Reverse-HT???? Are you kidding?Originally Posted by iddqd
Reverse-HT???? Are you kidding?
This is a must see...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=F7LNUkHa7U8
E5335 is only 2.0ghz not 2.33ghz. That's the one where's no clear winner in techport review.
There's fantasy and then there's reality...
http://www.electronics.ca/presscente...sed/Page1.html
In the first-half of this year, AMD reached already the top10.
Not bad for "intensive care unit", imagine what will happen now, that AMD have a more competitive product.
Last edited by DoubleZero; 09-12-2007 at 05:16 AM.
at anand there is no clear winner to me,and that is done with 2.33 ghz
you are completely right on your other statement
i will just sit and wait what higher clocked barca's and phenoms will bring us
if that doesnt do the trick i'll buy intel for my next setup
I suggest you read this before you comment : http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...4&postcount=97at anand there is no clear winner to me,and that is done with 2.33 ghz
you are completely right on your other statement
i will just sit and wait what higher clocked barca's and phenoms will bring us
if that doesnt do the trick i'll buy intel for my next setup
Of all the tests performed at AnandTech, Barcelona won 5 and Xeon won 3. The total percentages by which each one beat the other were 27.13 and 73.94. This means that when Barcelona won, it won by much less percentage-wise. And when Xeon won it, won by a a lot more. These tests do not demonstrate the performance AMD's website indicated they should, nor do they include the fastest Intel parts available today.
If we then look to a much more comprehensive benchmark at The Tech Report we find Barcelona winning 3 tests, and Xeon winning 23 tests. The total percentages were 123.63 and 634.26. It's also worth noting that the bulk of the large Barcelona percentage shown here comes from a single test which included a 121.14% improvement over Xeon in memory bandwidth using a 1 GB test set. If we remove that test, then Barcelona's three wins only total a 2.49% over Xeon's. And if that memory test had used data sets of anything at 64MB or below, then it would've shown Xeon winning by similar percentages at various data set sizes.
All told at both sites, Barcelona wins 8 and Xeon wins 26. The total percentages across 38 benchmarks were 150.76 and 708.2 values. The average winning percentages are 18.85% for Barcelona and 30.79% for Xeon. If we remove the one benchmark which had Barcelona winning by 121.14%, then the results are average winning percentages for Barcelona of 4.23% on only 22% of the benchmarks. And 32.19% for Xeon on 78%. This indicates that in those instances where Barcelona wins, it wins by a much smaller margin than Xeon. So small that it's hardly worth mentioning, especially when you consider there are two faster clocked processors available today from Intel.
Oh yes...did it ever occurred to you that AMD's rise was due to ATI's acquisition ?
Secondly , would you bet for AMD staying in top 10 this year ?
And you should read this conclusion from AT early preview of K10:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3091&p=13
Conclusion
It's close to a nightmare to try to review a server CPU in a few days, but we hope we have at least provided you with an idea what AMD's newest quad-core is capable of. We'll summarize our preliminary results with this small table.
The Opteron 2350 (2 GHz) vs. Xeon "Clovertown"
General applications Opteron 2350 (2GHz) equates to Xeon clock speed of:
WinRAR 3.62 2.7 GHz
Fritz Chess engine 1.8 GHz
HPC applications
Intel optimized Linpack 1.9 GHz
3D Applications
3DS Max 9 2 GHz
zVisuel 3D Kribi Engine 2.33 - 2.4 GHz
zVisuel 3D Kribi Engine (AA) 2.4 GHz
Server applications
Specjbb 2.4 GHz
MySQL 2.33 GHz
Considering that AMD prices this Opteron 2350 under the Xeon 5345, AMD has an attractive price/performance offering for most applications. The only exception is a chess engine and highly optimized Intel binaries. Although our testing is not finished yet, there is very little doubt that AMD's newest chip is very energy efficient
Don't judge the K10 by the benches seen at Tech-Report and Anandtech.
There is strong evidence suggesting that the chips used in those reviews, were bug ridden.
According to Dave Graham over at AMD Zone who has connections with AMD:
I knew something had to be wrong with those benches! The SSE performance in particular, was just too low considering the K10's enhancements in that area.i've been asked to pass this to my FAE @ AMD.
what people have been benching is the B1 chip stepping with a BIOS patch applied to get around errata #281 (conspicuously absent on that errata worksheet). BA is the production stepping that fixes this issue on the NB itself and will handle some of the performance "issues" people have beening about. B2 steppings are the "SE" or higher rated parts.
cheers,
dave
ill take performance leader for energy efficienty leader on desktop any day
I cant understand how people believe AMD sent out bugged systems for review. I would near blindly accept this if they obtained them from a third party but AMD sent them, Seriously, Do you think this is likely?
Also it is pretty funny that a lot of amd fans are saying "I am not disappointed, k10 is great, I am very very happy with it,BUT ALSO DONT BELIEVE ANY OF THE REVIEWS i AM BASING THIS GREATNESS ON BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN DONE WITH BUGGED CHIPS AND MAKE IT LOOK BAD" LOL
What you see is what you get.
In case you missed it,look at what freq. intel quad must work to attain the same level of performance(i even bolded it for you).ill take performance leader for energy efficienty leader on desktop any day
They had to meet the launch date.
For God's sake, did you even read the reviews? In some benches, there was practically NO IMPROVEMENT over the K8, and in certain synthetic benches ie memory latency, the performance was worse compared to the K8.
These chips were bugged, thats a fact. The reviews were not done on retail samples.
Still playing the old disk ?
The systems were sent by AMD , secondly IBM published benchmarks too and they used a B1 chip , Anandtech used B2.So AMD screwed IBM and the public ? Mind you , AMD's own benchmarks were done on B1 or earlier.
Bx chips do not have performance bugs , they have only different scaling capabilities.End of story.
And the whole "testing" was done in a hurry and not in detail(plus some tests favored intel since they were compiled with highly optimized Intel binaries)
its easier to live with a lie, than live with the truth.
anyways ill wait till november, till than solid numbers should have turned up.
Not only are they willing to believe that AMD is a bunch of brain-damaged clowns for sending out bugged and crippled chips and systems directly to reviewers only 3 days before launch, but also that they are so bloody brain-damaged that they don't even say anything about it in the days afterwards.
YOU WOULD THINK THAT BY NOW AMD WOULD HAVE GOTTEN AROUND TO SAYING "OH HEY, WE WUZ JUST JOKING SENDING YOU THOSE CRIPPLED CHIPS FOR YOU TO REVIEW FOR ALL THE WORLD, HERE ARE THE REAL PARTS NOW"
But no, the story doesn't have to make a bit of sense as long as it keeps the hope and hype alive and hey some guy on a message board said it was so. That's credible isn't it?
lol, and your point is?
I guess AMD bougth ATI for something...
Funny that when it comes to revenue ATI is relevant, but when it comes to debt it seems AMD never bought ATI.
Well yes since AMD reached the Top10 THIS YEAR, with a 4 year old product, and now has a new one.Secondly , would you bet for AMD staying in top 10 this year ?
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...p-10-list.html
mabey using l3 is making latencys worse?
Not only are they willing to believe that AMD is a bunch of brain-damaged clowns for sending out bugged and crippled chips and systems directly to reviewers only 3 days before launch, but also that they are so bloody brain-damaged that they don't even say anything about it in the days afterwards.
YOU WOULD THINK THAT BY NOW AMD WOULD HAVE GOTTEN AROUND TO SAYING "OH HEY, WE WUZ JUST JOKING SENDING YOU THOSE CRIPPLED CHIPS FOR YOU TO REVIEW FOR ALL THE WORLD, HERE ARE THE REAL PARTS NOW"
But no, the story doesn't have to make a bit of sense as long as it keeps the hope and hype alive and hey some guy on a message board said it was so. That's credible isn't it?
Umh , that's for 2006.I'm asking about 2007.lol, and your point is?
I guess AMD bougth ATI for something...
Funny that when it comes to revenue ATI is relevant, but when it comes to debt it seems AMD never bought ATI.
Well yes since AMD reached the Top10 THIS YEAR, with a 4 year old product, and now has a new one.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...p-10-list.html
The B2 chips still has the memory controller bugs.
Still playing the old disk ?
The systems were sent by AMD , secondly IBM published benchmarks too and they used a B1 chip , Anandtech used B2.So AMD screwed IBM and the public ? Mind you , AMD's own benchmarks were done on B1 or earlier.
Bx chips do not have performance bugs , they have only different scaling capabilities.End of story.
According to Graham, the BA stepping solves the memory performance issues.
Just look at the review! You can tell something is wrong with the memory performance of these chips.
The latency benches that Tech-Report conducted were abismal.
The SSE optimized benches also weren't up to par, considering the doubled SSE throughput.
If this is the final performance we can expect from the K10, then AMD screwed up horribly.
Nevermind it was retarded isupply saying AMD was top10 in 2006 when it was not... i thought they were saying 1H 2007, it was the only thing that made sense.
Real numbers:
http://www.electronics.ca/presscente...006/Page1.html
http://www.electronics.ca/presscente...ing/Page1.html
Both AMD and Intel raised from 1H 2006.
About 1.9GHz with Techreport's review.
Look, why don't people just accept what it is, K10 is nice, it has near the same ipc as conroe and is very thrifty with power usage, Its a nice chip but the main people hurting AMD at the minute are all the AMD fanboys hypeing the hell out of it and always raising expectations not only that but do you not think you are hurting the company you love so much by insisting that they have launched buggy chips, do you not want them to sell these bloody things?
Just accept it and look forward to higher clocks on phenom
Ummm.... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the range of TDP for AMD's quad core from 80-120 watts, 120 being for the higher clocked parts that are not even out yet? While I agree... 80 watts is good for a quad, it certainly doesn't blow my skirt up.
At the same time though Intel is stuck with fb dimms and looking at the reviews so far amd has better performance per watt with k10 (at least till 45nm)
dual cpu platform with unreg ddr2? nice!I agree... FBDIMMs kinda kill the power argument, well... that and the southbridge, northbridge.
Oh, and BTW with San Clemente you'll lose all the craptastic power adders to Intel's platform. ICH9 + DDR2 FTW!!!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks