Printable View
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8729Quote:
AMD sent out pricing information for its upcoming quad-core Opteron 2300 and 8300 series processors to its partners and distributors. The company plans to launch nine new quad-core processors later this month with clock speeds ranging from 1.7 GHz to 2.0 GHz.
so it's around 5-10% faster per clock than the c2qs...
well FGfh:brick:gh:banana:JHLG:U...
ohh well.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...name=Woodcrest
120W CPUs not launching right now can mean only one thing - yields are not good.
Seeing that from 1.9Ghz to 2.3Ghz they bumped the TDP from 68W to 120W, i'd say they have alot of issues with current leakage.
This isn't official though, so things CAN change.
Nah. It's roughly the same to slightly less IPC than current c2q.Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
There are bandwidth-gated benchmarks (specFP_rate) where it will outperform, but other than that...
So $450 for dual quad-core, another $300 for a motherboard, and then no clue how it'll perform compared to a Kentsfield. Really worried how this is going to work out, ~2 weeks till launch right?
Guys, this if for the server chips, so you compare it to Clovertown, not Kentsfield.
Whatever the initial release speeds are at, AMD have to be competitive against the Xeons.
You can probably gauge the relative performance from an equally priced Xeon.
Actually if the original quote is to be believed it is official,Quote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
What might change is the MSRP/street price or AMD may add addition models/speed bins. One has to assume distributor/dealers/OEMs should know the cost/price of a new item, oh say a week or so before launch. :shrug:Quote:
AMD sent out pricing information...
We will know for sure in a week. :up: or :down:
On EDIT:
Prices are pretty close to what Digitimes reported a couple of weeks ago.
http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20070813PD205.html
We don't know it's performance so why are people saying it's 5-10% better IPC or it's not better and so on?
We can compare to anything because regardless of if it's a desktop or server, overall performance is same, just different application.
6 more days people, 6 more days.
the crappy part is 6 days till we see performance but another 3 months till you can actually buy a desktop part :(.
I don't think any member of the press is going to get their hands on one to test against Clovertown. Cray has a gigantic order waiting to be fulfilled for their next supercomputer, as does Sun and IBM.
I think Cray has an order for 1xxx series of K10,Budapest.And these will be out in 2 months.
Well I hope "Barcelona" will bring some cash to AMD, because im getting sorry for them :(
It might have been those, not sure. I just saw an article about them getting impatient because they want to be #1 on the Top500 again.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Humm , i can see :Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
2Ghz Opteron = 1000$
3Ghz Xeon = 883$
if performance = price
2Ghz Opteron > 3Ghz Xeon, so more than 50% better clock for clock theorically.
Only 5 days :shocked:
read the disclaimer, guys....it's not AMD official pricing. I should know. It's simply a representative of "best case" pricing at the disty level.
dave
The price for 2350 model will be around ~410-430$
Is anybody else completely sick of random speculation?
I mean, come on AMD. Pull your head out of your "A"hole....
You are comparing a 2way Xeon to a 8Way AMD. Duh :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by misteroadster
Inform yourself a litle before posting. :up:
There:
AMD Opteron 2300 Series 2.0 GHz 95W $372
Intel Xeon 5130 Woodcrest 2.0GHz Socket 771 2U $347.99
25$ diference. Thatīs realy a very very mutch :yepp:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7343Quote:
Originally Posted by misteroadster
Must compare MP to MP, no with DP.
The AMD could be faster but I think that they will have a hard time keeping there performance per watt promiseQuote:
Originally Posted by v_rr
AMD Opteron 2300 Series 2.0 GHz 95W
Intel Xeon 5130 Woodcrest 2.0GHz Socket 771 50W
2Ghz :confused: that can't be right
surely they will have some higher clocked CPUs as well
what about prices on desktop chips???
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Didn't AMD say Q4 for 2.1-2.4Ghz Barcelona parts? Phenom pricing and launch speeds=:shrug:
I just want this all to end. So tired of waiting, lol.:shakes:
Yes, you're right, i was terribly tired yesterday :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by v_rr
I guess so much for the 'higher launch speeds' hypothesis. With this launch line-up, I'd be surprised if we see much beyond SPECfp_rate2006 and whatever other bandwidth-intensive benchmarks AMD can scramble.
120W - that's not acceptable because of Global Warming :ROTF:
Then you better stop overclocking your Conroe :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by XSAlliN
For those comparing prices..please..try compare a 3.2Ghz Dualcore OPteron with a 3Ghz Quad Xeon..yes thats right. You cant compare these prices at all!
well... those are the server parts...Quote:
Originally Posted by Proesterchen
the "official" desktop parts are not due before q4.... so it could be (and would make sense) if the higher clock speeds talk was in reference to those and not the in a few days to be launched server parts.
just my 2 cents though
WHAT rumors indicate current yields are good?Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
There has been nothing official or unofficial that we have heard from AMD that yields are good. Even AMD fanboi Charlie came out saying he heard yields are NOT good thusfar and it is one of the reasons the release speeds are not set higher.
BTW, AMD always undercuts Intel on price at the exact same performance level - so I think this price sheet is the best indication of performance for K10 that we have thus far.
Basically on par w/ C2Q.
Why are people still bleeting about clockspeeds? Is this connected to E-PENIS or sumthing? Intel's clock to 4Ghz so even if K10 were to have double the performance of said Intel cpu but at a mere 2Ghz you'd be sad and feel annoyed at the fact your CPU doesn't do 4Ghz too?
I couldn't care less about what GHZ BADGE I get on my new AMD cpu....for me the important part is whether or not K10 has higher PERFORMANCE than INTELS counterpart......not higher CLOCKSPEED :rolleyes:
yeah, but it's sad that almost every detail (coolaler, dailytech info, pricing) leaked until now indicates otherwise (k10 losing in overall performance big time).
5 more days to go..
I was referring to this, which was clearly referencing next week's Barcelona launch:Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
http://www.dailytech.com/Barcelona+L...rticle8592.htm
I don't have Conroe (AMD user here), but this CPU is intended for near future. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
68W for a quad core?! thats awesome...my next buy for sure:)
Lol,that's has zero to do with K10.Like Rahul Sood said,the dude didn't get pay the way he thought he should so he went for a better deal(Freescale).Quote:
Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss
What about the one of head PRs in intel ,Lee Brooke,who left intel a month ago and went overboard to AMD??What that tells you about intel's Harpertowns?Nothing.This is pure money issue.
ok fanboys, hold in ignorant commments till reliable hardware ships.
as in when its on newegg.
man, people really seem to like my blog posts. :P
cheers,
dave
I'd rather compare the DP Phenom's to the Kentsfield as Phenom isn't looking promising at all. 6 days before launch and no killer benchies doesn't bode well :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler
whatever...no one is positioning Barcelona into the consumer space at all. So, why AMD should bother with 1-2% of their install base is really beyond me. *shrug* The folks that really are going to care about this stuff are (in no particular order):
sun
hp
dell
other whitebox manufacturers
boxx
dave
As you can see,you are clueless.OK now,move along to topic title.No need to bring off topic into this.Quote:
Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss
As Dave explained,the main customers for these parts are not enthusiasts but large companies like SUN and HP,dell etc.
I see what you mean, and ofcourse youre mostly right.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave_graham
But I do believe that Conroes huge succes was at least partly because of the fantastic marketing campaign that Intel launched very early on. And that campaign included spectacular benchmarks, the ES were even better than retail CPU's! Now maybe that is a bit too much to ask, but AMD should learn from that.
Also, I dont really believe that it's only 1-2% that actually knows what the better CPU is. In this time and age, almost everyone checks the internet to see what the best stuff to get is. Reviewers, resellers, webshops, everyone contributes to the general idea of what the best CPU or system is. That increases the amount that cares way beyond 1-2%, I think.
Pretty sure Intel and AMD have a contract for staff stating they are not allowed to work for ether or soemthing for so long long of a duration of leaving ether partiesQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
Given that we KNOW the IPC of the K10 is roughly that of 65nm Conroe family, GHZ corresponds DIRECTLY to performance. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64
Correct me if I'm wrong, I remember hearing a while back that Intel rates its processor TDP differently than AMD. Intel supposedly goes based on average TDP, while AMD goes with max TDP. This could explain why AMD may have a higher TDP than Intel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morais
I was thinking 2 of the 68W chips in Dual Socket F:)
Well well, please enlighten us. Where can we find all these benchmarks?Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
You KNOW nothing about IPC. If only because IPC is variable for different categories of applications.
he's speaking about the coolaler results, which prolly *were valid* at a certain time, but retail barc will be higher, with a more mature platform/stepping - but by how much we don't know (that's the point of all the speculation).
i've got two of them. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
gotta love it
dave
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
coolaler was using early B0 or B1 results with a STREAM errata that impacted the benchmarks significantly.
there are at least 2 more revisions coming. :)
dave
Thanks for bringing reliable news Dave!Quote:
Originally Posted by dave_graham
Are you gonna bench them to death? :D
Seriously thou what mobo you're using with them?
Can you check them on QuadFX mobo if you have one? Please!
Wrong, both are max TDPs. You cant find a single Core/Core 2 CPU over its TDP. They are usually a good bit below.Quote:
Originally Posted by SP33DFR34K
but when AMD or Intel is pressed hard. They seem to be close or go abit over. P4 and late K8s as example.
but also remember AMD and Intel only have a few categories of TDPs. So a CPU could just barely be over a lower TDP, or maybe just at TDP and get a TDP rating 50% higher. Say a 81W CPU getting 120W TDP.
Thats not exactly true. AMDs TDP is indeed supposed to be the max obtainable, while Intels is the max under normal use. Intels TDPs seem to be chosen quite well though. OTH AMDs CPUs also include the northbridge part so TDPs can not be directly compared.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Excellent point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Show me a P-M/Core/Core 2 that is even near its max TDP even with TAT.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
Its BS and bollocks. The only thing you can show is P4s, and in the same way I can show you late highend K8s doing the same (Specially 4x4 CPUs). So its an old rumour story at best in terms of lack of better understanding.
Actually, AMD and Intel are both now quoting max continuous power consumption over a thermally significant period using commercially available software (or something to this effect), which is below either's max output.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
^ See above. AMD hasn't been publishing TDP max for years now.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
You missing that the same TDP (65W) is listed for all dual core desktop parts - from 1.6 GHz to 3GHz. It can't be just "max under normal use" because Pentium E2140 consumes far less power then E6850 even under "extreme use".Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
one rev is for the higher speed parts and one is launch.Quote:
Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss
all that I can legally say is that the STREAM performance impact (most readily shown by coolater's test) has been mitigated.
cheers,
dave
Prices are good
Lets hope the performance is also =]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave_graham
you put hope into many people hehe
lets hope that new revision for higher clocks comes with desktop launch:up:
LOL, read what he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss
Basically those benches from coolalers site are bs. It is nothing near the actual performance of retail chips.
BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie FX
Bx parts work fine ; A0 had L3 disabled and HT links running at crazy low frequency/not at all.
Reread Dave's posts again,than come back and write that again.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
savantu is correct. (I think)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
There were es chips that had all sorts of things disabled on them.
Some had disabled l3 others had HT downclocked etc.
That's why you can't really take any notice of early revision chips because you wouldn't know what was disabled, unless of course AMD informed you.
That's how I understand it anyway.
Sorry what I meant was Dave said he couldn't say anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss
NDA??
No he is not correct.He said "Bx parts work fine" .BUT Mr. Dave Graham said in no uncertain terms,that Bx wasn't 100% bug free(not only chips but motherboards that weren't operating with the appropriate 100% working BIOS).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie FX
complex ICs like cpus/chipsets never are 100% bug free (errata), but it always depends on how serious/performance limiting those bugs are.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
and we still don't know if the coolaler cpus are not from the september-launch stepping :(
Yes we do.B1 is not the launch stepping....Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
are you sure? actually it's not that important, because we'll find out really, really soon :)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=510Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=513
Yes i am sure.Look at the links PetNorth provided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...36&postcount=1Quote:
Originally Posted by Proesterchen
**Edit** At least for Server/Workstation CPUs AMD uses max TDP. If they dont use it for consumer cpus though that would explain why Opterons have higher TDP than equivalent desktop parts. Look at the bottom slide V_rr posted.
Completely irrelevant ; it doesn't matter if B1 is launch stepping or not , it matters how it performs.Based on everything available , B1 performs normally but has problems scaling in frequency.Quote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
Based on everything available, until B2 all previous steppings had serious problemsQuote:
Originally Posted by savantu
affecting performance considerably. Both chip and bios problems.
Its faster and with the internal mem controller it might had a nice desktop experience.
Faster at 3ghz isnt something I notice, however if it handles the desktop experience better than core2duo then its a winner.
Umh no.Even AMD released Spec scores and other benchmarks used B0 or B1.The problem with those steppings was the lack of high speed bins.Quote:
Originally Posted by alayashu
IMO , constantly whining about steppings prior to B2 as performance crippled create unjustified expectations which will be tempered by a cold shower on Monday.But that's my 2 cents , mea culpa if I'm wrong.
Those were simulated. No real chips were used remember. in fact some pp; made a lot of noise about itQuote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Very true.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
trueQuote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
Higher speeds were simulated , not the chips , wtf , that should have been obvious ?! :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
AMD probably had 1.6-2GHz chips back then and since they envisioned they'll get to 2.6GHz by launch date , they extrapolated the scores with slower chips as base.
now AMD can go up to 3ghz :D