Official AMD Barcelona Thread

[Zytek_Fan]

If that was at me, I was referring at the impact increased memory bandwidth could have for K10. I was not comparing K8 to K10

No, not at you.

[nn_step]

Since I just love throwing wrenches into the works
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article735-page1.html

[lapdog]

Since I just love throwing wrenches into the works
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article735-page1.html

What in tarnation does that have to do with Barcelona?

[madcho]

Wrong. C2D is fully 128bit SSE (on all 3 SSE decoders).

not true. the units are 128bits but some functions are not available in 128bits

Wrong. The integer unit in C2D is MUCH better than that in K8.

yes.

Do you have a clue what you are talking about? Phenom IS BARCELONA (same core, just different sockets - desktop vs. server).

The new IMC of the K10 will allow to use more bandwith, not like the K8 on AM2. The K8 on AM2 is not able to use the full bandwith of the DDR2, and cache speed is too slow.

Registered memory is slow, and have bad timings, Barcelona will not able to show all. Phenom will be a bit faster. HT3 will improve a bit for 4 cores. I'have seen with 1ghz HT with dual core a bottleneck.

[savantu]

Savantu,then you need to check the techreport x64 testing,where 6000+ gets really close on many occasions to e6700.

We were discussing how much each CPU gains from 32bit -> 64bit , not absolute performance.

Secondly , too bad Xbit didn't include how much P4 gained from 32bit to 64bit.I wouldn't be surprised too see it exceeds both C2D and K8 according to their tests.I'll calculate this tomorrow , it's 2 am now and I need to sleep.

[savantu]

not true. the units are 128bits but some functions are not available in 128bits

Really ? Which ones aren't available for C2D but are for K10 ?

The new IMC of the K10 will allow to use more bandwith, not like the K8 on AM2. The K8 on AM2 is not able to use the full bandwith of the DDR2, and cache speed is too slow.

Well , K10 introduces another cache in the equation , an L3 with unknown latencies thus far.

Registered memory is slow, and have bad timings, Barcelona will not able to show all. Phenom will be a bit faster. HT3 will improve a bit for 4 cores. I'have seen with 1ghz HT with dual core a bottleneck.

In what tests did you notice a performance penalty due to the 1GHz HT link ?

[informal]

Oh yeah, and your posts just overflow with intelligent discourse.

Quick search on your posts reveals,well nothing interesting(except extreme intel bias).But that's nothing new these days.

On topic:

Article from tgdaily sums it up nicely:
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/32802/135/

AMD feels “confident” about Barcelona performance estimates PDF Print E-mail
Hardware
By Wolfgang Gruener
Friday, July 06, 2007 13:04
Recommend article:
Slashdot
Digg
Delicious
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Chicago (IL) – Two Barcelona benchmark charts published on AMD’s website caused quite a stir yesterday: Intel wasn’t happy about outdated performance numbers causing AMD to remove the charts.


In Pictures: AMD Quad-Core "Barcelona" technical details ...
AMD today in fact acknowledged that its performance charts were outdated and that new Intel numbers were not included in the comparison. Spokesman Phil Hughes conceded in a conversation with TG Daily that AMD “failed to update the numbers” and has taken down the charts as a result.

In the meantime, Intel had stressed that Xeon performance numbers, which far exceed the numbers used by AMD, are available. And according to Intel, the 2.66 GHz Xeon 5355 does not trail the estimated integer performance of a 2.6 GHz quad-core Opteron by about 20%, but by only about 2% (99.9 vs. 102 points in the Specint_rate2006 benchmark). The 3.0 GHz Xeon 5365, which is shipping in limited numbers at this time, is actually slightly faster than the 2.6 GHz Opteron (106 vs. 102 points) – which is expected to be AMD’s fastest quad-core to be available by the end of this year.

From that perspective, the future does not look favorable for AMD, given the fact that Intel’s 45 nm server chip will be available around the turn of the year and Intel already said that it does expect substantial performance gains in the double-digit range across the board. But the truth of the matter is that we are talking about unreleased products on both ends, with Intel holding the performance lead in products that you can buy today.

So, if AMD has taken down the benchmark numbers, does that mean that Barcelona will not be as fast as AMD claims? Hughes told us that AMD still expects the performance of Barcelona at 2.6 GHz to come in at what the estimate has shown – or “even a bit higher”. However, there is no doubt that the initially available Barcelonas (with up to 2.0 GHz) will not be able to match Intel’s current performance level.

Interestingly enough, plain speed isn’t really the whole story. Power consumption is a performance factor that has not received a whole lot attention. In the light of today’s server environments that try to decrease heat and use the available power as efficiently as possible, this may actually the discipline where the battle between Intel and AMD will be fought. At least according to AMD’s Barcelona website, the firm’s 68w/95w/125w chips will have an advantage over comparable Xeons (65w/80w), at least as long as 65w Xeons are pitched against 68w and 95w Opterons and the 80w Xeon against the 95w Opteron. And yes, the low-power Clovertown processors (50w) were left out of consideration in this comparison.

If industry rumors are right, then AMD will be releasing Barcelona in September and we soon will be able to verify what the processor is really capable of and what impact it may have in the market.

[red]

Hughes told us that AMD still expects the performance of Barcelona at 2.6 GHz to come in at what the estimate has shown – or “even a bit higher”.

How does one define "a bit"? Not enough to reclaim 20% "at the same clock" I reckon.

At least according to AMD’s Barcelona website, the firm’s 68w/95w/125w chips will have an advantage over comparable Xeons (65w/80w), at least as long as 65w Xeons are pitched against 68w and 95w Opterons and the 80w Xeon against the 95w Opteron.

And yes, the low-power Clovertown processors (50w) were left out of consideration in this comparison.

[BrowncoatGR]

"By Wolfgang Gruener" That says it all as far as im concerned. Only when someone with more credibility confirms this will i treat this as something that isn't FUD

[Lithan]

Some bickering removed. Next time people are getting infractions.

[Zytek_Fan]

Some bickering removed. Next time people are getting infractions.

Thank you.

[Donnie27]

This thread is the last bastion for AMD fanboi's. Why on earth would they want to embrace logic after all this time?

I really hope Phenom turns into a true competitor, if solely for sake of having a choice besides Intel.

But as others have pointed out here - if you have the goods, and your competition is doing nothing but repeatedly packing your lunch in terms of sales and revenue, you don't keep tight-lipped about it.

Unless, of course, you are sitting on a dud.

Any of us Geeks who love technology really truly want to see Barcelona and Phenom kickass. Even cheap Geeks want to see them do well so Intel will not raise prices because of lack of Competition. You'll get nowhere with nn forgetaboutit!

If Barkie was as kickass AMD's F@n$ think it will be, it'd make ZERO sense, IMHO, that AMD would hide test results. Both AMD and Intel have tooted their own horn when they knew they had a winner! Folks at this forum should know that more than anyone.

[BrowncoatGR]

Any of us Geeks who love technology really truly want to see Barcelona and Phenom kickass. Even cheap Geeks want to see them do well so Intel will not raise prices because of lack of Competition. You'll get nowhere with nn forgetaboutit!

If Barkie was as kickass AMD's F@n$ think it will be, it'd make ZERO sense, IMHO, that AMD would hide test results. Both AMD and Intel have tooted their own horn when they knew they had a winner! Folks at this forum should know that more than anyone.

Whether it makes sense to you or not AMD did exactly the same thing when they launched the Opteron line. So i think the silence means nothing at all. Its just AMD being AMD. We will find out for real once the NDA is lifted.

[Shintai]

Whether it makes sense to you or not AMD did exactly the same thing when they launched the Opteron line. So i think the silence means nothing at all. Its just AMD being AMD. We will find out for real once the NDA is lifted.

Not really, they played the hammertime 1 year ahead on Intel and told everyone about it.

This time they have been awfully quiet. Specially while they have removed estimated/simulated Barcelona benchmarls from their own page.

[BrowncoatGR]

Not really, they played the hammertime 1 year ahead on Intel and told everyone about it.

This time they have been awfully quiet. Specially while they have removed estimated/simulated Barcelona benchmarls from their own page.

Not true. AMD has been talking about Barcelona for a long time now. They just haven't released any benchmarks. That they removed those estimated numbers just shows that AMD is committed to showing accurate data, which is something that i could hardly say about Intel. According to that crappy article mentioned on the other thread the NDA lifts this month so we should know shortly either way

[Donnie27]

Whether it makes sense to you or not AMD did exactly the same thing when they launched the Opteron line. So i think the silence means nothing at all. Its just AMD being AMD. We will find out for real once the NDA is lifted.

Not true at all=P AMD showed off the Hammer running at only 800MHz a year before it launched. AMD Demoed a Clawhammer over a year before launch, NO ONE questioned their estimating its performance because folks got hands on tests and no PHUCKING NDA. In fact, they showed it off at a Feb-IDF. I say again, IF AMD had something, they'd do the same thing Intel did with Conroe. I don't see either of the Companies being better or worse than the other. They both have been Champs and Chumps.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...yes&i=1591&p=4

All AMD has done was Bla-bla-bla and that ain't squat. Talk is cheap. I saw so called leaks of and about X2 and they had tons of folks here going OMG that %$^#*& rawks! So please don't go there? There's no way in heck AMD is holding back while taking this kind of spanking.

[Donnie27]

Not really, they played the hammertime 1 year ahead on Intel and told everyone about it.

This time they have been awfully quiet. Specially while they have removed estimated/simulated Barcelona benchmarls from their own page.

Yulp, see post #812?

I hope for all of our sake this thing does kick-ass. No one can expect Intel to keep up their friendly price points if Supply and Demand takes over.

[Epsilon84]

Not true. AMD has been talking about Barcelona for a long time now. They just haven't released any benchmarks. That they removed those estimated numbers just shows that AMD is committed to showing accurate data, which is something that i could hardly say about Intel. According to that crappy article mentioned on the other thread the NDA lifts this month so we should know shortly either way

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.

[red]

According to that crappy article mentioned on the other thread the NDA lifts this month so we should know shortly either way

Which crappy article?

[AbelJemka]

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

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/..._13911,00.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.

You better hide to lear reading : AMD Turion 64 X2 Mobile compare to Core Duo (NOT Core 2 Duo)

[Epsilon84]

You better hide to lear reading : AMD Turion 64 X2 Mobile compare to Core Duo (NOT Core 2 Duo)

Correct links now. Thanks for correction!

[nn_step]

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.

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

[AbelJemka]

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?!

Same.
Desktop UMA (integrated graphics) Platform performance - Overall Performance
Xpress 1150 compare to 946G. So not comparing X2 to C2D...again.
Same player try again

[BrowncoatGR]

Which crappy article?

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?

[Shintai]

Same.
Desktop UMA (integrated graphics) Platform performance - Overall Performance
Xpress 1150 compare to 946G. So not comparing X2 to C2D...again.
Same player try again

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.