I was expecting more. However, AMD did make a great showing in the power consumption department.
I was expecting more. However, AMD did make a great showing in the power consumption department.
2.5 Barc has a 120w TDP, 100w APC.Originally Posted by gallag
Stock QX6700/6850 have a 130w TDP.
A stock phase supposedly can't handle 200w of heat, which a decently +3.5ghz quad puts out.
intel quads might have 130W TDP but far away form actually consuming it. They are more in the range of 90W.
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLACQ
G0 Q6700 is 95W aswell. And I dont think 1 stepping changed that with 35W
Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.
The server benches look good, the desktop less so. It will be interesting to see how well it improves with motherboards and memory speeds designed for the Phenom in Q4.
I guess the happiest people will be the drop in replacement server guys who have a cheap way of boosting their current K8 based systems with little hassle. It's a no brainer for them. For the home user it still remains to be seen whether it is a good upgrade or not. It's not a disaster but it's not the second coming either.
For overclockers things look decidedly iffy at this, admittedly early, stage. It's going to have to compete against something that is likely to overclock to 4GHz+ come November and have the potential to be pretty cheap.
I hope this is not another HD2900XT, ie a good product but not up to everyones expectations cultured over the extended developement phase.
Regards
Andy
The only question is why would someone buy 1st revision chips NOW when in 2-3 months we'll see the good ones coming out?
that's the whole point that many people don't understand... in serverland there is always a rule to buy cpu n-x you never buy the best performer.
in other words for AMD it is enough to have 2.0-2.3-2.5 server parts, the amount of sold highest cpu's is minimal. not like the desktop parts where there are plenty of idiots buying the top bin.
even if a new stepping will arrive it won't be much faster clock/clock. it will have other main improvements like power consumption and improved clock speed.
@shintai when are you going to stop all those idiots comments each 5 minutes. Yes it is due to g0 that there is a huge drop in powerconsumption against B3. What the hell is a power rating of a desktop chip doing on a newsforum of an AMD server chip, stay happy and post only on the INTEL fanboy subforum.
and for the chip itself, it is more than decent and a nice competitor for current offerings when the speedbump is there in a few weeks, the only problem is that it is a few months late, let's see what you're favorite vendor will bring after this 45nm die shrink. Barcelona has a lot of room to improve. clock/cache/memory/shrink/split powerplain not to forget the HTT3 that is very interesting on a +2 socket system.
Last edited by duploxxx; 09-10-2007 at 03:56 AM.
AMD's problem is Intel's cpu n-x is faster than AMD's best performer.
amd's advantage is the price....
comapny x has x number of k8 opterons... and its x $ cheaper to buy k10's and to put them into the socket they removed the k8 from compared to buying intel cpus + mobo's + ram
Unless the K8 opterons are from the S940 era. Socket F sales didn't do too well vs Woodcrest and especially Clovertown.
Last edited by accord99; 09-10-2007 at 04:14 AM.
I corrected the little mistake.. AMD *really* needs higher ASPs
It seems Intel will rule the desktop/Notebook sector for quite a while (barc clocks slower than conroe, only 15% ipc improvements over K8, penryn around the corner) and it seems that they will put up a real fight with fsb 1600mhz penryn against barc. but yeah barc is quite strong when it comes to server applications.
What's the point in comparing a dual core and a quad?
SmartAss
face it K8 at 3Ghz wanst going to happen neither, LOL instead they nailed guys like you with releasing a 3.2ghz 90nm cpu at stock..
in other words why all teh guessing and hating?
I almost mistook you for shintai then..
MR Smartarse.. some valid points, but a lot of opinion
Forget DDR, when comparing the same RAM tech, K8 was very dependent on bandwidth for certain work
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2800&p=7
You can be pessimistic about seeing a higher clocked K10 before the years end, but it seems things are looking not so bad as it is.. The impressive power consumption when compared to K8 90nm say it all.
Damn, 25% faster clocked 2360 peaks 62W more!
3GHz Barch not here yet? Oh well so what, it'll come eventually. I mean did everyone whine and complain when C2D was released below 3GHz? No, they just OC'd them to get there
Now this is just the server arena 1st so we won't be seeing much of an OC yet to tell if it is the same case or not. Once Phenom is released though then we'll be able to clock these chips.
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
on a slightly different note...
Another review:
http://www.tecchannel.de/index.cfm?p...pk=1729224&p=1
I Can't read german so that entire review just makes my head hurt bigtime.. (plus it's bed time). I can read the graphs though, Anyone (or many of you) who CAN read german care to take a looksie, The results of 2ghz barc vs 2.33ghz Xeon look more impressive than the other 2 reports, interested in why it may be.
goodnight
I am not insisting latency is not important either, They both have an impact, but bandwidth is definatly more important for more workloads in my experience.. you're comparing 2 different mem controllers there, it's just invalid.
Super pi is no exception I've found. Read the article agian you'll see the latency settings are slightly higher at the higher frequency, yet performance is still scaling in a big way compared to core.. that's undeniable, and that's what the point is. If core 2 also scaled with faster memory in the same way, a suggestion that phenom will perform better with A grade ram would be flawed on that basis alone.
Now the impact of the L3 on K10 on the other hand, we'll have to see..
Very interesting, especially the results for SPECint_rate_base2006.
There will be faster K10's for the same amount of money. My comment still stands. Why would someone buy a k10 now, and not in a 2-3 months. If not for clock speed then for reduced power consumption. The current revision is only for the shareholders.
I dont care what an Intel favored test shows. No virtualization at all... Wheres the benches showing the FP power of the chip?
It is an early release, lets see the chip in Q4 on a newer platform and we dont even know how it reacts to overclocking yet.
AMD X2 3800+
DFi LANPARTY UT NF590 SLI-M2R/G
2 x 1Gb Crucial PC8500 [Anniversary Heatspreaders]
Custom Watercooling on the way
Thermalright XP-90 right now
27" 1080p HDTV for monitor
Because they are exercising server workloads, and AMD's dual socket interconnect fairs better than Intel's dual FSB.... on CPU bound workloads, this is not the case... i.e. Desktop.
AMD will be competitive winning some losing some on server applications, and will fall short on DT....
Core for core, clock for clock -- Barcey improved about 15% over K8... this is short of the Core advantage by 5-10%....
Jack
Well, I think we can all agree that it's not going to score 30k in 06 now with 2 2900XT's.......
Core i7 3770K
EVGA GTX780 + Surround
EVGA GTX670
EVGA Z77 FTW
8GB (2x4GB) G.Skill 1600Mhz DDR3
Ultra X3 1000w PSU PSU
Windows 7 Pro 64bit
Thermaltake Xaser VI
i woudnt agree with that.. simply because we havent seen the performance yet of k10 with a *proper* chipset and real ram.
Nobody said a stock barcelona or 2.5ghz clocked would do that.Well, I think we can all agree that it's not going to score 30k in 06 now with 2 2900XT's.......
and we can all agree it's faster then intel latest offering.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks