Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD states K8L aka Barcelona faster than all Intel cores

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 22, 2006 3:10:34 PM

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTE3NCwx...

Quote:
“With our next-generation architecture we expect to continue our track record of delivering industry-leading performance. When you combine this with 4X4 you change the rules of the game, and provide an enthusiast-class platform that is upgradeable, scaleable and unparalleled in terms of performance.”
September 22, 2006 3:11:55 PM

no talk of how much better K8L's power usage numbers are or fluff like that

just performance

can't wait to see some early numbers...
a c 478 à CPUs
a c 117 å Intel
a c 120 À AMD
September 22, 2006 3:16:45 PM

What would you expect AMD to say?

If they said "K8L will be slower than Kentsfield", do you think the typical person will go out and buy K8L?

You should also update the title to say Kentsfield or Core 2 Quadro, not Core 2 Duo. If the quad core K8L cannot beat a dual core Core 2 Duo, then that would certainly be an embarassment.
Related resources
September 22, 2006 3:29:39 PM

Quote:
What would you expect AMD to say?

If they said "K8L will be slower than Kentsfield", do you think the typical person will go out and buy K8L?

You should also update the title to say Kentsfield or Core 2 Quadro, not Core 2 Duo. If the quad core K8L cannot beat a dual core Core 2 Duo, then that would certainly be an embarassment.


Exactly, AMD is saying exactly what people wanna hear. Kinda like planting the seed. I like Barcelona. cool name. 8)
September 22, 2006 3:45:00 PM

AMD saying their new cores beats INTEL's new cores in performance

is ALOTTTTTTTTT better than going right to POWER CONSUMPTION numbers

leads me to believe they are either right...or believe they are right that BARCELONA is faster thant the core 2 architechture
September 22, 2006 3:48:21 PM

Till I see a actual benchmark and testbed that comes out with this conclusion, I ain't believing a word of it.
Anybody can say that the thing that I haven't made yet is faster than the thing that you've made already. You my friend, fell for simple marketing.
September 22, 2006 3:53:10 PM

LOL! I love how these fanboys were all over the intel core 2 idf benches as being fraudulant and are now gonna just take AMD's word for it that Barcelona beats all intel offerings without a single benchmark or shred of proof.

I love it!
September 22, 2006 3:53:22 PM

well didnt intel say CORE 2 would be much faster than the K8

they were right


AMD may be doing the same thing


ofcourse we all need scores b4 anyone takes any stock in it...

but i like the tone of confidence from AMD in light of the beatign CORE 2 put on them....
a c 478 à CPUs
a c 117 å Intel
a c 120 À AMD
September 22, 2006 3:53:36 PM

Quote:
AMD saying their new cores beats INTEL's new cores in performance

is ALOTTTTTTTTT better thatn going right to POWER CONSUMPTION numbers

leads me to believe they are either right...or believe they are right that BARCELONA is faster thant the core 2 architechture


Okay, based purely on your speculations you will have a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong.

In other words, nothing has changed.

Numbers matters not gossip.
September 22, 2006 4:01:03 PM

Yes Intel did say that but as we examined the architecture we saw that it was possible. Besides we took it with a rain of salt. We were all reeling off of Netburst.
K8L has nothing that we can base it being faster on. Since there is a ES of the Kentsfield core thats already been tested and documented as ungodly and downright unholy, and coupled with the news and marketing thats been coming from AMD in the past couple of days makes me take this with a even bigger grain of salt.
If its truely is faster than Kentsfield and what ever else Intel has in its bag of tricks, I'll eat cow. And pig. And sheep.
But until then.
September 22, 2006 4:16:59 PM

IT WOULDN'T BE NEWS IF IT WAS SLOWER WOULD IT?

Duh.

I'll wait to see THG either prove this, or kick it to the curb.
September 22, 2006 4:18:39 PM

You can't call me an Intel fanboy if I have three AMD computers not including this laptop I'm calling your BS on right now.
I'm not crying, just stating fact.

@holdenmcgroin
Its not news, its marketing. News has to have proof.
September 22, 2006 4:18:45 PM

so its safe to say you feel that INTEL's core 2 chips cannot be beaten by AMD or its BARCELONA
September 22, 2006 4:22:46 PM

Conroe? Yes. Kentsfield? I think not. The next version of the Kentfield XE when quad cores become mainstream? Hell no.
September 22, 2006 4:39:39 PM

Quote:
With our next-generation architecture we expect to continue our track record of delivering industry-leading performance. When you combine this with 4X4 you change the rules of the game, and provide an enthusiast-class platform that is upgradeable, scaleable and unparalleled in terms of performance.

If you read that carefully, all it is actually saying is that an 8-core AMD system (i.e. quad-core, dual-socket) will be substantially more powerful than any 4-core Intel system. This isn't exactly Earth-shattering news.
September 22, 2006 4:50:53 PM

But with K8L aka Barcalona being a sever platform shouldn't we be comparing it to the quadcore Xeons?
With Server platforms consiting of dual or more sockets you could compare a 8 core Barcalona setup to a dual quad core Xeon setup. Besides the point I'm trying to make its that this is merely hersay with no proof to back it up.

Example
"Ferrari says new car not in production yet will be faster than Bugatti"
Give me proof.
September 22, 2006 5:05:09 PM

Technically we can't compare Barcalona to any chip. That includes P4, C2D or Kentsfield. It doesn't even compare to any AMD chips. Its a platform, like LGA 775. Thats why they called it K8 Revision L.
September 22, 2006 5:15:47 PM

Quote:
Everyone knows K8L is gonna smoke Intels quads. Its native quad, Intels are only 2 core 2's on die.
Now they are already trying to pull the power per watt crap they so adamantly ignored when AMD had the lead in it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but:

Does that look like four native cores to you?
September 22, 2006 5:16:42 PM

It's likely it will be faster in terms of IPC than Core 2, they can't exactly release something inferior can they! What will probably happen when Barcelona comes out is there will be another clock speed war. This is where imo the overall winner will be determined. We know Intel has no problems going to 3.8GHz in terms of process since they did it with the P4's - maybe they could even hit 4GHz on 65nm, and architecturally there isn't a problem either as people have comfortably gotten past that. AMD on the other hand has never broken the 3GHz barrier yet, and if it remains that AMD is stuck at 3 or 3.2GHz with Barcelona vs a 3.8 or 4 GHz Core 2, Barcelona is going to have to be 20-25% faster per clock than Core 2 to keep up, which seems pretty unlikely.
September 22, 2006 5:22:45 PM

Quote:
Funny how the Intel fanboys are crying already over a stupid article.
Everyone knows K8L is gonna smoke Intels quads. Its native quad, Intels are only 2 core 2's on die.
Now they are already trying to pull the power per watt crap they so adamantly ignored when AMD had the lead in it.

Intel fanboys should rejoice, this means competition and this means lower prices. If Intel continues to hold the lead, you will see prices continue to rise on their higher end parts, eventually eclipsing the prices we have seen for EE's and FX's. ($1200+)



LOL amd will not beat Intel in quads and noone is crying we are laughing at AMD :lol:  HAHA

and yes i am glad amd exists because if they didnt, A intel could charge anything for proceesors and B, we cant pick on you noob amd fanboys!
September 22, 2006 5:32:29 PM

Mrs,

I am disappointed in you.

You forgot to use the correct Horde terms. Let me quote it for you here:

"Kentsfield is not that great because it is just two Core 2 Duos "glued" together. That means it is not a true quad core like the K8L"

Next time you go making a horde remark please use the quote above. I would hate to see you get banned from the Horde because of something so trivial.

Remember the "glued" part is critical to this statement. It infers that Intel is using two procs actually glued together.

If you are going to make pointless Horde comments you should at least get them right. Sheeeeeeesh I have to do everything for you.
September 22, 2006 5:46:30 PM

Quote:
Funny how the Intel fanboys are crying already over a stupid article.
Everyone knows K8L is gonna smoke Intels quads. Its native quad, Intels are only 2 core 2's on die.
Now they are already trying to pull the power per watt crap they so adamantly ignored when AMD had the lead in it.

Intel fanboys should rejoice, this means competition and this means lower prices. If Intel continues to hold the lead, you will see prices continue to rise on their higher end parts, eventually eclipsing the prices we have seen for EE's and FX's. ($1200+)


first, who cares if it's native or not? just because all 4 cores can communicate directly with each other doesn't necessarily mean the performance will be better. that's just naive. it's all based on design. you might as well say that if K8L is clocked higher then kentsfield it will be faster, simply because it's clocked higher. same logic.

second, since when does a cpu with 4 cores not get to be called "true" quad core because it's not designed a certain way. if the performance is there, what's to say making it native would increase performance all that much more? kentsfield performs very well, so what's the beef with how they did it.

and in terms of the article, "industry leading performance" is a pertty vague statement imo. they can easily say now that their cpus (A64, X2, etc.) provide "industry leading performance", and it wouldn't necessarily mean they're faster. they could be deriving their statement from select performance scenereos where their cpus dominate, and then pull out that statement. I wouldn't put it past AMD.

as a disclaimer I do think K8L will perform as well or better than core 2. it's just that the way some people react to AMD news is ridiculious comared to how they react with intel news. hypocrisy much?
September 22, 2006 5:47:34 PM

Hypertransport is AMD's ace up their sleeve (or so they claim). It is going to allow direct link for many different modular components to the bus. This seems like it will leverage AMD for the server, rather than consumer, market. However, they might make something available for average consumers (gamers). This would be interesting to watch. If the VIA Cyrix chips can beat top of the line Pentium/AMDs by using co-processors for certain tasks (such as packet transfer/encoding/decoding), applying this to a 2 gig Hypertransport bus shows a lot of potential. This ability is why the Opterons are being used to link Cell Processors in that New Defense Department supercomputer.
September 22, 2006 6:07:20 PM

Quote:
second, since when does a cpu with 4 cores not get to be called "true" quad core because it's not designed a certain way.


Thats like saying a car with 2 V6's is the same as a car with a V12. Not saying that the 2 V6 car would be slower, just that it is not the same because of the design.
September 22, 2006 6:11:34 PM

Quote:
so its safe to say you feel that INTEL's core 2 chips cannot be beaten by AMD or its BARCELONA




we just have to wait and see


:?
September 22, 2006 6:12:34 PM

Quote:
Funny how the Intel fanboys are crying already over a stupid article.
Everyone knows K8L is gonna smoke Intels quads. Its native quad, Intels are only 2 core 2's on die.
Now they are already trying to pull the power per watt crap they so adamantly ignored when AMD had the lead in it.

Intel fanboys should rejoice, this means competition and this means lower prices. If Intel continues to hold the lead, you will see prices continue to rise on their higher end parts, eventually eclipsing the prices we have seen for EE's and FX's. ($1200+)



AMD puppet
September 22, 2006 6:43:42 PM

Quote:
second, since when does a cpu with 4 cores not get to be called "true" quad core because it's not designed a certain way.


Thats like saying a car with 2 V6's is the same as a car with a V12. Not saying that the 2 V6 car would be slower, just that it is not the same because of the design.

Why do you think that V12 would be faster than V6?

What number of cylinders have to do with the speed of a car?

First you need to put CHEVRON gas in it .....
September 22, 2006 6:45:54 PM

While I don't really have a preference for either, I really don't expect AMD to come out and say that their yet unreleased core will not be able to beat Intels chips (present or future). Also, most of this is purely marketing since they have no answer for the Core2 any time soon. They need to make sure people know that they are still in the game.

Don't get me wrong, everyone should be hoping K8L kicks some serious &*^. Competition works in the consumers favor but words are just that, words.
September 22, 2006 6:54:29 PM

Quote:
Everyone knows K8L is gonna smoke Intels quads. Its native quad, Intels are only 2 core 2's on die.
Now they are already trying to pull the power per watt crap they so adamantly ignored when AMD had the lead in it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but:

Does that look like four native cores to you?

Does that look like K8L to you? NO! That is not K8L. Those are 4x4 (4 CPU cores = 2 DUAL CORES on 2 SOCKETS and 4 gpu cores = SLI or CROSSFIRE) CPUs.

4x4 is coming out later this year. K8L dual-core 1st half '07 and K8L QUAD-core 2nd half '07. There is some talk that you'll be able to put 2 K8L Quads in a 4x4 which will actually make it an 8x4 (8 cpus cores and 4 gpu cores).

Got it??
September 22, 2006 6:54:56 PM

Quote:
Why do you think that V12 would be faster than V6?


Quote:
Not saying that the 2 V6 car would be slower


Perhaps you need a lesson in reading, or you just need to do some reading before you type. Either way, cylinders and cores can be related, as in 2 2 core processors verses a 4 core processor. Same number of cores, different design, yet to be seen which has better performance.
September 22, 2006 6:55:33 PM

Quote:
While I don't really have a preference for either, I really don't expect AMD to come out and say that their yet unreleased core will not be able to beat Intels chips (present or future). Also, most of this is purely marketing since they have no answer for the Core2 any time soon. They need to make sure people know that they are still in the game.

Don't get me wrong, everyone should be hoping K8L kicks some serious &*^. Competition works in the consumers favor but words are just that, words.


Very nicely said.

I hope AMD manages to produce a very competitive product to replace K8, but these meaningless articles are well, meaningless.

Sure K8L should/could be better than Core 2 Duo at least, but by how much and how soon?
September 22, 2006 7:03:17 PM

Quote:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTE3NCwx...

“With our next-generation architecture we expect to continue our track record of delivering industry-leading performance. When you combine this with 4X4 you change the rules of the game, and provide an enthusiast-class platform that is upgradeable, scaleable and unparalleled in terms of performance.”



From the specs and comparing the Core 2 over Core increase, I would say that Barcelona will be 80% faster than Opteron. I think that will propel them ahead because of HT and Direct Connect.

But then I think that a slow FSB will cause a swapping bottleneck so what do I know.
September 22, 2006 7:03:43 PM

Quote:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTE3NCwx...

“With our next-generation architecture we expect to continue our track record of delivering industry-leading performance. When you combine this with 4X4 you change the rules of the game, and provide an enthusiast-class platform that is upgradeable, scaleable and unparalleled in terms of performance.”



From the specs and comparing the Core 2 over Core increase, I would say that Barcelona will be 80% faster than Opteron. I think that will propel them ahead because of HT and Direct Connect.

But then I think that a slow FSB will cause a swapping bottleneck so what do I know.
September 22, 2006 7:14:04 PM

This reminds me of the SEGA GENESIS vs NEC TURBOGRAPHx 16 war of the early 90's


Genesis has a true 16 bit core
the Turbo Graphx had 2 8bit cores Bolted Together


Genesis crushed Turbographx in power

could this happen again?
September 22, 2006 7:26:17 PM

also if amd gets that processor out to late it wont matter cause intel may have a better one out right after kentsfield.
September 22, 2006 8:26:28 PM

You forgot the "tried & true AMD64 architecture"
September 22, 2006 8:32:22 PM

Quote:
Thats like saying a car with 2 V6's is the same as a car with a V12. Not saying that the 2 V6 car would be slower, just that it is not the same because of the design.

Usually these are placed side by side and are designated as "W" engines. In this case a W12. :D 

-mcg
September 22, 2006 8:42:03 PM

Regarding 4 native cores Vs. two dual cores, please take note of some of the problems IBM has had with their CELL processor. Increasing the number of cores on the chip, increases the number of ways your yield can drop. So while 4 native cores MAY have some performance advantage (and nobody has demonstrated that it is an absolute advantage that can not be overcome), 2 dual cores MAY have a yield advantage which could translate to a cost advantage (which hopefully would be reflected as a price advantage).

Everyone sounds up in arms about K8L vs Core, but the way I read the original article was that clock for clock, the Intel core will continue to perform better than the AMD core, most likely due to the number of instructions per clock, but that AMD plans to counter that (for the time being) with a faster platform. The Intel chips will probably remain the performance leading CPU, but the AMD platform will be the performance winning platform.

The question remains whether any of us mere mortals will be able to afford this stuff. Platforms like 4x4 are bound to be very expensive. Those of us trying to make the most of more meager budgets want to see affordable stuff that don't require tons of other stuff to be competitive.
September 22, 2006 9:10:07 PM

Quote:
From the specs and comparing the Core 2 over Core increase, I would say that Barcelona will be 80% faster than Opteron. I think that will propel them ahead because of HT and Direct Connect.

But then I think that a slow FSB will cause a swapping bottleneck so what do I know.

You truly expect to see an 80% performance increase in real world? Perhaps is a (very) few optimized applications, but there is no way the real world average increase is 80%. In terms of Core to Core 2, it was a major architecture shift yet the real world average performance increase is really only in the order to 20%.

My feeling is that K8L will definitely be stronger in its traditional pure FP field, it may have a small lead in SSE, but Core 2 will still have a slight lead in integer calculations. Overall, K8L will probably be 10-15% faster than Core 2, which means it's all down to final implementation, software optimization, and clock speeds. Obviously, if K8L really brings a Earth changing 80% increase I'm not going to complain, but I'm going to be a bit more realistic if not pessimistic for now.

In terms of 4x4, I'm really disappointed. The use of Socket F implies it's just a Opteron knock-off and also implies the use of registered DIMMs which is terrible. High latencies, lower bandwidth. The high 125W TDP also places a 2 processor 4x4 system much higher in terms of heat and power than Kentsfield. Also a clocking of 3GHz also isn't impressive against Kentsfield. A 2.67GHz Conroe can already hold it's own and generally lead a 3GHz FX. A 2.67GHz Kentsfield may not have perfect scaling to 4 cores, but the inherent strength of even just 2 of its cores will make it difficult for 4x4 to catch up. We'll have to see if dedicate memory through IMCs, and dedicated communications links through HT, in otherwords AMD's superior platform, can really make up the difference.
a b à CPUs
September 22, 2006 9:15:46 PM

Quote:
AMD saying their new cores beats INTEL's new cores in performance

is ALOTTTTTTTTT better than going right to POWER CONSUMPTION numbers

leads me to believe they are either right...or believe they are right that BARCELONA is faster thant the core 2 architechture


You mean AMD's new K8L will be faster then Intel's 1 yr old Core 2 Duo architecture.. :p 
September 22, 2006 9:20:16 PM

Quote:
Everyone knows K8L is gonna smoke Intels quads. Its native quad, Intels are only 2 core 2's on die.
Now they are already trying to pull the power per watt crap they so adamantly ignored when AMD had the lead in it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but:

Does that look like four native cores to you?


uhh....4x4 is a PLATFORM not a PROCESSOR....
September 22, 2006 9:22:27 PM

Quote:
AMD saying their new cores beats INTEL's new cores in performance

is ALOTTTTTTTTT better than going right to POWER CONSUMPTION numbers

leads me to believe they are either right...or believe they are right that BARCELONA is faster thant the core 2 architechture


You mean AMD's new K8L will be faster then Intel's 1 yr old Core 2 Duo architecture.. :p 

Yeah wtf? Thats comparing AMD's new tech to intels old tech. No fair!!!!
September 22, 2006 9:22:29 PM

Quote:
AMD saying their new cores beats INTEL's new cores in performance

is ALOTTTTTTTTT better than going right to POWER CONSUMPTION numbers

leads me to believe they are either right...or believe they are right that BARCELONA is faster thant the core 2 architechture


You mean AMD's new K8L will be faster then Intel's 1 yr old Core 2 Duo architecture.. :p 
No! He means FUD!
September 22, 2006 9:30:24 PM

Actually Lordpope,

I HOPE (not think) that AMD totally thrashes the Core 2 Duo platform with the release of the K8L. I "feel" that it may not be not likely.

First looks, and analysis from others here (much more in the know than I like JJ) have pretty much determined that it is a substantial upgrade over the existing platform but may in fact fall short or JUST meet the capabilities of the soon to be released and already benched Kentsfield.

My statement above is even irrelevant since NO Engineering Samples have been made available for true first looks... At this point we really can not draw any concrete conclusions.

Just like with the Conroe, as soon as ESs or retail product ships for review we are all speculating.

Should the Intel folks tell you (if an ES is released of the K8L) that it is only an ES and not reflective of what will actually be released.

Should Intelites complain that the tests were rigged?

Should they say that the benchies were synthetic and therefore no where near accurate?

Of course they should also state that some benchies favor the K8L arch too and therefore are skewing the results?

Did I catch nearly all of the comments that have been made during the last Conroe release?

Oh wait the wrong memory was used in the test systems and the Intel now needs DDR2-8888 to fully realize its potential.

I am sure there are more. Mrs and Lord did I catch them all?

If these things have not yet been said about the future release let me say them now and get them all out of the way ;) 

Oh and to be thorough Please apply all to the next release of anything from Intel as well....
a b à CPUs
September 22, 2006 9:34:00 PM

Quote:
AMD saying their new cores beats INTEL's new cores in performance

is ALOTTTTTTTTT better than going right to POWER CONSUMPTION numbers

leads me to believe they are either right...or believe they are right that BARCELONA is faster thant the core 2 architechture


You mean AMD's new K8L will be faster then Intel's 1 yr old Core 2 Duo architecture.. :p 

Yeah wtf? Thats comparing AMD's new tech to intels old tech. No fair!!!!

Nawww.. it's fair.. but K8L is a Quad Core CPU and well by this time next year Intel will be readying 45nm native Quad Cores.
September 22, 2006 9:40:15 PM

Quote:
From the specs and comparing the Core 2 over Core increase, I would say that Barcelona will be 80% faster than Opteron. I think that will propel them ahead because of HT and Direct Connect.

But then I think that a slow FSB will cause a swapping bottleneck so what do I know.

You truly expect to see an 80% performance increase in real world? Perhaps is a (very) few optimized applications, but there is no way the real world average increase is 80%. In terms of Core to Core 2, it was a major architecture shift yet the real world average performance increase is really only in the order to 20%.

