Perhaps the fabrication process is going much smoother than anyone realized and some of the leakage problems have been ironed out? Who knows but, looks like things are picking up for AMD.

---

Quote:

---

NEW! RE: Basis for this Information?
By davegraham (blog) on 8/24/2007 2:47:38 PM , Rating: 3
It's reliable as it came from an inside source at AMD. I work very closely with these guys and, for the record, this falls outside the scope of my NDA with them.

cheers,

Dave

---

Where's Shintai in this possibly positive AMD thread? T minus 10, 9, 8, 7... :)

Nice :)

Some solid good news, finally

Very good news so far. Now if only they would release some REAL benchmarks :D

Faster clock speeds at release can only be a good thing. Here's hoping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho

just the second to last. :D

---

Well in a sector with only two companies, being second to last is not a bad thing
:D :p:

a few hundred mhz is a pretty big deal if you ask me... It means thermal envelopes are a-ok, and they will overclock that much farther.

Ryan

I don't think 2.2GHz will be enough to beat Penryn other than the lower clocked ones but that's me. Once AMD reaches near or to 3GHz barrier things might get interesting.

Oh and about the small clock increase... may look like nothing but it says a lot of how hard AMD's working on getting the clock speeds up. Seems like they are aware it's not gonna be enough or something otherwise I don't think they'd do such desperate attempts of improving the clock speeds.

Anyways it's good news if it's true.

This is good news. But, I would still love to be surprised in a good way at launch.

Hmm. Good if true.

But considering we still haven't seen benches, I'm not holding my breath.

I'll take any good news from AMD right now! It would really suck to have only one CPU supplier :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimmer411

Very good news so far. Now if only they would release some REAL benchmarks :D

---

that ios offcourse the question you'll have to wait fore a bit longer....

btw deployed NDA ES samples are now on 1.8GHZ so i don't see why AMD would ship 1.6 to retail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

Oh and about the small clock increase... may look like nothing but it says a lot of how hard AMD's working on getting the clock speeds up. Seems like they are aware it's not gonna be enough or something otherwise I don't think they'd do such desperate attempts of improving the clock speeds.

---

These were supposed to be much higher-clocked, but after the fiasco of the
early steppings, they had to drastically reduce the clock targets. It seems
some problems were eliminated, so they can raise the clocks again.

4 respins as some people are saying:).But unofficially ,Phenom is good to go for Q4/Q1 with some serious clocks(2.8+).Lets hope there will be enough supply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho

LOL.... people are cheering for a 100-200mhz jump in clock speed? Ok, so now they aren't sucking hind tit anymore... just the second to last. :D

---

LOL, so tru :)

What about availability ?

I don't doubt they could launch it at 2.5GHz if they wanted , but those parts would be as rare as hen's teeth.

This quote from Paul Demone explains it best :

Quote:

---

1) A design and process combo with a center frequency of
1.9 GHz will yield three sigma fast process tail end parts
of about 2.5 GHz. In large quantities across many wafer
batches roughly 1 in 400 parts will run at a production
quality 2.5 GHz.

2) A production 2.5 GHz processor has to be guaranteed
to run in all motherboards in all systems with different
chipsets, VRMs, DIMMs etc whether the system is in a hot
office in Phoenix or a cold basement in Anchorage. This
requires some guard banding to ensure all combinations
of parts and systems run reliably anywhere. But if you hand
match a specific part to a specific motherboard, system,
chipset, memory etc you can probably coax a 2.5 GHz
into reliable operation in a benign environment to say 2.6
GHz at stock voltage and cooling without much problem.

3) An advanced CMOS integrated circuit has to operate
under a certain combination of supply voltage and junction
temperature to achieve an aceptable level of reliability
and lifetime. However it can be operated at significantly
higher temperatures and voltages at the cost of expon-
entially reduced lifetime. This is how you do accelerated
aging studies to establish those acceptable levels in the
first place.

---

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=22100011

The problem AMD has with K10 is that nothing shown until now suggests they moved the center from 1.9GHz.IIRC a post by Inq suggested that 1.9GHz parts are the only ones which will be available en masse , 2Ghz for select few.This strongly supports PDs assertion.

All in all , AMD could probably launch a 2.5GHz part , but it would be worse than a paper launch ; what AMD needs is to move the center bin to 2.1-2.3GHz , then we're talking.

How will this affect prices, will I get a 2.1GHz cheaper now? :)

Strange that people want high frequency cpu's :)

I thought it was more important how much apples it could carry in one cycle...

And if the frequencies are true, you can be 100% sure amd is confident to get 1/3 more apples in 1 cycle then Intel...

Let us wait for some official news :)

IPC is nr1 yes. But a high clocks never hurt, wouldn't you say?

I've been eyeing the 2.1 Barcelona for my 2P workstation. If the prices go down further I might get my hands on an even higher clocked one and just wait with CPU nr2. Maybe I'll end up with 2*2.3GHz barcies and 8gigs of ram which should get my DAW rig moving...

