Shanghai Results (Opteron 2384, 2.7GHz)

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
How does one measure intercore bandwidth?? AMD seems to suffer alot when it comes to this synthetic benchmark. Any ideas on why?

Shanghai is shaping up nicely. Along with HT3.0 and other refinements to the process (faster clocked shanghai's hopefully), this chip is going to be very competitive in the server market.

I think it's because all the launch day Shanghai stuff is only running HT1.0. Isn't my Socket 939 Athlon 64 X2 of yester-generation running at HT2.0? That would explain a whole lot.

Not only that, but isn't AMD's intercore bandwidth actually link-to-link with independent links between cores whereas Intel's is basically the aggregate FSB bandwidth? Since each core an AMD quad will have 3 independent HT links linking to each of the other cores as well as a link to the memory bus, I think you really have to multiply that number by 3 (each core has independent links to every other core), and you have to divide Intel's bandwidth by whatever percentage a given core is hogging the bus. (I could be wrong)

 

[JackyP]

Originally posted by: nyker96

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: nyker96
so that means on the desktop, this power advantage will be non-existent since both company uses DDR2 or DDR3s?

Yes, I personally expect Yorkfield to have noticeable power advantage at load versus a comparable performing Deneb. While it looks like Deneb will show a great reduction in power usage compared to the current Phenoms, Intel's 45nm CPUs also had a great reduction in power consumption. For example here:

http://www.behardware.com/arti...ore-2-q9300-e7200.html

In any case Anand has a new article on Shanghai up as well. from look of things there's no denial it's a monster of a chip for server market. the question for me personally is how the consumer versions of the chip perform. that we will probably know next year. at least the 45nm process seems alright for amd.

That's AMD's biggest, and I mean extremely big, problem. It's an awesome server product, but as far as we have seen, Nehalem is so much more of a server monster...
On the desktop it will still lag penryn, which has a much smaller die on a more mature process. Add to that a recession and AMD is in trouble, sadly.
Still K10.5 is shaping up much better than K10 ever was, considering it's just a die-shrink.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
The power consumption at load is tasty

Careful, AMD is tagging these with their ACP numbers, not TDP numbers.

If you look at AMD's documentation you find out that 75 watt ACP is a 95 watt TDP. So while it's lower than the 130w Opterons, it's not any lower than the current 95w Opterons.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Idontcare
The power consumption at load is tasty

Careful, AMD is tagging these with their ACP numbers, not TDP numbers.

If you look at AMD's documentation you find out that 75 watt ACP is a 95 watt TDP. So while it's lower than the 130w Opterons, it's not any lower than the current 95w Opterons.

Are you ignoring any and all test? All test show it uses less power and the TDP is 75w.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Idontcare
The power consumption at load is tasty

Careful, AMD is tagging these with their ACP numbers, not TDP numbers.

If you look at AMD's documentation you find out that 75 watt ACP is a 95 watt TDP. So while it's lower than the 130w Opterons, it's not any lower than the current 95w Opterons.

Would really would be nice if the industry standardized on power-consumption methodologies.

 

[Dadofamunky]

The SQL tests are very much to the point and are a good sign for AMD.

Shanghai = What Barcelona was SUPPOSED to be

 

[RallyMaster]

Mm...want. Opterons 4 LYFE!

 

[Nemesis 1]

Ya those numbers from amd lok good. Now lets see some apple to apple stuff. and apple to pairs also.


http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/...-intel-shanghai-shapes