Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 91

Thread: Barcelona Launch Clock Speeds Changing?

  1. #1
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,215

    Barcelona Launch Clock Speeds Changing?

    Coming from Dave Graham,this info is very valuable

    http://www.dailytech.com/Barcelona+L...rticle8592.htm
    David Graham (Blog) - August 24, 2007 1:48 PM

    AMD is changing its "Barcelona" launch plans again

    Let's come right out and say it: when AMD announced that the launch clock speeds of Barcelona would start at sub-2.0 GHz, people were frustrated. This
    long-awaited monolithic quad core release from AMD would be the pinnacle of their core design technology and would usher in a new era of powerful computing.

    Sound about right? So, imagine the collective chagrin when a 1.6 GHz base clock speed was announced with top-end clock speeds ending around 2.0 GHz. In the interim, reports surfaced about AMD having issues with top-end core speeds, which was quickly countered by the 3.0 GHz Phenom demonstration, leakage, and other processor related functions.

    We knew AMD was hard at work on perfecting the Barcelona core even before the official production launch and that the promise of HT3 in this generation of processors was going to be eschewed in favor of the more widely integrated HT1.x version.

    Now, word is coming that AMD might drop the 1.6 GHz from the launch line-up in favour of a 2.1 GHz or 2.2 GHz core launch speed.
    Perhaps the fabrication process is going much smoother than anyone realized and some of the leakage problems have been ironed out? Who knows but, looks like things are picking up for AMD.
    NEW! RE: Basis for this Information?
    By davegraham (blog) on 8/24/2007 2:47:38 PM , Rating: 3
    It's reliable as it came from an inside source at AMD. I work very closely with these guys and, for the record, this falls outside the scope of my NDA with them.

    cheers,

    Dave

  2. #2
    Where's Shintai in this possibly positive AMD thread? T minus 10, 9, 8, 7...

  3. #3
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,374
    Nice

  4. #4
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    There's no place like 127.0.0.1, Brazil
    Posts
    888
    Some solid good news, finally

  5. #5
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,315
    Very good news so far. Now if only they would release some REAL benchmarks
    Phenom 9950BE @ 3.24Ghz| ASUS M3A78-T | ASUS 4870 | 4gb G.SKILL DDR2-1000 |Silverstone Strider 600w ST60F| XFI Xtremegamer | Seagate 7200.10 320gb | Maxtor 200gb 7200rpm 16mb | Samsung 206BW | MCP655 | MCR320 | Apogee | MCW60 | MM U2-UFO |

    A64 3800+ X2 AM2 @3.2Ghz| Biostar TF560 A2+ | 2gb Crucial Ballistix DDR2-800 | Sapphire 3870 512mb | Aircooled inside a White MM-UFO Horizon |

    Current Phenom overclock


    Max Phenom overclock

  6. #6
    Xtremely High Voltage Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    16,040
    Faster clock speeds at release can only be a good thing. Here's hoping.
    The Cardboard Master
    Crunch with us, the XS WCG team
    Intel Core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz, 16GB DDR3-1600, Radeon 7950 @ 1000/1250, Win 10 Pro x64

  7. #7
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    eu/hungary/budapest.tmp
    Posts
    1,591
    Quote Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho View Post
    just the second to last.
    Well in a sector with only two companies, being second to last is not a bad thing
    Usual suspects: i5-750 & H212+ | Biostar T5XE CFX-SLI | 4GB RAndoM | 4850 + AC S1 + 120@5V + modded stock for VRAM/VRM | Seasonic S12-600 | 7200.12 | P180 | U2311H & S2253BW | MX518
    mITX media & to-be-server machine: A330ION | Seasonic SFX | WD600BEVS boot & WD15EARS data
    Laptops: Lifebook T4215 tablet, Vaio TX3XP
    Bike: ZX6R

  8. #8
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Pleasant Hill, MO
    Posts
    1,211
    a few hundred mhz is a pretty big deal if you ask me... It means thermal envelopes are a-ok, and they will overclock that much farther.

    Ryan
    "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

    Abit IP35 Pro
    Intel Core 2 Quad 6600 @ 3200 w/ Tuniq Tower
    2x2gb A-Data DDR2 800
    AMD/ATi HD 4870

  9. #9
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    4,308
    I don't think 2.2GHz will be enough to beat Penryn other than the lower clocked ones but that's me. Once AMD reaches near or to 3GHz barrier things might get interesting.

    Oh and about the small clock increase... may look like nothing but it says a lot of how hard AMD's working on getting the clock speeds up. Seems like they are aware it's not gonna be enough or something otherwise I don't think they'd do such desperate attempts of improving the clock speeds.

    Anyways it's good news if it's true.
    Last edited by RPGWiZaRD; 08-24-2007 at 02:18 PM.
    Intel? Core i5-4670K @ 4.3 GHz | ASRock Extreme6 Z87 | G.Skill Sniper 2x8GB @ DDR4-1866 CL9 | Gigabyte GTX 970 OC Windforce 3x | Super Flower Titanium 1000W | ViewSonic VX2268wm 120Hz LCD | Phanteks PH-TC14PE | Logitech MX-518 | Win 7 x64 Professional | Samsung 850 EVO & 840 Pro SSDs

    If all people would share opinions in an objective manner, the world would be a friendlier place

  10. #10
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,700
    This is good news. But, I would still love to be surprised in a good way at launch.


    Core i7 920 D0 B-batch (4.1) (Kinda Stable?) | DFI X58 T3eH8 (Fed up with its' issues, may get a new board soon) | Patriot 1600 (9-9-9-24) (for now) | XFX HD 4890 (971/1065) (for now) |
    80GB X25-m G2 | WD 640GB | PCP&C 750 | Dell 2408 LCD | NEC 1970GX LCD | Win7 Pro | CoolerMaster ATCS 840 {Modded to reverse-ATX, WC'ing internal}

    CPU Loop: MCP655 > HK 3.0 LT > ST 320 (3x Scythe G's) > ST Res >Pump
    GPU Loop: MCP655 > MCW-60 > PA160 (1x YL D12SH) > ST Res > BIP 220 (2x YL D12SH) >Pump

  11. #11
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    772
    Hmm. Good if true.

    But considering we still haven't seen benches, I'm not holding my breath.

  12. #12
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,782
    I'll take any good news from AMD right now! It would really suck to have only one CPU supplier

  13. #13
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmer411 View Post
    Very good news so far. Now if only they would release some REAL benchmarks
    that ios offcourse the question you'll have to wait fore a bit longer....

    btw deployed NDA ES samples are now on 1.8GHZ so i don't see why AMD would ship 1.6 to retail.
    Quote Originally Posted by Movieman View Post
    Fanboyitis..
    Comes in two variations and both deadly.
    There's the green strain and the blue strain on CPU.. There's the red strain and the green strain on GPU..

  14. #14
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    eu/hungary/budapest.tmp
    Posts
    1,591
    Quote Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post
    Oh and about the small clock increase... may look like nothing but it says a lot of how hard AMD's working on getting the clock speeds up. Seems like they are aware it's not gonna be enough or something otherwise I don't think they'd do such desperate attempts of improving the clock speeds.
    These were supposed to be much higher-clocked, but after the fiasco of the
    early steppings, they had to drastically reduce the clock targets. It seems
    some problems were eliminated, so they can raise the clocks again.
    Usual suspects: i5-750 & H212+ | Biostar T5XE CFX-SLI | 4GB RAndoM | 4850 + AC S1 + 120@5V + modded stock for VRAM/VRM | Seasonic S12-600 | 7200.12 | P180 | U2311H & S2253BW | MX518
    mITX media & to-be-server machine: A330ION | Seasonic SFX | WD600BEVS boot & WD15EARS data
    Laptops: Lifebook T4215 tablet, Vaio TX3XP
    Bike: ZX6R

  15. #15
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,215
    4 respins as some people are saying.But unofficially ,Phenom is good to go for Q4/Q1 with some serious clocks(2.8+).Lets hope there will be enough supply.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Acreageville, Alberta
    Posts
    1,411
    Quote Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho View Post
    LOL.... people are cheering for a 100-200mhz jump in clock speed? Ok, so now they aren't sucking hind tit anymore... just the second to last.