I couldn't care less if it runs @20MHz or 20GHz.
While I have hope it would run (at least some things) 10-20% faster than C2D (or maybe penryn..), anyone thinking it would "blow Penryn by 50%" needs a reality check.
AMD would have shown a demo already if it were that high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeardyMan

Strange that people want high frequency cpu's :)

I thought it was more important how much apples it could carry in one cycle...

And if the frequencies are true, you can be 100% sure amd is confident to get 1/3 more apples in 1 cycle then Intel...

---

overall performance is what matters, who cares if its 10 instrutions x 2000 cycles, or 7 instructions by 3000cycles, its whatever gets the work done. IPC is only part of the metric.

Higher IPC doesn't neccesarily mean better performance per watt, and certainly doesn't mean better performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onewingedangel

overall performance is what matters, who cares if its 10 instrutions x 2000 cycles, or 7 instructions by 3000cycles, its whatever gets the work done. IPC is only part of the metric.

Higher IPC doesn't neccesarily mean better performance per watt, and certainly doesn't mean better performance.

---

That's true, but isn't that what brought C2D glory?:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeardyMan

That's true, but isn't that what brought C2D glory?:D

---

C2D was able to up the IPC whilst raising the clockspeeds (compared to yonah and previous pentium M's). AMD's problem with k8 was that the design couldn't scale the clockspeeds in the same way that intel could scale theirs (be it SOI or a design issue). k10 goes after a solution by improving IPC again, but looks to do so at the cost of clockspeed compared to k8, let alone c2d. Even if k10 is able to compete with intel in the short term if they run into problems scaling the clocks again it will hurt them long term, the design needs to scale in performance - and raising the clockspeeds is the easiest way to achieve this, extracting ever more IPC gets increasingly costly in regards to die space/idle power consumption.

As I said IPC is only half the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onewingedangel

C2D was able to up the IPC whilst raising the clockspeeds (compared to yonah and previous pentium M's). AMD's problem with k8 was that the design couldn't scale the clockspeeds in the same way that intel could scale theirs (be it SOI or a design issue). k10 goes after a solution by improving IPC again, but looks to do so at the cost of clockspeed compared to k8, let alone c2d. Even if k10 is able to compete with intel in the short term if they run into problems scaling the clocks again it will hurt them long term, the design needs to scale in performance - and raising the clockspeeds is the easiest way to achieve this, extracting ever more IPC gets increasingly costly in regards to die space/idle power consumption.

As I said IPC is only half the story.

---

I see yes, but compared to netburst, intel had to deliver some mhz as well :)

But youre logic fitts yes ..

Let's pray the 3.0ghz part is true , and that it's a low end model :D

Well ok but both P-M andYonah are mobile cpus. You cant directly compare clockspeed with c2d desktop cpus. A more fair compaison would be yonah with c2d mobile cpus. Merom topped out at 2.33 on release and got a slight bump in may to 2.4ghz. So clocks have been more or less static

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR

Well ok but both P-M andYonah are mobile cpus. You cant directly compare clockspeed with c2d desktop cpus. A more fair compaison would be yonah with c2d mobile cpus. Merom topped out at 2.33 on release and got a slight bump in may to 2.4ghz. So clocks have been more or less static

---

There's a just announced mobile X7900 now, running at 2.8GHz. This supersedes the 2.6GHz X7800 launched a little earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

There's a just announced mobile X7900 now, running at 2.8GHz. This supersedes the 2.6GHz X7800 launched a little earlier.

---

Yes but while the non-extreme parts are 31w and 33w these are 44w so its just Intel willing to release mobile cpus with higher tdp rather than a imrovement in the architecture or process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR

Well ok but both P-M andYonah are mobile cpus. You cant directly compare clockspeed with c2d desktop cpus. A more fair compaison would be yonah with c2d mobile cpus. Merom topped out at 2.33 on release and got a slight bump in may to 2.4ghz. So clocks have been more or less static

---

Of course you can compare them. The C2D desktop and laptop parts are IDENTICAL. There is absolutely no difference except speed binning (to keep thermals down). Except for slower FSBs, the designs are identical down to the last transistor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR

Yes but while the non-extreme parts are 31w and 33w these are 44w so its just Intel willing to release mobile cpus with higher tdp rather than a imrovement in the architecture or process.

---

45nm laptop parts are coming in Q1 08.

Can you say 25W 3GHz C2D laptop chips? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mstp2009

45nm laptop parts are coming in Q1 08.

Can you say 25W 3GHz C2D laptop chips? :D

---

umm yeah going from 65nm to 45 nm will bring intel 3ghz instead of sub 2ghz 25W parts :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mstp2009

45nm laptop parts are coming in Q1 08.

Can you say 25W 3GHz C2D laptop chips? :D

---

keep on dreaming :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generics_user

umm yeah going from 65nm to 45 nm will bring intel 3ghz instead of sub 2ghz 25W parts :rofl:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

keep on dreaming :rofl:

---

Then let me PHRASE it this way.

AMD has ZERO shot in hell of doing this. ;) :up:

Intel has a VERY real shot considering we are seeing 90W 3GHz Penryn quads on the roadmap.

1/2 the chips (dual v. quad) is 45W 3GHz WITHOUT binning.

Binning (i.e. low voltage parts) on a high-K 45nm process puts this EASILY within the realm of possible.

The initial 45nm line up is 3.16Ghz dualcore at 40W TDP. Ofcource we dont know how much under 40W. But there is still along way from 40 to 25.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

The initial 45nm line up is 3.16Ghz dualcore at 40W TDP. Ofcource we dont know how much under 40W. But there is still along way from 40 to 25.

---

Again, that is the desktop UNBINNED variety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mstp2009

Again, that is the desktop UNBINNED variety.

---

proof?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

proof?

---

I'll answer that when you prove to me God doesn't exist. http://www.xcpus.com/forums/images/smilies/wink2.gif

so actually you're saying things without even knowing that they are true?

are they binned or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

so actually you're saying things without even knowing that they are true?

are they binned or not?

---

I know for FACT all Intel laptop CPUs since the P3 have been binned.

Go through their SL codes on processorfinder.intel.com and you will see lower voltages compared to the equivalent speed desktop parts.

So yes, I know for FACT this is true. And anyone that would take the time to look it up would see that as well. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mstp2009

I'll answer that when you prove to me God doesn't exist. http://www.xcpus.com/forums/images/smilies/wink2.gif

---

God existence must be proved, not viceversa :ROTF:

Haha AMD people claims proofs, when AMD itself is giving us nothing of their upcoming processors until release date :rolleyes:

Well is giving us rumors, thats true :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

keep on dreaming :rofl:

---

Half way there :

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1885/penrynih6.jpg

Quote:

---

The 25W Penryn has 1066FSB and 3MB of L2 cache with speeds at 2.53, 2.4 and 2.13GHz.

---

Lineup:
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/1203/penryngm2.gif

2.8 at 35w .. ain't that bad either.
Turion X2 TL-66 is currently 2.3 at 35w.

Ofcourse that this NG vs. current so they should be able to improve things with Griffin\Puma better power saving options.

But it's still not a direct comparison as Intel aims for performance and AMD for longer battery life.

Quote:

---

Whether Griffin will be competitive with Penryn is somewhat uncertain.
Certainly from a performance standpoint, Griffin will lag behind Intel’s offerings.
However, the situation for power and battery life, which is probably more important, is much less clear. In some areas, AMD’s power management is more sophisticated than what Intel currently offers – particularly the separate voltage planes for each core.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mstp2009

I know for FACT all Intel laptop CPUs since the P3 have been binned.

Go through their SL codes on processorfinder.intel.com and you will see lower voltages compared to the equivalent speed desktop parts.

So yes, I know for FACT this is true. And anyone that would take the time to look it up would see that as well. :up:

---

Their laptop CPUs are different models. Made to have low voltage, like laptop CPUs should have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan

Their laptop CPUs are different models. Made to have low voltage, like laptop CPUs should have.

---

They are ALL off the same lithography masks, off the same fabrication lines. That was the beauty of the C2D design - it was originally a laptop design variant of the CD, and got shifted into different segments. The difference is in the binning, and the post-fabrication packaging (PGA vs. LGA). Nothing else, down to the LAST TRANSISTOR is different.

Why are we talking about penryn in a barcelona thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Face

Half way there :

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1885/penrynih6.jpg



Lineup:
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/1203/penryngm2.gif

2.8 at 35w .. ain't that bad either.
Turion X2 TL-66 is currently 2.3 at 35w.

Ofcourse that this NG vs. current so they should be able to improve things with Griffin\Puma better power saving options.

But it's still not a direct comparison as Intel aims for performance and AMD for longer battery life.

---

i saw them too, but even a 3MB L2 cache with 3 GHz with a TDP of 25W seems impossible for Q1 and Q2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabway

Why are we talking about penryn in a barcelona thread?

---

don't know either, every barca thread turns out like a penry thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mstp2009

I'll answer that when you prove to me God doesn't exist. http://www.xcpus.com/forums/images/smilies/wink2.gif

---

Richard Dawkins.

I can do science me.

=)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabway

Why are we talking about penryn in a barcelona thread?

---

Put's on "the" hat:
Ahh, a statement of reason.
Listen guys, it really is classless to come into an AMD thread and talk Intel.
If the AMD's are better or worse we will know in time.
Now there are people that love one or the other and thats cool, but let the AMD guys have their discussion in peace.
If you guys would like this moved to the AMD section for lets call it a bit more peace just PM me..
Thanks to all for reading..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Put's on "the" hat:
Ahh, a statement of reason.
Listen guys, it really is classless to come into an AMD thread and talk Intel.
If the AMD's are better or worse we will know in time.
Now there are people that love one or the other and thats cool, but let the AMD guys have their discussion in peace.
If you guys would like this moved to the AMD section for lets call it a bit more peace just PM me..
Thanks to all for reading..

---

OFFTOPIC

dave what's up with your user title :D

Octaless :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

don't know either, every barca thread turns out like a penry thread

---

Because some people think it's funny to ruin it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeardyMan

OFFTOPIC

dave what's up with your user title :D

Octaless :D

---

It's a joke.
So many of the guys in the WCG team have bought quads as they are the best bang for the buck and I don't have one so I thought I'd tease..:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabway

Why are we talking about penryn in a Barcelona thread?

---

It may well be a Barcelona related thread but if the topic of conversation naturally branches into different tangents then why get upset about it? I actually really want to know how this is so upsetting? The topic is still cpus's, do we have to walk on egg shells around here to avoid upsetting a few people that don't like a company (as sad as this is:ROTF: ) even if it is relevant to the topic in hand?

Regards gallag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mstp2009

Of course you can compare them. The C2D desktop and laptop parts are IDENTICAL. There is absolutely no difference except speed binning (to keep thermals down). Except for slower FSBs, the designs are identical down to the last transistor.

---

Exactly.

Interesting fact: AMD has a special mobile process for their mobile chips (thicker gate oxides, etc), designed to reduce idle leakage. This was how the 90nm Turion 64 parts could defeat the 90nm Dothan parts for real-world workloads. This was true for the 90nm Turion 64 series; I don't know about the 65nm parts though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowmage

Exactly.

Interesting fact: AMD has a special mobile process for their mobile chips (thicker gate oxides, etc), designed to reduce idle leakage. This was how the 90nm Turion 64 parts could defeat the 90nm Dothan parts for real-world workloads. This was true for the 90nm Turion 64 series; I don't know about the 65nm parts though.

---

Not wanting to upset AMD Fans, you should leave Intel out of your comments. Why do you have to bring up Intel? Oh wait that was meant to be negative towards Intel LOL! :rofl:

Anyway, Dothan lost some benchmarks to Turion because Dothan ran on old generation Platforms that used slower FSB, slower and much less memory Bandwidth, slower I/O, crappier Video and etc... It had little to almost nothing to do with the Processor. Desktop Yonah (still on a crappy Platform) vs, X2 proved that. See Anand's first Yonah Review?

It is kind silly of when;
Bring up Intel in a positive Manner in an AMD thread and it's Thread Crapping.
Trash out Intel or just write negative stuff even if it's false and all is OK.

I say this to you and MovieMan with a lot of respect, if folks are warned for bringing up Intel in a good way, folks should be warned for bringing up Intel in a negative way or using false info. These kinds of lines "This was how the 90nm Turion 64 parts could defeat the 90nm Dothan parts for real-world workloads." invites a reply. Then we get folks whining about "We're not talking about Intel". See the problem? You guys can't have it both ways. If you hate Intel that frackin' bad, go to the AMDZone or etc..? Please?

I'm hoping these chips perform at least mildly well so competition can keep going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Not wanting to upset AMD Fans, you should leave Intel out of your comments. Why do you have to bring up Intel? Oh wait that was meant to be negative towards Intel LOL! :rofl:

Anyway, Dothan lost some benchmarks to Turion because Dothan ran on old generation Platforms that used slower FSB, slower and much less memory Bandwidth, slower I/O, crappier Video and etc... It had little to almost nothing to do with the Processor. Desktop Yonah (still on a crappy Platform) vs, X2 proved that. See Anand's first Yonah Review?

It is kind silly of when;
Bring up Intel in a positive Manner in an AMD thread and it's Thread Crapping.
Trash out Intel or just write negative stuff even if it's false and all is OK.

I say this to you and MovieMan with a lot of respect, if folks are warned for bringing up Intel in a good way, folks should be warned for bringing up Intel in a negative way or using false info. These kinds of lines "This was how the 90nm Turion 64 parts could defeat the 90nm Dothan parts for real-world workloads." invites a reply. Then we get folks whining about "We're not talking about Intel". See the problem? You guys can't have it both ways. If you hate Intel that frackin' bad, go to the AMDZone or etc..? Please?

---

lol

Both Turion 64 and Dothan are outdated; their time has past. EG people talk :banana::banana::banana::banana: about Prescott now and it's no problem. Did I say AMD rawks and Intel sucks? No, Intel clearly has a better processor on all fronts (power and performance and cost, but only for non-superbudget computers) at the moment. Stop being so sensitive.

The problem with you is that you don't know much about the subject matter and make incorrect conclusions from data. That's the main reason why you always get flak from your replies (good example is your previous comment about prefetching).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

What about availability ?

I don't doubt they could launch it at 2.5GHz if they wanted , but those parts would be as rare as hen's teeth.

This quote from Paul Demone explains it best :



http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=22100011

The problem AMD has with K10 is that nothing shown until now suggests they moved the center from 1.9GHz.IIRC a post by Inq suggested that 1.9GHz parts are the only ones which will be available en masse , 2Ghz for select few.This strongly supports PDs assertion.

All in all , AMD could probably launch a 2.5GHz part , but it would be worse than a paper launch ; what AMD needs is to move the center bin to 2.1-2.3GHz , then we're talking.

---

Very uncommon to see such an insightful post in normal day to day banter. The center of the Fmax distribution pretty much determines health and quantity of the yield of any particular process, examples...

F04 10 stage delay is normally distributed: http://date.eda-online.co.uk/proceed...iles/07g_1.pdf Figure 2, and this only accounts for variation within die and from stage to state in a 12 stage design.

Or the statitical cummulation of all process variation results in a normally distributed Fmax:
http://eda.ee.ucla.edu/EE201A-04Spring/GIT-PV.pdf see Figure 1.

This is why this rumor is so critrical, if true them AMD has moved the Fmax peak distribution from the 1.8-1.9ish range a bit higher. It is hard to tell since there is not 'indication' of sigma, so 3 sigma from center is hard to understand what kind of volume.

However, statistically speaking, even at 3 sigma only 0.3% of the population will be at or greater than 3 sigma away.... this is good enough for some 'black box' limited editions, but hardly enough to satisfy a volume launch....

It is a big question mark (?) and we will only know when the processors actually start showing up in volume.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowmage

Exactly.

Interesting fact: AMD has a special mobile process for their mobile chips (thicker gate oxides, etc), designed to reduce idle leakage. This was how the 90nm Turion 64 parts could defeat the 90nm Dothan parts for real-world workloads. This was true for the 90nm Turion 64 series; I don't know about the 65nm parts though.

---

So does Intel:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09...-leakage_65nm/

Though Intel uses this for the ULW parts and not the normal mobile parts.

ehh barcelona will launch at 2.6Ghz...

I'm quoting this in 3 months...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xlink

ehh barcelona will launch at 2.6Ghz...

I'm quoting this in 3 months...

---

So AMDs press release was false?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowmage

lol

Both Turion 64 and Dothan are outdated; their time has past. EG people talk :banana::banana::banana::banana: about Prescott now and it's no problem. Did I say AMD rawks and Intel sucks? No, Intel clearly has a better processor on all fronts (power and performance and cost, but only for non-superbudget computers) at the moment. Stop being so sensitive.

The problem with you is that you don't know much about the subject matter and make incorrect conclusions from data. That's the main reason why you always get flak from your replies (good example is your previous comment about prefetching).

---

You still don't get it do ya'? You love to try and put down folks, especially those you don't agree with so that's nothing new, typical Fanboy schlock. It's not about what Rawks or not. I'm tagged as one of the biggest Intel Fanboys here, now show where I said AMD sucks?

I made a simple request, well, simple for some folks. If you want an exclusive AMD thread or conversation, leave Intel out of it and then there are fewer conflicts. If you can't stand being told something as obvious as C2D is Faster, then you have a personal problem.

No, if anyone is clueless here, it's you;) To solve this one, go to the Intel section and start a thread called "Intel's Smart L2 and Smart Memory Access is simply Pre-fetching" as you implied . I'll show you LOL! When all is said and done, the results are the only thing that matters. Again, shouldn't be in a thread about Barcelona launch speeds.:rofl:

In before thread going south.

Oh wait, it already has..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank M

In before thread going south.

Oh wait, it already has..

---

Lol. Every Barcelona/AMD thread has the big 3 Intel drones making their necessary appearance. It's like the 3 stooges, but instead of being funny they're actually incredibly annoying.

Then again, I've come to expect this here. *shrug*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mav451

Lol. Every Barcelona/AMD thread has the big 3 Intel drones making their necessary appearance. It's like the 3 stooges, but instead of being funny they're actually incredibly annoying.

Then again, I've come to expect this here. *shrug*

---

3 Stooges or etc..... One more time and in bold--->Again, shouldn't be in a thread about Barcelona launch speeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

So AMDs press release was false?

---

no. and I have no hard information on it either.
pure speculation and the like.

that's basically my gut feeling. I'm willing to bet that the launch will be at around 2.6Ghz give or take. If I'm wrong, feel free to bring this up again in the future and to call me a fool, I won't hold it against you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

I don't think 2.2GHz will be enough to beat Penryn other than the lower clocked ones but that's me. Once AMD reaches near or to 3GHz barrier things might get interesting.

Oh and about the small clock increase... may look like nothing but it says a lot of how hard AMD's working on getting the clock speeds up. Seems like they are aware it's not gonna be enough or something otherwise I don't think they'd do such desperate attempts of improving the clock speeds.

Anyways it's good news if it's true.

