Official AMD Barcelona Thread

[red]

I'm 100% certain that their story is entirely based off this presentation which has been circling around, http://vd.verysell.ru/files/ie/252_1...ion_PUBLIC.ppt around slide 70. 2.6GHz clear as day.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...702235635.html
X-bit has them up too.

Basically, the SPECrate benches were run at 2.6GHz, the others were at 2.3GHz

[SEA]

I'm 100% certain that their story is entirely based off this presentation which has been circling around, http://vd.verysell.ru/files/ie/252_1...ion_PUBLIC.ppt around slide 70. 2.6GHz clear as day.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...702235635.html
X-bit has them up too.

Basically, the SPECrate benches were run at 2.6GHz, the others were at 2.3GHz

I like people that this certain.
But i am still not - Inquirer did not provide any link, but they stated 2.3GHz for Barcelona (even twice!) -

Barcelona 2.3GHz yields 21% higher score than Clovertown 2.66 GHz

[red]

It is the INQ afterall. Did you check the powerpoint? It says 2.6GHz K10 21% faster than X5355. That would just be a big coincidence that they improved a 2.3GHz K10 to also be 21% faster. Where do you think the TPC-C, SAP-SD, SPECweb benches surfaced from? No other place than the same place he's reporting these old specrate scores, that powerpoint.

[nemrod]

I probably need to wear eyeglasses from now on...
I don't see any picture there on inquirer!

Can you please explain why you link AMD slides with link to inquirer? I might miss something...

The most important, isn't 2.3 or 2.6 in the text but

These figures were from a few months ago,

[alayashu]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...702235635.html
its 2.6 vs 2.66.

Once again it confirms that K10 will be a rendering (and not only) monster,
the lowest end K10 should match/surpass the top performance Core2 chips
with ease here.

20% INT clock/clock advantage over C2 isn't negligible either IMO.

[nemrod]

this is still the same FUD and even the paper's writer tell it

These figures were from a few months ago,
/.../
The only real question that now remains is whther AMD can execute. Sadly, the company's recent track record does not bode well, with constant delays of products and events. And we'll also wait to see real tests of the Barcelonas rather than paper promises

[red]

I've only said this many times... AMD compares their 2.6GHz K10 score of 102 to stuff before 4.16.07. This is the result AMD is referencing for Intel's INT score. http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...219-00526.html The best X5355 has since gone up to 101 http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...612-01275.html and a 3GHz score of http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...528-01175.html

clock/clock does not matter. What matters is wattage, performance, cost.

BTW, compare the percentages of http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...702235635.html to http://tweakers.net/reviews/661 and you might not be so impressed.

[savantu]

...

Basically, the SPECrate benches were run at 2.6GHz, the others were at 2.3GHz

Umh...no.

They were "simulated".You take a lower clocked part and extrapolate.

Anyway , Intel submitted new scores for Clovertown which beat even the simulated 2.6GHz K10.

Spec_Int_rate
5355 : 99.9
5365 : 106
K10 2.6 : 102*

*simulation

Please keep in mind that Spec_rate is the best case scenario for K10 because it makes full use of the superior interconnect technology ( HT vs. FSB ).All other tests will show smaller gains.

[Shintai]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...702235635.html
its 2.6 vs 2.66.

Once again it confirms that K10 will be a rendering (and not only) monster,
the lowest end K10 should match/surpass the top performance Core2 chips
with ease here.

20% INT clock/clock advantage over C2 isn't negligible either IMO.

You do know K8 already today beats Core 2 with about 20% in that bench?

And specfp_rate/specint_rate is heavily memory intensive. Why do you think there is no dual dualcore K8 in the benchresults? Its because it would own the K10 due to more memory bandwidth.

It would be like showing DivX encoding with a penryn..and only that.

[alayashu]

And specfp_rate/specint_rate is heavily memory intensive. Why do you think there is no dual dualcore K8 in the benchresults? Its because it would own the K10 due to more memory bandwidth.

this has been said many times, the _rate benches do depend on memory BW,
as they use all the cores of the system (thus the more cores the more it
depends on the BW, just like in real world). But saying it is a pure memory
benchmark is naive from you. The _rate are the right benches for multicore
systems, if i need to say it again...

You do know K8 already today beats Core 2 with about 20% in that bench?

they should be about equal clock/clock in the fp_rate, maybe you should redo
the bench again, as it looks like some chips get more power with time, as seen above :P


Anyway, why do i have the feeling we discuss the same things over and over?
one more month to go, maybe at a certain booth on Siggraph we'll learn more

[Zytek_Fan]

Phenom FX-90 and FX-80 series, hello world ! AMD’s latest roadmap reveals model numbers for upcoming Phenom FX processors. Under the new naming scheme, the AMD Phenom FX lineup consists of the Phenom FX-80 and FX-90 series. AMD designates the Phenom FX-80 series for single processor systems while the FX-90 takes on 4x4 dual processor systems.

AMD plans to launch two Phenom FX-90 series processors in Q1 2008. The two Phenom FX processors carry the FX-91 and FX-90 names. The AMD Phenom FX-91 will have a clock-speed between 2.4-to-2.6 GHz and will sit on a 3.6 GHz HyperTransport 3.0 bus. The lower Phenom FX-90 will have a clock-speed between 2.2-to-2.4 GHz with a slower HT3 bus. AMD is unsure of the Phenom FX-90’s HT3 bus, but roadmaps indicate HT3 speeds excess of 3.2 GHz. The two Phenom FX-90 series will drop into Socket 1207+ motherboards.

AMD plans one Phenom FX processor for Socket AM2+ platforms. The AMD Phenom FX-80 is essentially the FX-90 for single-processor systems. The Phenom FX-80 will clock in between 2.2-to-2.4 GHz and have a HT3 bus speed in excess of 3.2 GHz. All Phenom FX processors share similar feature sets, with 512KB of L2 cache per core and a shared 2MB L3 cache. The TDP of Phenom FX processors are still to be determined.

Expect AMD to pull the wraps off the Phenom FX-90 series in Q1 2008 with its upcoming FASN8 socket 1207+ platform. AMD expects to launch the Phenom FX-80 earlier, in the November-to-December timeframe.

[Metroid]

Well to be able to see what really the CPU can achieve we have many kind of benchmarks, some CPU's can achieve higher scores on a determined test but the overall performance is quite different.

[MAS]

http://vd.verysell.ru/files/ie/252_1...ion_PUBLIC.ppt



and so on

[red]

Do you want to, say, read the title instead of cheerleading AMD?

[MAS]

red, it's just powerpoint presentation under NDA
read (if you can) it carefully ))

[v0dka]

red, it's just powerpoint presentation under NDA
read (if you can) it carefully ))

What does it say?

[Shintai]

red, it's just powerpoint presentation under NDA
read (if you can) it carefully ))

1. Why do you post the K8 vs Woodcrest graphs?
2. I read it, and there is only 3 (One a reprint of an old one) interresting parts where barcelona is. There is nowhere else in the slides its there with performance numbers.

[SEA]

Inquirer says "systems using tge Opteron 2356"
There is no word about Opteron 2356 in that presentation.
So why you guys still link them together?

[red]

It's really simple. http://vd.verysell.ru/files/ie/252_1...ion_PUBLIC.ppt this has been just recently circulating. INQ copied. In the INQ's article, it's clear they're talking about slide 71,72. Theo also babbled about slide 70 even though we've already seen it and even though we've already known it's 2.6GHz.



It would be a big coincidence if they somehow improved 2.3GHz to perform like old 2.6GHz at the same 21% rate. But I digress, believe what you want, merry July 4th.

And the 2356 is nowhere present but it's obvious they put 1 (recent surfaced model numbers) and 1 (the 2.3GHz on slide 71,72) and called it the 2356.

[Shintai]

Another one on the specint_rate2006
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=567

Sad we have so much FUD today

[GoThr3k]

Another one on the specint_rate2006
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=567

Sad we have so much FUD today

sad we have such lame comparisons everywhere....

its getting really boring, time for AMD to release K10
tired of everyone claiming this and that, time for some hard numbers, i don't care if it are good or bad numbers

[v_rr]

Another one on the specint_rate2006
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=567

Sad we have so much FUD today

http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/rint2006.html

If you consult the table you will see that that score of 101 is achived by a Dual xeon X5355 machine.
I´am not understand nothing. Starting with AMD graphic that is very confusing

[nemrod]

http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/rint2006.html

If you consult the table you will see that that score of 101 is achived by a Dual xeon X5355 machine.
Wierd. Don´t understand nothing

If you read the footnote of the AMD figure, you will see dual-cpu quadcore

http://multicore.amd.com/GetFile.asp...trate_040207v2

[Periander6]

http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/rint2006.html

If you consult the table you will see that that score of 101 is achived by a Dual xeon X5355 machine. He is comparing one Barcelona versus 2 Xeon.
That man is ridiculous.

Oh, please. Go to AMD's own page:

http://multicore.amd.com/us-en/AMD-M...rformance.aspx

and you will see that AMD has clarified it's own comparison. Read the fine print at the bottom of the slides.

Dual-CPU Quad-Core AMD Opteron processor estimates based on internal AMD simulations at 2.6GHz

Of course, the idea that this was anything but a dual socket against dual socket comparison is ridiculous, but I guess there is no limit on the ridiculous statements some fanboys will make if you don't spell everything out.

[savantu]

Oh, please. Go to AMD's own page:

http://multicore.amd.com/us-en/AMD-M...rformance.aspx

and you will see that AMD has clarified it's own comparison. Read the fine print at the bottom of the slides.



Of course, the idea that this was anything but a dual socket against dual socket comparison is ridiculous, but I guess there is no limit on the ridiculous statements some fanboys will make if you don't spell everything out.

Lack of brainpower is the culprit...