AMD K8L ES coming in December

[ozzimark]

Serge84, Core2 is far faster than K8 in "real world" things, almost 40% clock-per-clock.

you call gaming at 640x480 "real world"?

[[XC] Lead Head]

Serge84, Core2 is far faster than K8 in "real world" things, almost 40% clock-per-clock.
Quad FX can keep up Kentsfield in strong multitask due the huge FSB limitations.

I think K8L will be about 10% faster than Core2 clock-per-clock.
And 8x8 systems will carry the performance crown in desktop til the next generation.

But K8L Quad-Core won't cross the 3GHz wall in 65nm process due to the 125w AMD's top TDP.
Dual-Core K8L CPUs may get to about 3.4GHz.

K8L is 65nm, they shoudl have no problem scaling it over 3GHz with Quad Core

[doompc]

Core2 is 65nm and Intel can't scale Kentsfield over 2.66Hz cause it eats up 130w.

Rev H quad-core is the biggest AMD die ever made (or at least the biggest since the Clawhammer).
65nm Quad-Core K8L may be just a little less power hungry than a 90nm Dual-Core K8 at the same frequency.
And because it's wider execution engine it may be dificult to scale frequency unless AMD go deeper pipeline...

[mesyn191]

Serge84, Core2 is far faster than K8 in "real world" things, almost 40% clock-per-clock.

Even Intel says its closer to 20% improvement in IPC over K8, they only claim a 40% IPC advantage over the P4.

[largon]

But K8L Quad-Core won't cross the 3GHz wall in 65nm process due to the 125w AMD's top TDP.
Dual-Core K8L CPUs may get to about 3.4GHz.

K8L comes with SiGe SOI which yields upto ~40% increase in transistor perf compared to vanilla 65nm silicon. It's up to AMD how will they make use of that advantage.

[SEA]

brentpresley
It's funny you picked the ONLY one it won to put up here.

Let me correct you - i picked up ANOTHER one in addition to one from previous page.

[doompc]

If that 40% better transistor perf with the same power consumption is true, Rev G Brisbane may work at 3.6GHz with stock vcore.
But K8L is a different core.

Intel uses the SiGe layer since the 90nm process, they call it Strained Silicon.
AMD came with a better tecnology in rev E, the Dual Stress Liner, it's about the same, but a little better and without the expensive SiGe layer.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...-venice_2.html

In AMD's 65nm process the SiGe layer is applied and then removed:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12...essed_silicon/

More on Dual Stress Liner:
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_venice/3.shtml

And on Strainer Silicon:
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/prescott/2.shtml

[Fred_Pohl]

Fred, the 1500$ QX6700 its barely faster than than the 599$ FX70 in Cinebench, under Vista and it gets its ass kicked by the FX72 and FX74.



The problem with XP is that it handles NUMA like , unlike Vista, therefore on Vista all the AMD dual socket systems (including QuadFX) get a nice performance boost.


-e
it was vista64 allready lol :>

First the QX6700 doesn't cost $1500, more like $1000-1100 (search Froogle). Second, $850 QX6600s will be here soon enough and generally outperform the more expensive $1000 FX74 even before overclocking them to levels that QFX simply can't touch. Third, QFX has a lot of additional platform costs that C2Q doesn't have. 1000W PSUs aren't cheap, neither are the $400 mobos or the water cooling required to make QFX noise levels tolerable. IMO it's not wise to try and argue QFX as a better value than C2Q because you will always lose that argument. QFX is anything but economical in both initial cost and operating cost.

QFX beating C2Q in one out of ~50 benchmarks under Vista64 is not terribly impressive. If all you do is run Cinema 4D and power useage, heat and noise aren't concerns, QFX may be a good fit for you. Otherwise C2Q offers far superior performance overall for lower initial cost and lower long term energy costs.

[Shintai]

Core2 is 65nm and Intel can't scale Kentsfield over 2.66Hz cause it eats up 130w.

Rev H quad-core is the biggest AMD die ever made (or at least the biggest since the Clawhammer).
65nm Quad-Core K8L may be just a little less power hungry than a 90nm Dual-Core K8 at the same frequency.
And because it's wider execution engine it may be dificult to scale frequency unless AMD go deeper pipeline...