---

Penryn's new high-k transister design is supposed to provide for 20% more efficiency, translating to better clock per wattage and also providing better performance in general. I dunno, but at 2.2ghz.. maybe AMD will release 3.0ghz? I think it's a little farfetched since if you really think about it, 3.0ghz is incredibly high binned for AMD already.. and to expect 4 cores to come out perfect like that is going to be hard. That exclusivity of that would push prices up pretty high for those 3.0ghz Phenoms. Intel's projecting 3.8Ghz wolfdales and I don't doubt them when they say that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

You still don't get it do ya'? You love to try and put down folks, especially those you don't agree with so that's nothing new, typical Fanboy schlock. It's not about what Rawks or not. I'm tagged as one of the biggest Intel Fanboys here, now show where I said AMD sucks?

I made a simple request, well, simple for some folks. If you want an exclusive AMD thread or conversation, leave Intel out of it and then there are fewer conflicts. If you can't stand being told something as obvious as C2D is Faster, then you have a personal problem.

No, if anyone is clueless here, it's you;) To solve this one, go to the Intel section and start a thread called "Intel's Smart L2 and Smart Memory Access is simply Pre-fetching" as you implied . I'll show you LOL! When all is said and done, the results are the only thing that matters. Again, shouldn't be in a thread about Barcelona launch speeds.:rofl:

---

I don't know anything about Smart L2 and SMA, but you know... Intel's L2 and L3 cache latencies are very little. L2 has a latency of around 12 and their L3 has a latency of 14....... AMD's L2 has a latency of 18... and their L3 has a latency of around 30-40 something from what I've heard. I admit, I'm an intel fanboy, but even I would like to see atleast competing barcelona scores for benchmarks. I'm actually hoping all of these benchmarks, the superpi especially, is fake. 39 second 1mb is bad... my PD could beat that, but in all reality, AMD's chip doesn't sound very impressive, and the cache sizes and latencies would probably explain the super pi score. AMD's chips may have more L1, but they really can't compete against 8mb-12mb of 12 lat L2 cache....

wow....can't say i miss this portion of Xtremesys but....what the hell...

i'm of the opinion that top launch speeds for september will be 2.2ghz as an SE part (120w TMax)

Bottom-end, if i can hazard a guess will be either 1.8 or 1.9ghz (remember, AMD is running 100mhz model changes vs. the 200mhz changes of the F3 series opterons).

availability will be there; embargos end on 9/10 so, expect the typical crappy reviews from everyone at 1130pm the night before. can't you tell that i've done this before?

cheers,

dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StealthyFish

39 second 1mb is bad... my PD could beat that, but in all reality, AMD's chip doesn't sound very impressive, and the cache sizes and latencies would probably explain the super pi score.

---

Not really. My K7 Barton-Sempron with 256kB of L2 with latency of 20 in a bad
board which can't even set memory right (no 1T) or oc decently, my best time
was 53s. With higher fsb and 1T, it would probably be high 40s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StealthyFish

I don't know anything about Smart L2 and SMA, but you know... Intel's L2 and L3 cache latencies are very little. L2 has a latency of around 12 and their L3 has a latency of 14....... AMD's L2 has a latency of 18... and their L3 has a latency of around 30-40 something from what I've heard. I admit, I'm an intel fanboy, but even I would like to see atleast competing barcelona scores for benchmarks. I'm actually hoping all of these benchmarks, the superpi especially, is fake. 39 second 1mb is bad... my PD could beat that, but in all reality, AMD's chip doesn't sound very impressive, and the cache sizes and latencies would probably explain the super pi score. AMD's chips may have more L1, but they really can't compete against 8mb-12mb of 12 lat L2 cache....

---

Current Intel Processors doesn't use an L3. SO if you meant L1 and L2, sure. It's kind of hard to talk to these guys when they put their love for AMD in front of common sense. I've seen AMD Fans call other AMD Fans Intel fans because they didn't repeat AMD's spin.

Now since Intel's and AMD architectures are different, Cache dependence, the Amount of Cache and even the way the cache is setup (Inclusive-Exclusive) is different for each company as well. I believe each is using what's best for them. Small fast is good for Intel just as a larger L1 is better for AMD. Intel tried L3 and got mixed results on the desktop. Another example, read up on L1/L2 cache ECC or error correction and tell me if you still think AMD's way is the best way to do it?

K10 will not only need a smarter Pre-Fetch as the other guys mistakenly still don't get. Even after linking these same 3 Hardcore AMD fans to what Smart Cache and Smart Memory access was, they still didn't get it. It will matter for K10 as well if AMD doesn't improve on its Dumb Memory Access, K10 will not Gain that much. Meanwhile how blocks of memory is stored, how that stored memory is accessed and even the speed of access will only get better for Intel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Current Intel Processors doesn't use an L3. SO if you meant L1 and L2, sure. It's kind of hard to talk to these guys when they put their love for AMD in front of common sense. I've seen AMD Fans call other AMD Fans Intel fans because they did repeat AMD's spin.

Now since Intel's and AMD architectures are different, Cache dependence, the Amount of Cache and even the way the cache is setup (Inclusive-Exclusive) is different for each company as well. I believe each is using what's best for them. Small fast is good for Intel just as a larger L1 is better for AMD. Intel tried L3 and got mixed results on the desktop. Another example, read up on L1/L2 cache ECC or error correction and tell me if you still think AMD's way is the best way to do it?

K10 will not only need a smarter Pre-Fetch as the other guys mistakenly still don't get. Even after linking these same 3 Hardcore AMD fans to what Smart Cache and Smart Memory access was, they still didn't get it. It will matter for K10 as well if AMD doesn't improve on its Dumb Memory Access, K10 will not Gain that much. Meanwhile how blocks of memory is stored, how that stored memory is accessed and even the speed of access will only get better for Intel.

---

Maybe you should read up on K10's architecture before telling people to read about ECC, cache ad smart memory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

Maybe you should read up on K10's architecture before telling people to read about ECC, cache ad smart memory.

---

I posted on here six months ago tha AMD use Intel like smart memory access and the Geeks much smarter than me said it wasn'tadvanced. Now since I, like 99.998% of everyone else, I don't have one, we'll just have to waite and see. That's what the "if" is for.:D

"It will matter for K10 as well if AMD doesn't improve on its Dumb Memory Access"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Current Intel Processors doesn't use an L3. SO if you meant L1 and L2, sure. It's kind of hard to talk to these guys when they put their love for AMD in front of common sense. I've seen AMD Fans call other AMD Fans Intel fans because they did repeat AMD's spin.

Now since Intel's and AMD architectures are different, Cache dependence, the Amount of Cache and even the way the cache is setup (Inclusive-Exclusive) is different for each company as well. I believe each is using what's best for them. Small fast is good for Intel just as a larger L1 is better for AMD. Intel tried L3 and got mixed results on the desktop. Another example, read up on L1/L2 cache ECC or error correction and tell me if you still think AMD's way is the best way to do it?

K10 will not only need a smarter Pre-Fetch as the other guys mistakenly still don't get. Even after linking these same 3 Hardcore AMD fans to what Smart Cache and Smart Memory access was, they still didn't get it. It will matter for K10 as well if AMD doesn't improve on its Dumb Memory Access, K10 will not Gain that much. Meanwhile how blocks of memory is stored, how that stored memory is accessed and even the speed of access will only get better for Intel.

---

Well, I'm just comparing L2 and L3 together. L1 is considerably less latency than L2 or L3, for Intel and AMD. No way should L1 even be near a latency of 10, otherwise, it'd be pointless. Intel currently doesn't use L3 for their consumer products, but they have perfected their L3 to almost L2 standards (if you've seen intel's itanium server products like the montecito, you can't deny that intel hasn't been working on L3), and that is a very large benefit for intel processors as they can load more cache to the processor and distance itself away from the core farther while suffering very little performance loss due to greater latencies. I've noticed AMD has been saying a lot about their L3 cache, but with the latencies that I've seen, it doesn't look to assist in gaining processor performance. These technologies you mention may assist in that, but like I've said, I don't know much about them, so it'd be fruitless (and quite retarded), for me to argue with you on that point (or anyone else for that matter). That does make sense though. I was stating that despite the architecture differences, processors would benefit from lower latency cache. Kind of like processor frequencies. doesn't matter what the architecture is, the higher clocked the processor, the better performance it will output (though the amount it will increase will be discriminatory).

But I think before we continue this discussion, more research would have to be made. If we're going to base most of our information on assumptions, we might as well be a bunch of [h]ardforum noobies having a dumb flamewar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

It's kind of hard to talk to these guys when they put their love for AMD in front of common sense. I've seen AMD Fans call other AMD Fans Intel fans because they did repeat AMD's spin.

---

Please keep your flamebaiting to yourself :rolleyes:
We don't need threads going south.

Intel's cache tech is much better than anyone's. Cache may be the whole reason for AMD's speed problems and even the cold bug. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapdog

Intel's cache tech is much better than anyone's. Cache may be the whole reason for AMD's speed problems and even the cold bug. :shrug:

---

Yep, throwing huge amount of cache, i.e. transistors, to help with their poor branching/logic is certainly an awesome design.
SOI & large cache are two different things, though there might be a loose correlation. (CPU/architecture is not my best strength)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank M

Please keep your flamebaiting to yourself :rolleyes:
We don't need threads going south.

---

Sorry Frank, when they stop doing crap like that, I'll stop bringing it up.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StealthyFish

Well, I'm just comparing L2 and L3 together. L1 is considerably less latency than L2 or L3, for Intel and AMD. No way should L1 even be near a latency of 10, otherwise, it'd be pointless. Intel currently doesn't use L3 for their consumer products, but they have perfected their L3 to almost L2 standards (if you've seen intel's itanium server products like the montecito, you can't deny that intel hasn't been working on L3), and that is a very large benefit for intel processors as they can load more cache to the processor and distance itself away from the core farther while suffering very little performance loss due to greater latencies. I've noticed AMD has been saying a lot about their L3 cache, but with the latencies that I've seen, it doesn't look to assist in gaining processor performance. These technologies you mention may assist in that, but like I've said, I don't know much about them, so it'd be fruitless (and quite retarded), for me to argue with you on that point (or anyone else for that matter). That does make sense though. I was stating that despite the architecture differences, processors would benefit from lower latency cache. Kind of like processor frequencies. doesn't matter what the architecture is, the higher clocked the processor, the better performance it will output (though the amount it will increase will be discriminatory).

But I think before we continue this discussion, more research would have to be made. If we're going to base most of our information on assumptions, we might as well be a bunch of [h]ardforum noobies having a dumb flamewar.

---

OK and yes you're right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

Yep, throwing huge amount of cache, i.e. transistors, to help with their poor branching/logic is certainly an awesome design.
SOI & large cache are two different things, though there might be a loose correlation. (CPU/architecture is not my best strength)

---

FYI, branch prediction is better in C2D than K8 (unknown about K10 right now).

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...o-preview.html

If you look back to winnie and vinice cores though (k8) at 2.0ghz the 3200 was as fast (and in most 3d environments even faster) than the equivelent 3.2ghz Intel. So core frequency can be overcome by better archetecture in relationship to efficiency. (smaller clocks usually mean less heat and less power consumption)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The0men

If you look back to winnie and vinice cores though (k8) at 2.0ghz the 3200 was as fast (and in most 3d environments even faster) than the equivelent 3.2ghz Intel. So core frequency can be overcome by better archetecture in relationship to efficiency. (smaller clocks usually mean less heat and less power consumption)

---

Yes, I know this. It is the #1 reason C2D is significantly faster than K8. MUCH more efficient architecture (C2D can issue up to 5 INT instructions per cycle, K8 can only do 3).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

Yep, throwing huge amount of cache, i.e. transistors, to help with their poor branching/logic is certainly an awesome design.
SOI & large cache are two different things, though there might be a loose correlation. (CPU/architecture is not my best strength)

---

Well I guess if the cache works use it...other wise just go the (much slower) hyper transport/IMC (added die size:rolleyes: ) for all those misses. :up:

Prescott had so many cache misses it was like a dog chasing it's tail, adding more cache did little to help it. Core2 however with the smaller pipeline and advanced "smart" cache keeps things moving along just fine even with a archaic FSB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mstp2009

FYI, branch prediction is better in C2D than K8 (unknown about K10 right now).

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...o-preview.html

---

That's the understatement of the year.

Not only does Core have a significantly better branch prediction unit than K8 , but so does Prescott ( the most advanced till Core came out ) and the whole P4 family.
K8 branch predictor is rudimentary compared with the above.
While K10 will improve it , IMO it will still fall short of Core.

AMD has too much work to do.

They're Quad Core could sink them. Like Intel said, "Native Quad Core at 65 nm, that's suicide".

It was so stupid of them to try this...i believe it was owen wilson in wedding crashers who said..."its the first quarter of the big game and you wanna throw a hail mary?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mstp2009

Yes, I know this. It is the #1 reason C2D is significantly faster than K8. MUCH more efficient architecture (C2D can issue up to 5 INT instructions per cycle, K8 can only do 3).

---

wasn't that 4 instead of 5??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frankR

AMD has too much work to do.

They're Quad Core could sink them. Like Intel said, "Native Quad Core at 65 nm, that's suicide".

---

I agree. What is AMD expecting in terms of yields? It's nice to hear about the clock speeds increasing, but at what cost to the consumer...? If yields are bad, prices go up, and consumers pay more. Unless K10 is spectacular, I highly doubt most people will purchase barcelona over kentsfield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss

Nope. Using MicroOp fusion(when conditional jmp) it can handle up to 5 instructions per clock.

---

Seen any news on when this will be fixed for Vista Ultimate 64?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss

Nope. Using MicroOp fusion(when conditional jmp) it can handle up to 5 instructions per clock.

---

right,damn,need more sleep :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StealthyFish

I agree. What is AMD expecting in terms of yields? It's nice to hear about the clock speeds increasing, but at what cost to the consumer...? If yields are bad, prices go up, and consumers pay more. Unless K10 is spectacular, I highly doubt most people will purchase barcelona over kentsfield.

---

Most people will purchase whatever is cheaper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

Most people will purchase whatever is cheaper.

---

I've been hearing that a lot of consumers are taking into consideration performance now. Some yahoo or msn article :p: Anyway, the phrases: "native quad core" and "high-yields" just don't sit well with me. Tack on "65 nanometer" and "AMD", and it just looks worse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss

It is not up to the OS, but up to the operating mode. In long(64bit) mode, MicroOp fusion does not work. Thats because the average instruction length is longer then in 32bit mode and the CPU can't fetch 5 instructions. I am not sure how many bytes Penryn can fetch, but Merom can 24bytes, while K10 can 32.

---

Thanks!

http://www.computerpoweruser.com/edi...01%2F20c01.asp
January 2007: nostalgic predictions...