To put it simply, AMD didn't dare demo against Clovertown, Intel wouldn't have stuck their neck out unless they had an idea of Barcelona performance, 80% scaling for 16 K10 vs 8 K8 is not impressive.
To put it simply, AMD didn't dare demo against Clovertown, Intel wouldn't have stuck their neck out unless they had an idea of Barcelona performance, 80% scaling for 16 K10 vs 8 K8 is not impressive.
It's a demo of multicore, not a barcelona demo, they don't want to say how it perform i think.
POV ray smp is always beta.
http://www.uberpulse.com/us/2007/05/...ll_unknown.php
They confirm that it's 16 K10 vs 8 K8 as reported before.
It's not a demo, it's a joke...Originally Posted by madcho
Since March 2007
http://www.intel.com/performance/des...drendering.jpg
98% faster when doubling core and now 16 K10 vs 8 K8 can't even not show 98% faster???
There's a lot more that can be done with K8 if the Intel handn't introduced core 2 so fast.
It isn't to bad though....comments such as "I'm tired of waiting for k10 "annoy me, as frankly ppl should just not visit the thread if they feel this way. Coming to this thread everyday hoping for some miraculous new news isn't going to push up the release date, and neither will whining about or bashing the company.
Perkam
Eh? 4X the cores and a slight frequency results in a 3.56X increase in throughput. Clock-normalize it and its about 3.48X.
I messed up my math, and as thus deleted my post.
QFT *sits on hands*
i3-8100 | GTX 970
Ryzen 5 1600 | RX 580
Assume nothing; Question everything
Thankgod someone said it,
The more you hang off every bit of news, the longer it seems to take. And the more silly you look.
AMD are not the company to hurry and push things along just becuase they're getting beaten to a pulp. They're far more structured than that, They also have long had a policy of being tight lipped.. Everyone's said it a billion times, it's really getting old.
Just shutup and wait, or go buy a C2D, for the sake of everyone having to read your emo crap :p
Just 2 more months now
Last edited by [XC] Teroedni; 05-24-2007 at 12:54 PM. Reason: sorry for the big size:/ fixed now:)
Hamid....open up photoshop or fireworks and pls resize that to max 1024xsomething.
Perkam
more info straight from the source:
more here
FX8350 @ 4.0Ghz | 32GB @ DDR3-1200 4-4-4-12 | Asus 990FXA @ 1400Mhz | AMD HD5870 Eyefinity | XFX750W | 6 x 128GB Sandisk Extreme RAID0 @ Aerca 1882ix with 4GB DRAM
eXceed TJ07 worklog/build
That graphic raises as many questions as it answers. Since AMD has already demonstrated they have working samples of Barcelona, why would we be interested in "estimates" and "internal simulations" instead of actual benchmarks? Also the Xeon 5355 is the 2.66 GHz part, which has already been superseeded. Also the Barcelona "simulation" assumes 2.6 GHz, is that clockspeed a given (for launch)?
Didn't they already say 20% better on INT and 50% better on FP for SPEC at the same clock?
The FP was SpecFp_rate, which is mainly a memory bench. K8 already beat Intel here with 20% or so.
INT might be rate aswell. But I havent seen the INT numbers.
Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.
sourceThe clock speed of AMD Barcelona was.....
I only see alot of speculation and some guessing maths. Just as good as any of us could do.
Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.
It may be that Amd also was demoing a very early revision. (hopes so
We should now soon if AMD keep to its promise of Q2.
This summer will be great.
AMD Quad flash ad
next gen after barcelona is 2008
Nice thread (except for the intel fanboys posting here)....very usefull information here and thanks for sharing your news.
Without any chips in the computer and with similiar system its though to make any calls what testing means.
AMD are positive to its new k10 line which will offer a lot more than its previous gen.
Its also a quadcore designed to be one not 2 dualcore lumped togheter the used car seller way.
I just dont get why we need more cpu power, for me todays computer runs so well with the current tech.
I get that videoencoding, movierendering and other fields might benefit as serverside but for the common consumer it seems its enough as it is.
As I use the computer, games, some video its purely enough power without bottlenecks as it is today for me.
Even the new gen and tech the fps in games dont go up so much.
I am however looking forward AMD´s new design and if they lower powerconsumation with the same speed and more power for the user, that is very enviromental and something to consider.
I would like to see how much power todays computers draw with todays cpu and what would be if the powerconsumption if it was halved.
The idle power has to come down since it makes more sense if the workload would decide how much power the system would draw.
quadcore with each core has there own way of idle and lower power seems like a nice way of having chips doing work when needed and not all the time drawing full effect.
4670k 4.6ghz 1.22v watercooled CPU/GPU - Asus Z87-A - 290 1155mhz/1250mhz - Kingston Hyper Blu 8gb -crucial 128gb ssd - EyeFunity 5040x1050 120hz - CM atcs840 - Corsair 750w -sennheiser hd600 headphones - Asus essence stx - G400 and steelseries 6v2 -windows 8 Pro 64bit Best OS used - - 9500p 3dmark11(one of the 26% that isnt confused on xtreme forums)
QFT
we can all be happy about that fact
Povray and detailed analysis on K10 scores can be find here:
http://abinstein.blogspot.com/2007/0...-and-amds.html
nice
It's all good and all, but why don't they pick something Intel wont hawe and bench that as an advantage!?
Benching and claiming the same TDP is a hit below the belt attempt as intel will have the same ability (Harpertown), and will show it on Computex!
Why must they prove something only to be disproved weeks later?
The score explanation I don't have the attention span to grasp, so I hope someone will sumarise it.
I will add that my C2D@2.13 scores 920/467pps
while my friends X2 4200 scores 728/367pps I don't see that should be called optimised "more for c2d"
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks