If Phenom had Core i7 spec

[PeteRoy]

Would Phenom be a lot faster if it had Core i7 cache sizes and operating frequency

Phenom has: L2 Cache: 4 x 512KB and L3 Cache: 2MB

Core i7 has: L2 Cache: 4 x 256KB and L3 Cache: 8MB

Phenom has top speed of: 2.6Ghz

Core i7 has top speed of: 3.2Ghz

Phenom process is: 65nm

Core i7 process is: 45nm

Both have integrated memory controllers

Both are true quad cores and not 2 cores in one package.



In other words, it reads like Phenom is a Core i7 prototype

I wonder if it would have been as fast as Core i7 if it had the cache sizes, the 45nm process technology and the 3.2Ghz speed.

 

[OCGuy]

If phenom lags behind Yorkfield, I dont know how it could catch up to i7 with the same specs.

 

[Lonyo]

Well, we will see when Shanghai comes at higher clocks (3GHz), 6MB cache and 45nm.

Or Deneb. Whatever it's called.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: PeteRoy
Would Phenom be a lot faster if it had Core i7 cache sizes and operating frequency

To answer this question we need merely to conduct a test wherein we (1) downclock an i7 to the same clockspeed as an X4, and (2) run an application which we know fits nicely inside the Phenom cache structure so it's performance is not cache-size limited on the X4 (and thus not limited on the i7 as well).

My suspicion is that the answer we will get is that the i7 still completes more IPC (instructions per clock-cycle) than the Phenom even when the tests are intentionally restricted in such a manner as to mask this specific architecture difference between the two architectures.

On the flip side though, try and find an i7 priced as low as an X4. If you convert to evaluating IPC/$ then X4 no doubt wins. Likewise if you convert to evaluating IPC/watt then i7 wins.

 

[JackyP]

Originally posted by: PeteRoy
In other words, it reads like Phenom is a Core i7 prototype

I know you guys do not mean to offend saying that, but it reads like an insult to Intel. Not Intel the monopolistic, multi-billion dollar company, but to the hundreds of clever minds (i.e. some of the best IC engineers in the world!) working for years on such a chip and delivering bleeding edge performance.
You need to understand that a flow-chart/feature chart of a CPU is just an incredibly rough sketch of what is actually inside. The differences between those chips are enormous, the design choices, though, may be similiar to some extent.

 

[PeteRoy]

JackyP, look at it this way, in which way Intel would more like me to appreciate their knowledge and all their employees, by saying how much impressed I am about their chips or by buying them at launch with rocket high prices?

I am planning to buy the Core i7 as soon as it becomes available to me.

So I am very appreciative of their technology

And this thread was just made by my curiosity, I do not really understand the inner workings of a CPU, all I know is terms like integrated memory controller, types of cache levels, how many cores a cpu has and how many transistors.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: PeteRoy
Would Phenom be a lot faster if it had Core i7 cache sizes and operating frequency

Phenom has: L2 Cache: 4 x 512KB and L3 Cache: 2MB

Core i7 has: L2 Cache: 4 x 256KB and L3 Cache: 8MB

Phenom has top speed of: 2.6Ghz

Core i7 has top speed of: 3.2Ghz

Phenom process is: 65nm

Core i7 process is: 45nm

Both have integrated memory controllers

Both are true quad cores and not 2 cores in one package.



In other words, it reads like Phenom is a Core i7 prototype

I wonder if it would have been as fast as Core i7 if it had the cache sizes, the 45nm process technology and the 3.2Ghz speed.

Deneb should have those specs. (or at least close) i7 has 6.5MB of usable cache per core (8MB - 1.5MB of L2 cache for the other 3 cores that is copied into L3). Deneb has 6.625 MB of L3 Cache available per core (6MB + 512KB L2 + 128KB L1) since it has exclusive cache. So they have almost identical usable cache volume. Deneb is expected to launch with 2.8GHz and 3.0GHz models, so it will have a similar clock speed. That said the actual core logic is about half the size of i7 core logic, so there are obviously major differences in the architecture. A big part of that may be the lack of hyper-threading on Deneb, but there are sure to be many other differences. On a macro level they have very similar features (similar effective cache size, similar IMC, similar QPI/HTT, similar core frequency, similar "uncore" frequency) but it is hard to compare them, since they really are much different architectures. We don't have too long to wait to find out how Deneb compares with i7, so we shall know soon enough how it stacks up.

 

[Fox5]

If you gave Phenom the cache of Core i7 and the same clock speed, it'd probably be about equal in single threaded performance...
But I can't see it touching multithreaded. Intel really has a focused design with their chips that may not be extendable as AMD's, but it seems better designed around what they actually planned the chip to do. On the other hand, AMD has gotten a lot of mileage out of their designs, they've certainly achieved maximum longevity for their design ideas.

 

[JackyP]

Originally posted by: PeteRoy
JackyP, look at it this way, in which way Intel would more like me to appreciate their knowledge and all their employees, by saying how much impressed I am about their chips or by buying them at launch with rocket high prices?

I am planning to buy the Core i7 as soon as it becomes available to me.

So I am very appreciative of their technology

And this thread was just made by my curiosity, I do not really understand the inner workings of a CPU, all I know is terms like integrated memory controller, types of cache levels, how many cores a cpu has and how many transistors.

Almighty Intel will forgive you if you buy their extreme edition, twice! j/k

I don't think so, Fox5, at least when comparing the processor features and simple math:
On average Nehalem is at least equal to penryn in single threaded performance, AMD has not and will not implement as agressive prefetchers as Intel did with merom/penryn so they won't match penryn-esque single-threaded performance anyway.

 

[Kraeoss]

lol... all i care is that it performs as close as possible to it... and be competitively priced so as to keep the cost as balanced as possible.