2.67Ghz Clovertown with 1333FSB is "only" 120W TDP. Yes they could scale it higher.
65nm K8L quadcore will be like Intel i thin. Some 100-130W for the top bins.

[Shintai]

K8L comes with SiGe SOI which yields upto ~40% increase in transistor perf compared to vanilla 65nm silicon. It's up to AMD how will they make use of that advantage.

Just a shame you cant directly add these things into CPU speed. Look at history for a fact. Its like the 250Ghz transistors at room temp. Its just different when you need a quarter of a billion of them.

[ozzimark]

Just a shame you cant directly add these things into CPU speed. Look at history for a fact. Its like the 250Ghz transistors at room temp. Its just different when you need a quarter of a billion of them.

yes, but even a 20% boost as a whole would be nice. brings our 3ghz oc'ed chips up to 3.6ghz

[Theli]

Thats not even K8L thats just what a K8 quad core would be like. Now if K8L is 40% faster the K8's how do you think york needs to run to beat K8L on just 2.9ghz. York will need 3.73ghz...oooops... thats what intel will do.

You are basing this statement on the assumption that the 3.73GHz Yorkfield will be either as fast or just slightly faster than the 2.9GHz K8L. But you have not provided any evidence, nor have you given us any reason to believe that you would be in possession of such knowledge.

Right now conroe is just 10 to 20% faster then K8's. In the real world its almost none at all.

Looking at real world benchmarks over at Toms Hardware comparing the E6600 and the X2 4600+, both running at the same clock frequency, I'm getting a difference in between 15% to 35%. The biggest difference is in gaming and encoding. No one here believes that the core 2 duo and the K8 are close to tied in performance per clock. Neither do you.

What do you thinks going to happen when K8L starts running at 3.5ghz stock? Its still 20% to 30% faster then core2 arcs.

The 40% increase has not been proven yet, but if we assumed it was:
K8 = 100%
Core 2 = 100% + 20% = 120%
K8L = 100% + 40% = 140%
Difference between Core 2 and K8L = 140%/120%=117%
Thus... the K8L would be 17% faster than the Core 2 per clock.

Not all that impressive when you think about it, since it would take a 3.38GHz Core 2 (65nm) processor to beat a 2.9GHz K8L processor.
This is of course assuming that the percentages are reliable, which I'm not all that sure of. We have not yet heard of any K8L processors running at 3.5GHz stock.

[nn_step]

let me see if I get your math correctly. you say that Conroe is just 20% faster than K8 and that K8L is just 17% faster than conroe.
And all the Intel Fanboys are screaming about Conroe being Jesus reborn...
and K8L is not a big deal how?

[Shintai]

let me see if I get your math correctly. you say that Conroe is just 20% faster than K8 and that K8L is just 17% faster than conroe.
And all the Intel Fanboys are screaming about Conroe being Jesus reborn...
and K8L is not a big deal how?

It was hypotheroetical.

Also how much faster is Core 2 over Core 1? Its just that people seems to expect K8L will be the jeesus reborn and do something super amazing.
K8L gonna be 40-50% faster than K8 per clock? And clock to 3.5Ghz? I smell jeesus..

[doompc]

It was hypotheroetical.

Also how much faster is Core 2 over Core 1? Its just that people seems to expect K8L will be the jeesus reborn and do something super amazing.
K8L gonna be 40-50% faster than K8 per clock? And clock to 3.5Ghz? I smell jeesus..

That is about what Conroe does right now, K8L (dual core) might do the same and sport the benefits of the IMC.

[Fred_Pohl]

There certainly are a lot of bold assumptions being made about K8L considering the known facts.

I keep hearing mid-2007 when AMD claims Q3.

I keep hearing 40-50% faster than C2D when AMD claims 40% faster than K8.

I keep hearing 3.5GHz when AMD claims 2.7-2.9GHz.

It's a little early to make such assumptions, isn't it? But since we're speculating... IMO the likely scenerio is K8L releasing in Q3-07 at 2.7-2.9GHz and up to 40% faster than K8 (same clock), 0-20% faster than C2Q (same clock and app dependent) but with C2Q clocked at 3.33GHz or more. Shortly afterward Intel launches 45nm Penryns at 3.6-4GHz and we're back to where we are now... watching AMD struggle to keep up with Intel while being one process shrink behind.

I know that AMD is once again claiming that they will narrow the gap from 12 to 6 months at 45nm but they've been claiming that for so long I'll have to see it to believe it. I hope they do though. It's their achilles heel.

[Shintai]

That is about what Conroe does right now, K8L (dual core) might do the same and sport the benefits of the IMC.

Core 2 is about 0-20% faster than Core 1. Not 40% faster.

[Shintai]

I keep hearing 40-50% faster than C2D when AMD claims 40% faster than K8.

AMD didnt claim 40%

[doompc]

Core2 is 15% to 35% faster than K8.
Assuming K8L core is as fast as Core2's, the IMC would make it perform 10% faster.
About 20% to 40% faster than K8.

And being made in 65nm process it may overclock "easealy" to 3.6GHz.

[Saiyan[CHW]]

Core2 is 15% to 35% faster than K8.
Assuming K8L core is as fast as Core2's, the IMC would make it perform 10% faster.
About 20% to 40% faster than K8.

And being made in 65nm process it may overclock "easealy" to 3.6GHz.

But when K8L appears Intel will be almost releasing Yorkfield and Wolfdale, they will be 45nm, cheaper and better overclockers.

[ScythedBlade]

The thing is that ... AMD has to work on its transitors to clock higher ... the core 2 duo basically relies on prescott transistors, which were made to clock mad high. that's probably why core 2 duo clocks that high. just a lil speculation though.

[nn_step]

But when K8L appears Intel will be almost releasing Yorkfield and Wolfdale, they will be 45nm, cheaper and better overclockers.

a set of interesting facts for you.
1) more stages means more clock speed
2) Smaller process can mean more clock speed
3) K8 has less stages (12int, 17 FP) and is on a larger process(90nm) vs Conroe (14int, 22FP, 65nm)
4) K8 Max Clock speed is (on average) 3Ghz
5) Conroe's Max Clock speed is (on average) 3.3-3.5Ghz

Just thought I should put those things out

[doompc]

Saiyan, yes.
Intel is already sampling 45nm Core2 cpus (Penryn, for mobile).
So even if K8L is clock-to-clock faster than Core2, Wolfdale will clock far higher than K8L.
Let's see what the IMC can do to help and how good is AMD's 65nm process.

[cky2k6]

k8 max clock speed is from 2.7 to 3ghz on air, allendale is 3ghz to 3.4, and conroe is from 3.3 to 3.7ghz, thats true, but again consider that k8l is going to be clocked lower than 3ghz initially, and that penryn will be clocked higher than 3ghz, assumed considerably, and it still doesnt look good, except for 8x4. k8l will not be considerably faster than core 2, since it doesnt introduce any revolutionary changes in architecture, and without them, its impossible to see sudden drastic changes in performance. core 2 wasnt that drastic of a change from core 1, and k8 to k8l is a very similar switch.

[Fred_Pohl]

AMD didnt claim 40%

IIRC AMD has put out some marketing propaganda claiming that K8L will be 40% faster than K8 in certain server BMs. Which is where I think K8L will really shine.

a set of interesting facts for you.
1) more stages means more clock speed
2) Smaller process can mean more clock speed
3) K8 has less stages (12int, 17 FP) and is on a larger process(90nm) vs Conroe (14int, 22FP, 65nm)
4) K8 Max Clock speed is (on average) 3Ghz
5) Conroe's Max Clock speed is (on average) 3.3-3.5Ghz

Just thought I should put those things out

Although I pretty much agree with most of your selected 'facts', IMO you've skewed the avg max clock speeds a bit. Getting 3GHz from an X2 seems to be every bit as difficult as getting 3.6GHz from a C2D. I'd say that on avg C2D OC's ~500MHz higher than X2, not 300-500MHz. Not meaning to split hairs here but 200MHz is 200MHz or to use AMD marketing speak, on avg C2D OC's to '7000+' vs '6000+' for X2.