    LOL, so tru

  17. #17
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,730
    What about availability ?

    I don't doubt they could launch it at 2.5GHz if they wanted , but those parts would be as rare as hen's teeth.

    This quote from Paul Demone explains it best :

    1) A design and process combo with a center frequency of
    1.9 GHz will yield three sigma fast process tail end parts
    of about 2.5 GHz. In large quantities across many wafer
    batches roughly 1 in 400 parts will run at a production
    quality 2.5 GHz.

    2) A production 2.5 GHz processor has to be guaranteed
    to run in all motherboards in all systems with different
    chipsets, VRMs, DIMMs etc whether the system is in a hot
    office in Phoenix or a cold basement in Anchorage. This
    requires some guard banding to ensure all combinations
    of parts and systems run reliably anywhere. But if you hand
    match a specific part to a specific motherboard, system,
    chipset, memory etc you can probably coax a 2.5 GHz
    into reliable operation in a benign environment to say 2.6
    GHz at stock voltage and cooling without much problem.

    3) An advanced CMOS integrated circuit has to operate
    under a certain combination of supply voltage and junction
    temperature to achieve an aceptable level of reliability
    and lifetime. However it can be operated at significantly
    higher temperatures and voltages at the cost of expon-
    entially reduced lifetime. This is how you do accelerated
    aging studies to establish those acceptable levels in the
    first place.
    http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=22100011

    The problem AMD has with K10 is that nothing shown until now suggests they moved the center from 1.9GHz.IIRC a post by Inq suggested that 1.9GHz parts are the only ones which will be available en masse , 2Ghz for select few.This strongly supports PDs assertion.

    All in all , AMD could probably launch a 2.5GHz part , but it would be worse than a paper launch ; what AMD needs is to move the center bin to 2.1-2.3GHz , then we're talking.

  18. #18
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Gotham City, Sweden
    Posts
    367
    How will this affect prices, will I get a 2.1GHz cheaper now?
    AMD Phenom II 940BE | DFI LP DK790B-M2RS | Echo audio Layla 3G | 8GB Corsair C5 PC6400 | Sapphire HD3870 with HR-03+ | Genelec 8030A | Samsung 244T | Antec P182 gun metal | Thermal right Ultra120 | UPS: APC BACK-UPS RS 1500VA | Windows Vista Ultimate 64 | DAW: Ableton/Sonar | WAN: 100/10Mbit/s | OS on: WD Velocioraptor Storage: Rocket Raid 2300 PCI-E + 4*400GB Samsung T133 @Raid5. Firewall: Tyan Tomcat 945GM | Core Duo T2600 | 2*512MB ram | Nexus PM PSM-5000 | Picu PSU.


    "People who enjoy waving flags
    don't deserve to have one".

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,014
    Strange that people want high frequency cpu's

    I thought it was more important how much apples it could carry in one cycle...

    And if the frequencies are true, you can be 100% sure amd is confident to get 1/3 more apples in 1 cycle then Intel...

    Let us wait for some official news

  20. #20
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Gotham City, Sweden
    Posts
    367
    IPC is nr1 yes. But a high clocks never hurt, wouldn't you say?

