Deneb just around the corner?

[Chad Boga]

Chad no hard feelings here really, you dont seem confrontational at all, hence why i still reply to you, and your not on my ignore list.

but,

for someone that quotes themself to be a 'overclocking newbie' in an intel forum only two months ago, to then come on here and spew IPC performance is sort of grating.

i do truly believe that you have no idea what your talking about now.

so i wish you all the best over at the intel forum, but remind you that you are not the first, and wont be the last intel boy to come over here, and question our logic.

WE are AMD here, and WE know what we are talking about, we niether want to bench against Intel or compare.

i wish you the best for the future, you are now on my ignore list

bye

I can't help it if you have silly ideas, including that I must be an Intel boy.

Unlike AMD tragics, I will buy from either side depending on who has the edge.

Quite clearly at this point in time, that is Intel, but it may change again in the future.

[Eson]

Well not only do I not believe that there will be a 20% IPC boost in going from Phenom to Deneb, I am amazed how many people just believe what they want to believe, rather than what is likely.

Well you for sure have made up your mind. So why bother argue? No one will bend their believes.

[Glow9]

Ahhhh so you are all bluster and are easily exposed when called upon it.

Face it, Deneb will clearly have less IPC than Penryn and will be lucky to equal Conroe.

Face it, everyone with a supporting motherboard has a new upgrade option without having to buy a brand new motherboard and DDR3.

[Chad Boga]

Face it, everyone with a supporting motherboard has a new upgrade option without having to buy a brand new motherboard and DDR3.

Sure.

[Sentential]

I suspect hitting 4 gig will be notably less common than it is for Penryn Quads.


That is quite a perverse interpretation you got going for yourself there.

Bulldozer will be a new architecture, not Deneb.

Ok both statements listed above are complete bull. Easier to hit 4 on penryn than it will be on Deneb? You gotta be kidding me; clearly you dont own a Q9300/Q9400 on any kind of SLI or Xfire board Show me ONE person on these forums who has 533mhz FSB+ and runs any kind of multi GPU setup without using an ES (you wont find anyone).

Again its been said multiple times from several sources that Deneb will be close to or match penryn which @ 4ghz (or even close) will make it quite competitive with i7 in most games. Deneb will lag in multi-threaded setups however their power consumption will be significantly lower which will still make them competitive in the server markets.

The key thing you fail to grasp is how cache dependant AMD cpus are and always have been. Do you remember the days of 128kb Semprons whooping 6mb P4EE's? No. So what do you think its going to happen when they give current Agena's who are about 25% down from i7 50% more cache and up the extensions by 33% and reduce the latency on the L2 and L3 caches by the same amount?

Ive constantly swapped between intel and amd depending on which is the better of the 2 processors and in this occasion Deneb will end up on top for a whole host of reasons:

Primarly the main reason why I moved back to AMD was because of Intel's move to integrate the IMC to the CPU. That was also the same reason I left AMD 3 years ago. Why? When they moved the MC to the cpu die they sacrificed reliability to save die space and as a result there was significant corrpution and instability with a whole host of A64s. It happened when clawhammer was first launched and happened again with Winchester.

Just like now the initial samples did not show any issues UNTIL it went retail. I gaurn-damn-tee you the intel forum is going to be filled with people having stability issues with RAM. Infact its already started with people not being able to change their memory dividers on certian boards. If its bad now on bloomfield, lynnfield will be even worse why do you think it was delayed because they had to re-wire the CPU socket?

Just like we saw with Penryn we will be limited by the multiplier (since it will be locked on retail chips in addition to the ram multi) I seriously doubt we will see *ANY* i920 or i930 over the 3.5 mark for anything other than benchmarks because there isnt a single board that is able to get over 200 QPI with any sort of reliability. And dont bother citing the one 920 on the forums now because the load temp he is getting is 80c*+ on suicide runs, it by no means is stable nor is it even retail chip to begin with.

AMD's platform for better or worse is far more mature than intel's so even if its 5 or 10% slower than i7 Ill take that anyday if it means it wont crash all the time and I dont have to spend my money on very expensive DDR3 which will be a requirement to even get i7 close to the 3.5 mark

[Oliverda]

Ahhhh so you are all bluster and are easily exposed when called upon it.

Face it, Deneb will clearly have less IPC than Penryn and will be lucky to equal Conroe.

IPC is not everything.

One of my expert friend says that the main problem with the K10 is in the memory subsystem. So I hope they could achieve some improvements in it.

Interesting performance analysis between Core 2 and K8. http://realworldtech.com/page.cfm?Ar...2808015436&p=1

[soundood]

Sentential this guy has posted basicly 3 pages of bull, he really hasnt got a clue what he is on about.

read back (if you can be bothered)

its sort of funny, the inane comments he has come away with

we really need to start to ignore these intel fanboys and wannabes, heres an idea, shall we have like an International Alarm?

like the US Advisory System or something?

hows this one?



that way we all know when something is up....

Chad Boga heres yours

[Sentential]

Maybe so but this is the same thing I told Gautam:

So you're telling me that Nelhalem using tri-channel ram WITH an imc that is ring-bus based controller and 8 threads only beats Penryn by maybe 5% in heavily multi-threaded games? And it does this while dissapating 175W+ (high 60s low 70s load temps, ie Smithfield)?... Wow intel is hosed

This is the same thing people were saying when AMD had 2 consecutive issues with scaling when a new fab process rolled out. I and others said this was bad news for AMD long term and now look at where we are.

Just like back then the only thing AMD had to keep the Pent 4s at bay was efficiency because despite being a brand new tech it all scaled like crap. While going up against a 5 year old design (which is exactally what is going on now) that was worn out and well past its prime.

The fact that nelhalem scales poorly and has significant heat dissapation without bringing anything notable to the table in raw thoroughput is a BAD sign for intel.

[Baam]

I don't think Intel fans are nervous, with the slowest 920 Nehalem outperforming QX9650 occasionally in several benches. I'm one of the few people who would like AMD to do better but very skeptical after the Barcelona debacle. 40%+ performance improvement over Clovertown and all we see is actually the opposite of that.

And are you implying that the Phenom 9950 outperforms Q6600? I highly doubt that.

http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/1...urs/page30.php

In terms of relative performance, Q6600 does outperform the Phenom 9950. If you're talking about $/performance ratio, that's a different story.

The 9950 does outperform a Q6600

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-ph...cessor-tested/

[Glow9]

The 9950 does outperform a Q6600

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-ph...cessor-tested/

In this review it's a back and forth battle, this was kinda neat

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=206025

[YukonTrooper]

Well you are wrong and way out of line.
It is ok to post and disagree with what I said.
It is not ok to make me out to be an idiot. It shows a distinct lack of respect for a fellow human and it also shows the level of your intelligence.
I made an observation based on 20 years of watching the industry and I have never seen intel react like this before. Why that warrants a personal attack is beyond me.
The fact is AMD has a cpu that has been clocked to over 4ghz on air several times now and I think that would be enough to make intel sit up and take notice.

I'm sorry if I insulted you, because that was never the intention. I was trying to use a dash of sarcasm to embolden what I thought about your presumptions. I just think "Intel running scared" is a little adventurous in conclusion.

Yes, Intel sitting up and taking notice is one thing, but Intel running scared is something totally different.

Yukon Trooper just doesn't get it, he is like most of the other fans and refuses to believe that AMD is capable of overtaking intel here.
It was only a few months ago that nvidia fans were singing from the same songbook.
AMD were as quiet as a mouse before the 4 series launch and it's exactly the same here except for the hardspell leaks and Coolaler but they were silenced pretty damn fast. Not a peep out of them since.
Nehalem hasn't been paper launched for no reason. Yes it looks good but AMD don't need to take the performance crown they can do it with price just like HD4870 has done.

Just back up a few steps. I'm not an Intel fanboy, and I think this where you have me all wrong. I don't know what you mean by AMD overtaking Intel, but I do believe they will put a competitive chip on the market, as they are kind of in a position where they have to, considering they can't afford to have another Phenom mishap.

Look, I already said I'd love to go back to an AMD system, so please don't label me as an Intel fanboy, as that is another adventurous conclusion. Before my C2D system, I had a 3800+ X2 and X1900XT, but Phenom just didn't have the performance I was after when it was released. If AMD can release a chip that is similar in performance to Nehalem at a competitive price, I will hop back on the AMD train pronto.

Which brings me to my next point: It just seems that whenever a company neutral guy comes into these AMD sections, and even makes the slightest mention that Intel has faster chips, which is totally accurate, they get flame-basted like a midsummer Californian wildfire.

[mesyn191]

The fact that nelhalem scales poorly and has significant heat dissapation without bringing anything notable to the table in raw thoroughput is a BAD sign for intel.

Not really. Intel targeted Nehalem for processing lots of threads vs. emphasis on single threaded performance. It still does quite well on single threads, at least as good as current C2D's, its just not a huge jump like some people are expecting for some reason. Intel (and IIRC AMD) has said many times that many-core is the future since the effort needed to get more single threaded performance became burdensome a long time ago and is now becoming impracticle. At some point in time you're going to see chips from Intel/AMD which have down right crappy single thread performance on a per core basis, but will have hundreds if not thousands of cores. Nehalem is just Intel's 2nd step in that direction (IIRC quad/dual cores were their first).

[gallag]

Which brings me to my next point: It just seems that whenever a company neutral guy comes into these AMD sections, and even makes the slightest mention that Intel has faster chips, which is totally accurate, they get flame-basted like a midsummer Californian wildfire.

QFT, Even giving a realistic opinion gets you labelled a fanboy ffs.

[roofsniper]

you know just from reading the threads that have deneb in the name i have mentally created a list of people that just come to the amd forums to flame people. its the same people everytime and chad i really don't think you know anything about amd.

but at least soon all this flaming will end because if deneb does come out soon or shanghai at least then we will see how it is. i think deneb will be really well but theres nothing to say for certain yet. same thing with nehalem. don't tell me of all the benchmarks you have seen for it, if it has not been released yet you don't know how it will be. the original intent of this thread was to let people in the amd section know that deneb might be coming soon. instead this has turned into a flame war inbetween 2 unreleased processors with no one here being able to provide any information that will back it up. you can hope and guess what you think will happen but no one can say deneb sucks or nehalem sucks until they are actually released.

[Sentential]

Not really. Intel targeted Nehalem for processing lots of threads vs. emphasis on single threaded performance. It still does quite well on single threads, at least as good as current C2D's, its just not a huge jump like some people are expecting for some reason. Intel (and IIRC AMD) has said many times that many-core is the future since the effort needed to get more single threaded performance became burdensome a long time ago and is now becoming impracticle. At some point in time you're going to see chips from Intel/AMD which have down right crappy single thread performance on a per core basis, but will have hundreds if not thousands of cores. Nehalem is just Intel's 2nd step in that direction (IIRC quad/dual cores were their first).

I'm completely with you on this one, the problem that I have is that this chip is supposed to be the basis for all of their new cpus for the next 5 years or so and if this is all they have to offer they are in trouble.

I understand the arguement about threading, I do, but my concern is that we are comparing a brand new arch vs a design that is atleast 4 years old (Clawhammer -> Agena)

It would be one thing if Nelhalem was a 16/32 core chip with 64k of cache per core and it wound up peforming this well but its not, its a quad with hyperthreading and tri-channel RAM that provides zero peformance gain in multi-threaded games.

So what should we expect of lynfield? Is it going to be worse than C2D? By all accounts it should be. As for bloomfield and 1366 I believe this socket will quickly dissappear just like Socket 940 did back in the A64 days leaving only LGA1158 as being the widely adopted platform which will have less peformance, and poorer overclocking than bloomfield does.

Then what does this say of K11 when it arrives sometime late next year? Multi-thread or not if they dont get the peformance up they are going to get whomped by whatever AMD has to offer come next year.

This is the same arguement made about physics cards. Oh its wonderful this, oh its next-gen that. Bottom line is that it didnt deliver. Sure it may be future-proof but what good does it do if no one programs for it?

Hell 64bit procesors have been around over 5 years now and we have still yet to see any widespread adaptation to the new format. So what does that say to this philosophy of "more cores?"

Believe you me Ive got no axe to grind here, hell I argued that Pentium Ds were a better buy back in the hay-day of the A64s because of the early issues with AMD flawed initial mem-controllers and said that Conroe would *destroy* any market share AMD had gotten once it was released and I was ridiculed for it.

In this occassion I just dont see Intel as viable anymore. The heat dissapation issues with Nelhalem and its lack of ability to scale is going to ultimately doom Intel unless they can fix this with the 32nm process.

The only way that Intel is not going to get overrun next year is if they can get some serious clock scaling because if AMD makes any substantial changes to their arch they will quickly catch up to Intel and we will be right back to where we were back in the Netburst days. Intel will once again have a bloated chip that is only competitive due to its enormous cache size because it was made on a smaller fab process.

We are pretty much at the same exact apex right before the release of Clawhammer back in 2002. Intel had a faster chip that had significant heat dissapation and cost significantly more than the AMD equivalent. AMD chips were cheap as hell and when on certian combinations could come very very close to their Northwood counterparts. AMD was left with an ageing arch and were thought left for dead since they were a good 10-20% IPC below current HT enabled P4s.

Then AMD after many many delays finally got a viable new arch and then everyone hopped back on the bandwagon.

Only difference is I'm hopping on now while I can get top dollar for my existing C2D equipment

[Chad Boga]

you know just from reading the threads that have deneb in the name i have mentally created a list of people that just come to the amd forums to flame people. its the same people everytime and chad i really don't think you know anything about amd.

And just what exactly is there to know about AMD?

They have been behind in performance on the desktop ever since Core 2 was released and it doesn't appear that has any hope of changing until they release a new architecture.

It is difficult to imagine that Deneb will be a game changer, even if it does end up improving AMD's competitive position somewhat, but saying this apparently makes me a heretic.

Some people need to take a more rational approach.

[Chad Boga]

Chad Boga heres yours

I find it really strange how you have chosen to identify so closing with the corporation AMD.

Do you have difficulties forming normal relationships with people and have become attached to AMD as a result?

[malice85]

And just what exactly is there to know about AMD?

They have been behind in performance on the desktop ever since Core 2 was released and it doesn't appear that has any hope of changing until they release a new architecture.

It is difficult to imagine that Deneb will be a game changer, even if it does end up improving AMD's competitive position somewhat, but saying this apparently makes me a heretic.

Some people need to take a more rational approach.

So stating your speculations as facts is a rational approach?

[mesyn191]

I'm completely with you on this one, the problem that I have is that this chip is supposed to be the basis for all of their new cpus for the next 5 years or so and if this is all they have to offer they are in trouble.

5yr.? Source please.

I understand the arguement about threading, I do, but my concern is that we are comparing a brand new arch vs a design that is atleast 4 years old (Clawhammer -> Agena)

Its my understanding that K10 has about as much to do with K8 as C2D had to do with the PIII, strongly related/inspired by yes but not the same thing.

It would be one thing if Nelhalem was a 16/32 core chip with 64k of cache per core and it wound up peforming this well but its not, its a quad with hyperthreading and tri-channel RAM that provides zero peformance gain in multi-threaded games.

I'm sure I've seen benches where it does great in UT3 based games and that is heavily multi-threaded, AFAIK not much out there ATM to compare...

So what should we expect of lynfield? Is it going to be worse than C2D? By all accounts it should be.

Can you expand on this? I didn't know we had heard so much about Lynfield yet. Same in regards to K11 too.

This is the same arguement made about physics cards. Oh its wonderful this, oh its next-gen that. Bottom line is that it didnt deliver. Sure it may be future-proof but what good does it do if no one programs for it?

AFAIK both major x86 CPU makers are going in the same direction, just taking slightly different routes to get there, if programmers want to get performance out of either of them they won't have much choice.

Hell 64bit procesors have been around over 5 years now and we have still yet to see any widespread adaptation to the new format. So what does that say to this philosophy of "more cores?"

Historically it normally takes ~10 yr. for any major architectural changes to achieve widespread use in programming. There were similar issues when switching over from 16 to 32 bit software IIRC.

[Sentential]

5yr.? Source please.

Thats generally about how long each major revision lasts generally speaking (or atleast these last couple of years it has been)

Its my understanding that K10 has about as much to do with K8 as C2D had to do with the PIII, strongly related/inspired by yes but not the same thing.

K10 and K8 are pretty much identical iirc the only thing that seperates them is the cache sizes, latency and instruction sets but the basic building blocks are the same which is why their IPC is almost identical. K8 to K10 chips are about as similar northwood to prescott/pressler. Ya its a different chip but its more or less the same.

As far as conroe vs p3 ya you could make that arguement as well but the chief difference would be conroe's out-of-order read/write in its internal pipeline plus a whole bunch of tweeks.

I'm sure I've seen benches where it does great in UT3 based games and that is heavily multi-threaded, AFAIK not much out there ATM to compare...

Ive seen a couple crysis benchmarks and those are threaded, frankly I would like to see a world of warcraft comparison as that is probably the most highly threaded game I can possibly think of.

Can you expand on this? I didn't know we had heard so much about Lynfield yet. Same in regards to K11 too.

Lynfield is identical to Bloomfield with the exception that lyn is strictly dual-channel and in addition it incorporates a PCI-E controller on-die like Phenoms do

AFAIK both major x86 CPU makers are going in the same direction, just taking slightly different routes to get there, if programmers want to get performance out of either of them they won't have much choice.

Again I agree, but Nelhalem is a step in the wrong direction. By all accounts it ought to slaughter Penryn by 30% or more because the main bottle-neck for C2Ds was the available bandwidth between the cores / memory. So one would think that there would be a difference between dual and tri channel. So far its only a measly 200 points... thats NOT a good sign.

Historically it normally takes ~10 yr. for any major architectural changes to achieve widespread use in programming. There were similar issues when switching over from 16 to 32 bit software IIRC.

Ya again I agree, the problem is that Intel is betting the farm on the programs actually being there for this CPU to shine, so far it hasnt happened nor does it look like it will anytime soon.

[roofsniper]

And just what exactly is there to know about AMD?

They have been behind in performance on the desktop ever since Core 2 was released and it doesn't appear that has any hope of changing until they release a new architecture.

It is difficult to imagine that Deneb will be a game changer, even if it does end up improving AMD's competitive position somewhat, but saying this apparently makes me a heretic.

Some people need to take a more rational approach.

it is hard having an educated conversation with you as you just make stuff up and so things without fact. and i can't believe you think others need to take a more rational approach when you don't know any facts at all. just because you believe intel is better and amd is completely behind in performance doesn't mean you need to come in here when amd is releasing a new chip and acting like ehhhhh its gonna suck. you have no basis for you information other than your opinion and because of that you having nothing to say of use my friend.

[charged3800z24]

Well, AMD is not hugely lacking in performance..They just don't have a high end dhip out yet. The Current Phenoms hold their own at their price. It is just right now AMD has a lil less edge in the market they are in. Just like Intel did a few years back. AMD stated back a few months ago ( I will try to find the source...) that they did not intend on stealing the performance crown yet, and will focus on the low and midrange in the desktop CPU side. There quad cores do well in the Multi server market, and shanghi will extend the performance quite well. They are focusing on servers where it is more profitable for them. The desktop side will just see a nice boost which is a plus for us AM2/AM2+ owners. And who knows, we might see a nice surprise with Deneb...they said they had better then expected results in the revisions made to the 45nm chips.

[m411b]

Edit for posting something stupid

[roofsniper]

Well, AMD is not hugely lacking in performance..They just don't have a high end dhip out yet. The Current Phenoms hold their own at their price. It is just right now AMD has a lil less edge in the market they are in. Just like Intel did a few years back. AMD stated back a few months ago ( I will try to find the source...) that they did not intend on stealing the performance crown yet, and will focus on the low and midrange in the desktop CPU side. There quad cores do well in the Multi server market, and shanghi will extend the performance quite well. They are focusing on servers where it is more profitable for them. The desktop side will just see a nice boost which is a plus for us AM2/AM2+ owners. And who knows, we might see a nice surprise with Deneb...they said they had better then expected results in the revisions made to the 45nm chips.

+1 you always feel the need to enlighten people.

[GenTarkin]

Well, AMD is not hugely lacking in performance..They just don't have a high end dhip out yet. The Current Phenoms hold their own at their price. It is just right now AMD has a lil less edge in the market they are in. Just like Intel did a few years back. AMD stated back a few months ago ( I will try to find the source...) that they did not intend on stealing the performance crown yet, and will focus on the low and midrange in the desktop CPU side. There quad cores do well in the Multi server market, and shanghi will extend the performance quite well. They are focusing on servers where it is more profitable for them. The desktop side will just see a nice boost which is a plus for us AM2/AM2+ owners. And who knows, we might see a nice surprise with Deneb...they said they had better then expected results in the revisions made to the 45nm chips.

Well, I just hope the above mentioned "they said they had better then expected results in the revisions made to the 45nm chipset." statement from them is true this time. I remember around before the launch of the phenom they said the same thing about it and it was a let down to everyone.
Phenom has finally grown into something worthy, I think, but at first it had a stumbling jump outta the gate.

I just wonder if the above statement applys to all us enthusiasts who are hoping to 3-4ghz on air easily....vs what they(AMD) are truely internally satisfied with ie: 3.3ghz or something meager...