The first published 2P Barcelona 3dmark06 test result - here, on XS

[MAS]

2 x Quad-Core Opteron B1 operating at 2GHz scored 4242 3DMARK06 cpumarks

Thanx to s7e9h3n





Link

single barcelona cpu result - 2907


PS Here you can see some Cinebench and Everest results

barcelona 2GHz result (single-threaded)


conroe for comparison

[JacKz5o]

Nice.. Superpi? :p

[BulldogPO]

Not so bad afterall.

[Zytek_Fan]

Not too bad...

SkullTrail @ 3.4ghz scored 6359

[[XC] gomeler]

Not too shabby at all, just needs to get those clocks around 3GHz or higher.

[[XC] hipno650]

is it me or have i seen single quads do more than that? shouldn't it be better for 8 cores?

[R101]

is it me or have i seen single quads do more than that? shouldn't it be better for 8 cores?

I think 06 uses 'only' 4 cores.

[[XC] hipno650]

I think 06 uses 'only' 4 cores.

well that would make sense but and i guess for 2ghz it's not bad but i would have liked a bit more.

[gone_fishin]

Well the current record is 8000+ by a quadcore Penryn system. I don't see how any AMD system will overcome that.

[Zytek_Fan]

well that would make sense but and i guess for 2ghz it's not bad but i would have liked a bit more.

Well if it does only utilize 4 cores and Barcelona gets that score at 2ghz, it's damn good. A single Yorkfield scores 4569 [From anandtech] at 3ghz.

It looks as though Barcelona scales really well, but there is no telling how high its frequency can go...

[Hawkeye4077]

My QuadFx (dual FX70s @ 3ghz)
Main Test Results
3DMark Score 11694 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 4869 Marks
SM 3.0 Score 4731 Marks
CPU Score 4087 Marks

C2Q6600@ 3ghz
3DMark Score 10862 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 4421 Marks
SM 3.0 Score 4168 Marks
CPU Score 4653 Marks

[kl0012]

Intel Xeon Octal Core 2000 MHz = 4335
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=2982103
Intel Xeon Octal Core 2660 MHz = 5662
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=746484
Intel Q6600 Quad Core 2725 MHz = 4336
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=1837829

[[XC] hipno650]

Intel Xeon Octal Core 2000 MHz = 4335
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=2982103
Intel Xeon Octal Core 2660 MHz = 5662
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=746484
Intel Q6600 Quad Core 2725 MHz = 4336
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=1837829

so intel still has a small clock per clock advantage. but atleast the K10 is close. all it needs to do is clock like crazy and be mega cheap but some how im doubtin the first one

[Caparroz]

Intel Xeon Octal Core 2000 MHz = 4335
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=2982103
Intel Xeon Octal Core 2660 MHz = 5662
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=746484
Intel Q6600 Quad Core 2725 MHz = 4336
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=1837829

Nice find!

So '06 uses as many cores as you have...

[Athens[2004]]

I think for two cpu's the score is too low [we are talking about 8 cores ... ] ,
plus we dont know yet how easily can barca hit the 3ghz barrier .

anywa1 nice news

[p8ntslinger676]

Nothing special. wait till some more penryn results then we'll see some real scores

[terrace215]

Intel Xeon Octal Core 2000 MHz = 4335
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=2982103
Intel Xeon Octal Core 2660 MHz = 5662
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=746484
Intel Q6600 Quad Core 2725 MHz = 4336
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=1837829

Too funny. Slower clock/clock than Clovertown in 2P config, and gets trashed by a *single* 2.725 C2Q.

Where is Theo Valich? Wasn't he going to "reconfirm" some 30K score?

[naokaji]

Where is Theo Valich? Wasn't he going to "reconfirm" some 30K score?

hes digging through his posts on th inq to find a post where he said that it would be slightly slower in 3dmark06 so he can post he always said so

[cky2k6]

these results are perfectly fine for the clockspeed. you can't compare a desktop quad to server chips... 06 does not scale to 8 cores as well as it does from 2 to 4, and the ram is much slower on a server board. its comparable to the clovertown score, and it will score the same or higher most likely, when the bugs in the chipset are worked out (if you've actually read the thread this came from, you would've seen the problems i'm talking about)

[hollo]

3d'06 is AMD/ATI biased anyway

check out 3ghz conroe vs 3ghz k8 in 3d'06 cpu http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_20...=875&chart=419
and 3d'06 graphics http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_20...=875&chart=418
they're closer on that benchmark than most of the others you can choose.

and compare HD2900xt xfire in 3d'06 SM2.0 http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=804&chart=372
and 3d'06 HDR/SM3.0 http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=804&chart=377
where HD2900xt xfire is right behind 8800GTX SLI..

..with overall game fps http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=804&chart=378 where HD2900xt xfire is waaay behind...

slightly AMD biased, and very ATI biased imo

ontopic: so if opteron's losing to xeon in an AMD biased benchmark that isn't such a good sign (for desktop users). xeon takes a bigger performance hit from using fb-dimms instead of ddr2 than opteron does from using registered ddr2 instead of normal ddr2, so it won't look any better when its phenom vs c2q.

[[XC]Atomicpineapple]

Just ran this on my 2.33GHz dual Clovertown, totally unoptimised, all I did was turn BOINC off for the run. OS is Vista X64 btw.

[XS Janus]

Where is the new 3dmark any way - they are lagging.

Anyway why use 3dmark at all to test a cpu... 1st thing at hand?

[Sampsa]

Maybe because some publication claimed 3DMark06 result of 30 000 with 3,0 GHz Phenom..

[AbelJemka]

3d'06 is AMD/ATI biased anyway

check out 3ghz conroe vs 3ghz k8 in 3d'06 cpu http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_20...=875&chart=419
and 3d'06 graphics http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_20...=875&chart=418
they're closer on that benchmark than most of the others you can choose.

and compare HD2900xt xfire in 3d'06 SM2.0 http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=804&chart=372
and 3d'06 HDR/SM3.0 http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=804&chart=377
where HD2900xt xfire is right behind 8800GTX SLI..

..with overall game fps http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=804&chart=378 where HD2900xt xfire is waaay behind...

slightly AMD biased, and very ATI biased imo

ontopic: so if opteron's losing to xeon in an AMD biased benchmark that isn't such a good sign (for desktop users). xeon takes a bigger performance hit from using fb-dimms instead of ddr2 than opteron does from using registered ddr2 instead of normal ddr2, so it won't look any better when its phenom vs c2q.

Dumb statement as usual...
2900 Crossfire is also behind X1950XT Crossfire with overall game fps. So the point is what? Using VGA charts totally drivers dépendant to conclude on CPU is totally pointless.

[Shintai]

Heh...

My own 3Dmark06 from an old ES rig, incl spelling error of clovertown.