    I've been eyeing the 2.1 Barcelona for my 2P workstation. If the prices go down further I might get my hands on an even higher clocked one and just wait with CPU nr2. Maybe I'll end up with 2*2.3GHz barcies and 8gigs of ram which should get my DAW rig moving...
    Last edited by Poodle; 08-25-2007 at 02:40 AM.
    AMD Phenom II 940BE | DFI LP DK790B-M2RS | Echo audio Layla 3G | 8GB Corsair C5 PC6400 | Sapphire HD3870 with HR-03+ | Genelec 8030A | Samsung 244T | Antec P182 gun metal | Thermal right Ultra120 | UPS: APC BACK-UPS RS 1500VA | Windows Vista Ultimate 64 | DAW: Ableton/Sonar | WAN: 100/10Mbit/s | OS on: WD Velocioraptor Storage: Rocket Raid 2300 PCI-E + 4*400GB Samsung T133 @Raid5. Firewall: Tyan Tomcat 945GM | Core Duo T2600 | 2*512MB ram | Nexus PM PSM-5000 | Picu PSU.


    "People who enjoy waving flags
    don't deserve to have one".

  21. #21
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,820
    I couldn't care less if it runs @20MHz or 20GHz.
    While I have hope it would run (at least some things) 10-20% faster than C2D (or maybe penryn..), anyone thinking it would "blow Penryn by 50%" needs a reality check.
    AMD would have shown a demo already if it were that high.
    P5E64_Evo/QX9650, 4x X25-E SSD - gimme speed..
    Quote Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss View Post
    Lately there has been a lot of BS(Dave_Graham where are you?)

  22. #22
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    1,195
    Quote Originally Posted by BeardyMan View Post
    Strange that people want high frequency cpu's

    I thought it was more important how much apples it could carry in one cycle...

    And if the frequencies are true, you can be 100% sure amd is confident to get 1/3 more apples in 1 cycle then Intel...
    overall performance is what matters, who cares if its 10 instrutions x 2000 cycles, or 7 instructions by 3000cycles, its whatever gets the work done. IPC is only part of the metric.

    Higher IPC doesn't neccesarily mean better performance per watt, and certainly doesn't mean better performance.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by onewingedangel View Post
    overall performance is what matters, who cares if its 10 instrutions x 2000 cycles, or 7 instructions by 3000cycles, its whatever gets the work done. IPC is only part of the metric.

    Higher IPC doesn't neccesarily mean better performance per watt, and certainly doesn't mean better performance.
    That's true, but isn't that what brought C2D glory?

  24. #24
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    1,195
    Quote Originally Posted by BeardyMan View Post
    That's true, but isn't that what brought C2D glory?
    C2D was able to up the IPC whilst raising the clockspeeds (compared to yonah and previous pentium M's). AMD's problem with k8 was that the design couldn't scale the clockspeeds in the same way that intel could scale theirs (be it SOI or a design issue). k10 goes after a solution by improving IPC again, but looks to do so at the cost of clockspeed compared to k8, let alone c2d. Even if k10 is able to compete with intel in the short term if they run into problems scaling the clocks again it will hurt them long term, the design needs to scale in performance - and raising the clockspeeds is the easiest way to achieve this, extracting ever more IPC gets increasingly costly in regards to die space/idle power consumption.

    As I said IPC is only half the story.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by onewingedangel View Post
    C2D was able to up the IPC whilst raising the clockspeeds (compared to yonah and previous pentium M's). AMD's problem with k8 was that the design couldn't scale the clockspeeds in the same way that intel could scale theirs (be it SOI or a design issue). k10 goes after a solution by improving IPC again, but looks to do so at the cost of clockspeed compared to k8, let alone c2d. Even if k10 is able to compete with intel in the short term if they run into problems scaling the clocks again it will hurt them long term, the design needs to scale in performance - and raising the clockspeeds is the easiest way to achieve this, extracting ever more IPC gets increasingly costly in regards to die space/idle power consumption.

    As I said IPC is only half the story.
    I see yes, but compared to netburst, intel had to deliver some mhz as well

    But youre logic fitts yes ..

    Let's pray the 3.0ghz part is true , and that it's a low end model

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •