Official AMD Barcelona Thread

[Shintai]

Yes AMD still kick's Intel's ass in bandwidth tests. How can you not accept that?

And we all know how thats a great overview for performance.

[Zytek_Fan]

So its not apple to apples. And it goes under the..uncanny..benches. And they put most weight on the CPUs.

So please...stop try and defend a company when they make such crappy benches. Same goes for Intel ofcourse.

How did people get to integrated GPU talk? We all know Intel lied about G965 performance. AMD's 690G is a little better in the fact that it can run some games on minimum everything. But we all know integrated GPUs suck to begin with no matter what it is.

[Shintai]

How did people get to integrated GPU talk? We all know Intel lied about G965 performance. AMD's 690G is a little better in the fact that it can run some games on minimum everything. But we all know integrated GPUs suck to begin with no matter what it is.

Because when you mix media encoding, virus scan and office production benches with enough game benches the X2 looks better with IGPs.

Gotta love marketing...I wonder if Barcelona will need the same treatment to stand out.

[AbelJemka]

Because when you mix media encoding, virus scan and office production benches with enough game benches the X2 looks better with IGPs.

Gotta love marketing...I wonder if Barcelona will need the same treatment to stand out.

Basically you say that when we use our computer normally X2 looks better

[Shintai]

Basically you say that when we use our computer normally X2 looks better

Nope, unless you play on IGPs.

[red]

This one http://weblog.infoworld.com/yager/ar...fud_versu.html .
Although there does seem to be a piece of useful information in it. Nda on barcelona is lifted this month?

May 16, 2007

lol

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7927

In fact, AMD publically denied the Barcelona would top out at anything over 2.0 GHz at launch when it does launch on August 27.

[Shadowmage]

AMD? Accurate data? In the same sentence? Hahaha!

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/..._13911,00.html Turion vs CoreDuo... very nice.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...E14820,00.html
Looks like X2 doesn't have much of a problem outperforming C2D then! Check the platform used for C2D... 946GZIS?!?! WTF?!

Make no mistake, AMD is just as bad as Intel (if not worse) when it comes to fudging numbers in their favour. It's just business. It's up to us discerning techies to seperate the FUD from the truth.

I don't see what's wrong with the data. It seems very accurate to me. Turion X2 and Core 1 Duo (not Core 2 Duo) are pretty much comparable, and that is a slide showing performance with INTEGRATED GRAPHICS. AMD has been traditionally strong in this area. Again, I don't see what problem is.

This seems much better than Intel running heavily cherry-picked CPU samples for their shows. At least the AMD demos have been representative of the current processor health.

[BrowncoatGR]

May 16, 2007

lol

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7927

I missed the May part Donnie27 posted it recently and i assumed it was new

I knew about the launch date, its still possible although unlikely that the NDA will get lifted earlier

[Epsilon84]

I don't see what's wrong with the data. It seems very accurate to me. Turion X2 and Core 1 Duo (not Core 2 Duo) are pretty much comparable, and that is a slide showing performance with INTEGRATED GRAPHICS. AMD has been traditionally strong in this area. Again, I don't see what problem is.

This seems much better than Intel running heavily cherry-picked CPU samples for their shows. At least the AMD demos have been representative of the current processor health.

And you're saying AMD doesn't cherrypick the data to suit itself?!

Let's see, hmmm, Turion vs Core Duo... yeah... current gen vs previous gen.... under 'competitive comparison'. Maybe Intel should compare C2Ds to Athlon XPs? That would be hilarious.

And your 2nd point about integrated graphics is exactly right, why is 'competitive comparison' regarding PROCESSOR PERFORMANCE fudged to become INTEGRATED GRAPHICS PERFORMANCE?! To the average joe, this is clearly misleading. Furthermore, they crippled Intel with a crappy chipset.

Your post typifies the double standard in the industry. Anything AMD says is taken as gospel (though people are starting to become wary), they can even dupe analysts 2 weeks in advance of shocking quarterly earnings without anyone doubting them.

[nn_step]

And you're saying AMD doesn't cherrypick the data to suit itself?!

Let's see, hmmm, Turion vs Core Duo... yeah... current gen vs previous gen.... under 'competitive comparison'. Maybe Intel should compare C2Ds to Athlon XPs? That would be hilarious.

And your 2nd point about integrated graphics is exactly right, why is 'competitive comparison' regarding PROCESSOR PERFORMANCE fudged to become INTEGRATED GRAPHICS PERFORMANCE?! To the average joe, this is clearly misleading. Furthermore, they crippled Intel with a crappy chipset.

Your post typifies the double standard in the industry. Anything AMD says is taken as gospel (though people are starting to become wary), they can even dupe analysts 2 weeks in advance of shocking quarterly earnings without anyone doubting them.

umm note the date on that page. It was current tech vs Current Tech

[Donnie27]

I don't see what's wrong with the data. It seems very accurate to me. Turion X2 and Core 1 Duo (not Core 2 Duo) are pretty much comparable, and that is a slide showing performance with INTEGRATED GRAPHICS. AMD has been traditionally strong in this area. Again, I don't see what problem is.

