Quote Originally Posted by JumpingJack View Post
I disagree, looking over mAJORD data, pretty much in agreement with the reviews that did similar, we are looking at 4 to 18% IPC improvement over K8 -- This is healthy, the K10 design rev from that point of view is successful.

If you compared Conroe (Core 2) over Yonah (Core) you get the same kind of 4 to 20% ish type of improvements depending on the app... any design that achieves ~ 10-15% (on average) improvement IPC wise is a good. What made Conroe shine so much was not the improvement over the prior tech along it's same lineage, but the improvement over the segment product which was along a different lineage... then again, it wasn't too difficult to improve over Prescott.
QFT.

And for the records. I'm sure all you guys agree A64 was a success, wasn't it?

Well, I've recolected benches results from two reviews (hardware.fr web, in this case). First, A64 launch (sep-2003, comparing FX-51 vs XP 3200+, both at 2.2ghz); second, Phenom launch (nov-2007, comparing Phenom 9600 X2, two cores vs. A64 X2 4400+, both at 2.3ghz):



Well, Phenom perfomance gain is just fine. K10 arch is OK, IMHO.

What's been the problem? two word: clock frequency.

AMD has failed with mhz, not arch per se (on the contrary, to me arch is fine and elegant), but clock frequency, for whatever reason, some L3 bug, or MB bug, or whatever. It limits right now to launch higher freqs. But it seems they will solve it soon (with B3). And additionally, it seems that Phenom will gain even some more % perf with it


BTW! great work mAJORD!