-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
K10 Barcelona 50% faster than Kentsfield ?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
this fall supposedly. as big a fan of amd as i am (my last intel was celeron 300a), i think it's going to be hard for me to buy a k10 knowing that 45nm penryn is right around the corner, probably with higher clock than k10. now if amd allows people to have a clear upgrade path from 65nm k10 to 45nm k10 on the same motherboard, and provided that k10 outperforms intel, then i might stick with amd. i dont wanna buy k10+mobo only to have to replace the mobo when 45nm k10 comes out.
coldpower27
Golden Member
Title is misleading. Doesn't matter if Barcelona is faster then Kentsfield as these 2 don't compete, Bareclona being faster then Clovertown is the proper one and isn't as surprising as SpecFP does better the more memory bandwidth you have not to mention in FP calculations K8 is pretty much equal to Core clock for clock. So it's completely playing to AMD's strengths. K10 will further increase AMD's FP advantage as it adds even more FP execution resources.
coldpower27
Golden Member
Agena won't arrive till sometime in Q4 this year so were looking at roughly 1 Quarter advantage to AMD as the mainstream Yorkfield Quad's won't get here till Q1 2008 for desktops with the Mobile and Server DP launches happening in Q4.
If anything, Intel is far more notorious for requiring motherboard/chipset changes between CPU families.
AMD has thus far guaranteed that K10 will require a BIOS update in socket-compatible motherboards. Die-shrinks on the Athlon 64 X2 CPUs have been handled in the same manner; with BIOS updates on socket-compatible motherboards.
RichUK
Lifer
Lol. Specfp is a benchmark designed to test floating point performance. No wonder these results are in AMD?s favour.
The K10 is supposed to be an FP monster, hence the supposed superior performance relating to that article. This, however, doesn?t equate to processing performance in its entirety.
This will be about the only ?benchmark? that will be in AMD?s favour.
It?s meaningless.
Once Intel starts rolling out 45nm silicon, it will severely cripple AMD in the market.
You must understand how invaluable a die shrink actually is. It?ll breathe yet even more life into the already very successful Core 2 architecture. Intel is already touting possible level 2 caches in the region 6MB ? 12MB, although the extra Cache is relative in performance, it really shows how advanced Intel is becoming with its new manufacturing process and architectures.
I can?t say it?s looking at all good for AMD.
It looks like this AMD/ATI merger has had a real negative impact on business. The same thing is happening with R600, they just can?t keep up with the pace, and before they know it they?ll be too far behind.
The K10 is supposed to be an FP monster, hence the supposed superior performance relating to that article. This, however, doesn?t equate to processing performance in its entirety.
This will be about the only ?benchmark? that will be in AMD?s favour.
It?s meaningless.
Once Intel starts rolling out 45nm silicon, it will severely cripple AMD in the market.
You must understand how invaluable a die shrink actually is. It?ll breathe yet even more life into the already very successful Core 2 architecture. Intel is already touting possible level 2 caches in the region 6MB ? 12MB, although the extra Cache is relative in performance, it really shows how advanced Intel is becoming with its new manufacturing process and architectures.
I can?t say it?s looking at all good for AMD.
It looks like this AMD/ATI merger has had a real negative impact on business. The same thing is happening with R600, they just can?t keep up with the pace, and before they know it they?ll be too far behind.
Whomever puts out the fastest quad-core at the $300-$400 range is the one getting my money in Q4. I could care less who it is.
That said, 50% clock for clock faster seems impossible. Maybe in some very, very specialized cases, I suppose, but unless that specialized case is something like "H.264 encoding" or "database transactions", I doubt it'll matter.
That said, 50% clock for clock faster seems impossible. Maybe in some very, very specialized cases, I suppose, but unless that specialized case is something like "H.264 encoding" or "database transactions", I doubt it'll matter.
That article is definitely meaningless. How about AMD stops skulking about, and handing out a few vague wordings? Let's see some real benchmarks and concrete numbers to back this up. I'd still have to bet on Yorkfield beating out Barcelona by a decent margin, irregardless of being a non-native quad core versus a native quad core. Besides, Nehalem is coming in what? Two years? Enjoy your two years AMD.
However, ATI is going to beat out nVidia this summer. Welcome aboard, 300 stream processors, GDDR4, R600 80nm, and R650 65nm.
However, ATI is going to beat out nVidia this summer. Welcome aboard, 300 stream processors, GDDR4, R600 80nm, and R650 65nm.
coldpower27
Golden Member
No but combined with the increased FSB, larger LV2 cache and increased clockspeeds within the same thermal envelopes, made possible with the 45nm process, they are a nice welcome boost.
And unlike the SpecFP thing AMD keeps throwing around, these improvements are mroe universal,a and help in a wide variety of applications.
Agreed. People are quick to poo-poo a 10% clock for clock increase (actually the tests show much much more than that in some scenarios) while they conveniently ignore the higher clocks that will be possible on Penryn when compared to Conroe (and Barcelona). Even if Barcelona is 50% faster than Conroe clock for clock (which is most likely not even close to true across the board), when you add in the improvements in Penryn and the higher clock speed, that advantage disappears pretty quickly.
coldpower27
Golden Member
There was a miscalculation there, it depends on what you mean by ahead. AMD will likely be good in the 2P and 4P Sectors where more of AMD's advantages come into play. As well where the 4P sector won't receive the 45nm refresh till sometime in 2k8
On desktops it's going to be much less clear,
Since when has AMD in front of the majority of the last 10 years? Or are you talking in front in terms of gaming?
Pentium 3 and Athlon were even blow for blow till Q4 2000 more or less, and since 10 years includes 1997 Intel was ahead when it was K6 vs Pentium 2/3. Athlon wasn't released till Mid 1999 and then things were more even between the 2. AMD could be argued to be ahead when you reach Willamette and Early Northwoods, but things even out with Northwood B and Northwood C took the lead for awhile. then AMD release Athlon 64's and thing were even again, and it wasn't till Athlon 64x2 that AMD takes the lead, which was then broken with Core 2 and will hold it till Q4 2007 when AMD releases desktop based K10's.
coldpower27
Golden Member
You really should look up things before simplifying so much.
No The Northwood C's beat out the Athlon XP's across the board, not just media encoding Northwood B was even.
Since the Single Core Pentium 4's vs Athlon 64's remain a tie as each was suited to different tasks.
Cookie Monster
Diamond Member
So they have to downclock the current X6800 quad just to show that 20% performance increase? (since rumours point to the highest clocked barcelona is ~2.7ghz i think it was, could be lower)
:roll:
Barcelona could be faster clock per clock, but doesnt necessarily show any advantages if the competition can clock their CPUs much higher than the competition can (if the upcoming intel CPUs clocking at 3.33ghz~), and the fact that intel has the 45nm process advantage. Unlike back in the past, intel is able to consistently up the clocks while putting the power consumption in check at "Acceptable" levels as well.
some rumors....(which could be facts)
1. Agena FX (Quad core) can OC to 3.05 Ghz
2. It's TDP is 95w
3. The QX6800 TDP is 130w (intel - typical TDP) or estimated by AMD at 150w (max TDP)
links:
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=663&Itemid=1
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=658&Itemid=1
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=649&Itemid=1
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=631&Itemid=1
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=470&Itemid=35
If the performance of Barcelona/Agena is really +50% in FP and +20% in integer then intel would need around 3+ Ghz of Conroe to match it (a little bit less if penryn is used for comparison)
The 50% FP and 20% int advantage means that it will outperform it clock-for-clock by at least 20% based on code used. 2.5Ghz Agena=3.0Ghz C2D in int and 3.7Ghz C2D in FP.
Don't forget that Kuma Dual cores (which will launch at 2.0-2.9Ghz) should scale to a higher frequency if the Agena is really able to OC to 3.05Ghz.
Just imagine a 3.2 Ghz Kuma DC....
*disclaimer: these statements assume that item #1-3 are accurate. THe poster does not assume responsibility for the content of the links. 🙂
1. Agena FX (Quad core) can OC to 3.05 Ghz
2. It's TDP is 95w
3. The QX6800 TDP is 130w (intel - typical TDP) or estimated by AMD at 150w (max TDP)
links:
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=663&Itemid=1
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=658&Itemid=1
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=649&Itemid=1
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=631&Itemid=1
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=470&Itemid=35
If the performance of Barcelona/Agena is really +50% in FP and +20% in integer then intel would need around 3+ Ghz of Conroe to match it (a little bit less if penryn is used for comparison)
The 50% FP and 20% int advantage means that it will outperform it clock-for-clock by at least 20% based on code used. 2.5Ghz Agena=3.0Ghz C2D in int and 3.7Ghz C2D in FP.
Don't forget that Kuma Dual cores (which will launch at 2.0-2.9Ghz) should scale to a higher frequency if the Agena is really able to OC to 3.05Ghz.
Just imagine a 3.2 Ghz Kuma DC....
*disclaimer: these statements assume that item #1-3 are accurate. THe poster does not assume responsibility for the content of the links. 🙂
1. The 3 GHz Agena OC screenshot has been proven to be fake. CPU-Z doesn't look for an L3 on the K8, according to the author of CPU-Z.
2. TDP of Agena FX is 120W. Agena might be 95W, but >2.5 GHz is 120W.
3. TDP of Intel QX series is 130W. Refer to reputable sites such as LostCircuits where they have already measured the QX6700 to be 115W.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
