Official AMD Barcelona Thread

[terrace215]

http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...0528-01175.txt
Intel's new result already beats AMD's paper result if you don't care for clock for clock comparison. Of course to say that 2.4GHz isn't good enough is to assume that they can't boost spec scores +8.3%, which is reasonably attainable with different configurations (unless AMD really optimized for the 2.6Ghz scores).

Well... of course I don't care for clock-for-clock comparison... that's just silly.

AMD projected 102 for 2.6GHz. Assuming exact scaling with frequency, they'd get 94 with a 2.4GHz Barc...which means 3GHz Clovertown would be nearly 13% faster on 2P int_rate. Also much faster on int and faster on fp, with fp_rate left for Barc.

One thing is unclear: is the Intel 106 result using Seaburg? Or Blackford? If Blackford, there is room for improvement with Seaburg.

[red]

informal, all that Johan has hinted at is that results could be 1-∞% better, thanks again, hype and no numbers. You are very hopeful. Tell/show me/us something we don't know BTW, those poor Quad FX owners will have to hope that Asus gets a new BIOS for it.

Assuming exact scaling with frequency, they'd get 94 with a 2.4GHz Barc...

Did you miss the part where I said a different configuration could significantly sway the score? We have no idea if AMD crippled the results or optimized them.
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...528-01177.html
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...214-00467.html
For a supposed CPU test, spec can as be seen here, dependent on many other factors.

[nemrod]

informal, all that Johan has hinted at is that results could be 1-∞% better, thanks again, hype and no numbers. You are very hopeful.

It could look like just hype... But it'sn't Informal but Johan from anandtech. And the point is:"And no, I am not speculating or guessing :-)" so I has probably in his hand something less buggy, and probably better than 1%. We have to wait to know the truth.