This seems much better than Intel running heavily cherry-picked CPU samples for their shows. At least the AMD demos have been representative of the current processor health.

First of all, Intel didn't cherry pick the processors that Fugger, all of the Far East Guys, Freecableguy, and many of the geeks at this forum tested. Second, AMD's slanted tests are legendary for being BS, goes back to at least PR-150 vs Pentium 100 while Pentium 166MMx was shipping. Each time, they spin and their F@ns defend them.

The problem with X2-Turion vs Dothan C1 is that Intel switched to Merom C2 11 months ago LOL! It is kind of hard to still find C1 notebooks except on the Clearance bin in many cases (not all).

AMD and Intel took turns being Debunked by any webmaster not on their respective Payrolls (Ad dollars). X2 was one of the few times AMD didn't have to lie or spin. Since Conroe launched, they've resorted to a lot of BS FUD and Spin!

@nn, if X2 and Opteron's Bandwidth advantage meant something, those results would as well. Since they still get their ass handed to them even with an advantage bandwidth test are irrelevant. Now anyone, please ask me why?

[Epsilon84]

umm note the date on that page. It was current tech vs Current Tech

It was 'current' one YEAR ago. That is an eternity in the semiconductor industry, just ask AMD.

Should we wait for one YEAR before AMD updates it's 'competitive comparison' regarding C2D vs K10? Oh, I'm sure they'll spend 12 months twiddling their thumbs before updating their 'then current' competitive comparisions between C2D and K8.

*ALL* comporations (not just Intel and AMD) will spin numbers to their advantage. It's just a reality of life. Get used to it.

[Shadowmage]

And you're saying AMD doesn't cherrypick the data to suit itself?!

Let's see, hmmm, Turion vs Core Duo... yeah... current gen vs previous gen.... under 'competitive comparison'. Maybe Intel should compare C2Ds to Athlon XPs? That would be hilarious.

And your 2nd point about integrated graphics is exactly right, why is 'competitive comparison' regarding PROCESSOR PERFORMANCE fudged to become INTEGRATED GRAPHICS PERFORMANCE?! To the average joe, this is clearly misleading. Furthermore, they crippled Intel with a crappy chipset.

Your post typifies the double standard in the industry. Anything AMD says is taken as gospel (though people are starting to become wary), they can even dupe analysts 2 weeks in advance of shocking quarterly earnings without anyone doubting them.

Obviously the point of marketing is to 'cherry-pick' data. One chooses data to match what they're competing against. For example, comparing an Extreme Edition chip against a value model Sempron is stupid. It's not what it's competing against. AMD mobile chips are currently positioned as value chips. They do very well in this market, since margins are razor thin for the average ~$500 notebook. In this space, AMD has an advantage over Intel. AMD offers Turion 64 X2 with ATI integrated against Intel's Core 1 Duo with Intel integrated. The choice is obvious.

I don't quite think you know what you're talking about. Core 1 Duo chips are currently still in production as Intel's value processors. They're "current-gen" but low-end, and that's what AMD's competing against.

To the average joe, it is not misleading at all. This is a platform benchmark. When the average joe purchases a notebook (avg joe always purchases a cheapass notebook, hence integrated), the notebook will come with Intel Integrated graphics if it has an Intel processor and it will come with an ATI/NVIDIA integrated graphics if it has an AMD processor. It is impossible to get an AMD processor with Intel integrated, and close to impossible to get an Intel processor with AMD/NVIDIA integrated. Therefore, for the best gaming experience for value notebooks, AMD is clearly the better choice due to the higher performance integrated graphics.

[AbelJemka]

And you're saying AMD doesn't cherrypick the data to suit itself?!

Let's see, hmmm, Turion vs Core Duo... yeah... current gen vs previous gen.... under 'competitive comparison'. Maybe Intel should compare C2Ds to Athlon XPs? That would be hilarious.

Core Duo January 06
Turion 64 X2 May 06
3 months is old tech?
Ok no problem...
Athlon 64 X2 August 05
Core 2 Duo July 06
stop comparing them Athlon 64 X2 is too old, wait Barcelona. no we can't? Why? All Intel guys already compare Barcelona to Penryn although Barcelona is due to launch before.

And your 2nd point about integrated graphics is exactly right, why is 'competitive comparison' regarding PROCESSOR PERFORMANCE fudged to become INTEGRATED GRAPHICS PERFORMANCE?! To the average joe, this is clearly misleading. Furthermore, they crippled Intel with a crappy chipset.

*ALL* comporations (not just Intel and AMD) will spin numbers to their advantage. It's just a reality of life. Get used to it.

You are the one who come with this off topic benchmarks in this thread and now you are the one who teaching lessons Come on, assume your spam...

[nn_step]

It was 'current' one YEAR ago. That is an eternity in the semiconductor industry, just ask AMD.

Should we wait for one YEAR before AMD updates it's 'competitive comparison' regarding C2D vs K10? Oh, I'm sure they'll spend 12 months twiddling their thumbs before updating their 'then current' competitive comparisions between C2D and K8.

*ALL* comporations (not just Intel and AMD) will spin numbers to their advantage. It's just a reality of life. Get used to it.

funny K8 is over 3 years old

[Epsilon84]

Core Duo January 06
Turion 64 X2 May 06
3 months is old tech?
Ok no problem...
Athlon 64 X2 August 05
Core 2 Duo July 06

LOL so is C2D is not in mobile products now? Funny how you left that comparison out, considering C2D's launch date coincides CLOSER to the launch date of Turion X2 than Core Duo.

I think I have made my point regarding AMD's 'benchmarking and comparision' practices. I for one won't trust anything they have to say until I see the product reviewed by numerous 3rd party websites. You may feel differently regarding AMD's credibility. To each their own.

[AbelJemka]

I think I have made my point regarding AMD's 'benchmarking and comparision' practices. I for one won't trust anything they have to say until I see the product reviewed by numerous 3rd party websites. You may feel differently regarding AMD's credibility. To each their own.

I wait for third party websites reviews like. I don't spend my time searching for old benchmarks in AMD website, i just sit and wait

[BrowncoatGR]

Obviously the point of marketing is to 'cherry-pick' data. One chooses data to match what they're competing against. For example, comparing an Extreme Edition chip against a value model Sempron is stupid. It's not what it's competing against. AMD mobile chips are currently positioned as value chips. They do very well in this market, since margins are razor thin for the average ~$500 notebook. In this space, AMD has an advantage over Intel. AMD offers Turion 64 X2 with ATI integrated against Intel's Core 1 Duo with Intel integrated. The choice is obvious.

I don't quite think you know what you're talking about. Core 1 Duo chips are currently still in production as Intel's value processors. They're "current-gen" but low-end, and that's what AMD's competing against.

To the average joe, it is not misleading at all. This is a platform benchmark.
When the average joe purchases a notebook (avg joe always purchases a cheapass notebook, hence integrated), the notebook will come with Intel Integrated graphics if it has an Intel processor and it will come with an ATI/NVIDIA integrated graphics if it has an AMD processor. It is impossible to get an AMD processor with Intel integrated, and close to impossible to get an Intel processor with AMD/NVIDIA integrated. Therefore, for the best gaming experience for value notebooks, AMD is clearly the better choice due to the higher performance integrated graphics.

QFT

[GMX]

funny K8 is over 3 years old

You're the type of dumb funny.

[nn_step]

You're the type of dumb funny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_K8

Released

September 23, 2003

hmmm, yep that is over 3 years

[Epsilon84]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_K8

Released
hmmm, yep that is over 3 years

LOL... that wasn't even the point nn. Not sure why you came up with a random K8 is 3 years old comment. It had nothing to do with what I was posting.

All along I have been trying to say that AMD is quite 'choosy' in what it compares itself to. Since Turion loses to C2D, it compares itself to CoreDuo instead. Since X2 loses to C2D in CPU performance, it compares platform integrated performance instead, whilst using an outdated platform for C2D as well. Hence my opinion that AMD cherrypicks data, just like any corporation would do. Geddit now?

[nn_step]

LOL... that wasn't even the point nn. Not sure why you came up with a random K8 is 3 years old comment. It had nothing to do with what I was posting.

All along I have been trying to say that AMD is quite 'choosy' in what it compares itself to. Since Turion loses to C2D, it compares itself to CoreDuo instead. Since X2 loses to C2D in CPU performance, it compares platform integrated performance instead, whilst using an outdated platform for C2D as well. Hence my opinion that AMD cherrypicks data, just like any corporation would do. Geddit now?

my Point is that 1 year isn't an eternity, simply because 1 year didn't seem to change the world and stop Prescott from making an ass of itself...
AMD and Intel both have the right to be "choosy" about what benchmarks they post because they are making their point why they are a better product not that the other has a better product.
Hence Intel never compared its 286 or 386 against Motorola's 68040, simply because in some regards it was inferior.
So to attack AMD or Intel for doing something the whole industry does, kinda misses the entire point.

[AbelJemka]

Show us Intel benchmarks seeing P4 was spanked by A64. Show us Intel benchmarks seeing P4D was spanked by A64 X2. When they win, they sshow wins ans when they win, they show wins

[FghtinIrshNvrDi]

well, we all wish we knew what kind of performance the stupid thing has per clock so we can see how this goes against Intel's super-scaling c2d arch and beyond. I hope it does well. Who knows?

As an overclocker, this may be good if true. 3ghz at 150w may not be completely impossible. I wonder what that magical ceiling will be on K10. 3ghz again?

Ryan

[Shintai]

fresh info from... hm.... from fudzilla
K10 hits 2.5Ghz at 89W TDP

He is wrong as usual. And K10 is 68/95/120(125) TDP.