My feeling is that K8L will definitely be stronger in its traditional pure FP field, it may have a small lead in SSE, but Core 2 will still have a slight lead in integer calculations. Overall, K8L will probably be 10-15% faster than Core 2, which means it's all down to final implementation, software optimization, and clock speeds. Obviously, if K8L really brings a Earth changing 80% increase I'm not going to complain, but I'm going to be a bit more realistic if not pessimistic for now.

In terms of 4x4, I'm really disappointed. The use of Socket F implies it's just a Opteron knock-off and also implies the use of registered DIMMs which is terrible. High latencies, lower bandwidth. The high 125W TDP also places a 2 processor 4x4 system much higher in terms of heat and power than Kentsfield. Also a clocking of 3GHz also isn't impressive against Kentsfield. A 2.67GHz Conroe can already hold it's own and generally lead a 3GHz FX. A 2.67GHz Kentsfield may not have perfect scaling to 4 cores, but the inherent strength of even just 2 of its cores will make it difficult for 4x4 to catch up. We'll have to see if dedicate memory through IMCs, and dedicated communications links through HT, in otherwords AMD's superior platform, can really make up the difference.


The speed increase is the word from AMD and like I said the specs seem to bear it out. As far as 4x4, I don't care which socket but they have to let it use nonECC as that is a MAJOR expense.

I don't see this being a watered down Opteron, because that would definitely make product differentiation more difficult. What I want is two sockets with NO ECC, NO SCSI 320, NO PCI-X, NO SODIMMS.

That would differentiate perfectly as mission critical thinsg want the reliability of SCSi and data protection of ECC.

As a dev, I just need a fast box with lots of RAM. I posted a link to voodoopc.blogspot where I suggested that to the CEO in March.

Anyway, enthusiasts will buy it no matter the power use. I figure I could get two FX 7000 and one 7900GTX and that would be like getting one FX62 and QUAD SLI power-wise.

I think it will be close for Kentsfield because AMD already extracts more bandwidth so this may allow them to use more of it. I think when mem usage is low Kentsfield will win but when you load past physical RAM, then 4x4 will more than likely outshine it because of the FSB.

PS
I load more than 2GB RAM at times and I need something that won't choke. When I go over to Server 2003 x64, I will load it even more. i hope that the FSB won't cause problems when overloading the physical RAm but FSB is uni-directional IIRC and for 4x4 disk IO will go over the South Bridge and memory IO won't. That may turn out to be huge.

At least for us megataskers. :wink:
September 22, 2006 9:49:41 PM

The Bugatti Veyron is a piece of junk

ever wonder why you never here of any record breaking track times coming from the wonderfull veyron? Because it is only fast in a sraight line, not in any meaningful way. When the enzo or the mclaren F1 came out, they broke track times AND set landspeed records. The mclaren is still the fastest naturally aspirated car out there hitting about 240 and it's from like 91. Unbelievable I can name several ferraris most of which cost less than half as much than a veyron, would put it to shame on a track, don't suffer from turbolag, and are plain classier.

360 Challenge Stradale
430 coupe OR convertible
Enzo
599 gtb

Oh, and it would be cool if the new Amd platform was faster than intel, not because it benefits me, since it doesn't, my system is set up for kentsfield not k8l so I wouldn't be able to upgrade to it. I want the AMD platform to be faster because I simply want cpu's to get faster and faster. I want improvement, I think any moron who is pissed because they don't have the fastest anymore at the expense of progress is a fucking idiot fanboi piece of shit. Same goes for people who spend more on an inferior product because they love their brand and ignore benchmarks and performance figures.
September 22, 2006 9:55:24 PM

Quote:
The speed increase is the word from AMD and like I said the specs seem to bear it out. As far as 4x4, I don't care which socket but they have to let it use nonECC as that is a MAJOR expense.

I wonder if Socket F's Register DDR2 memory controller is also backwards compatible with unregistered DDR2 memory. Otherwise they would have to design a separate chip which isn't very convenient. Opteron 1xxx which use unregistered DDR2 are use AM2 not Socket F so they don't really have an example of that yet.

Quote:
I load more than 2GB RAM at times and I need something that won't choke. When I go over to Server 2003 x64, I will load it even more. i hope that the FSB won't cause problems when overloading the physical RAm but FSB is uni-directional IIRC and for 4x4 disk IO will go over the South Bridge and memory IO won't. That may turn out to be huge.

At least for us megataskers. :wink:

In terms of disk IO, 4x4 isn't a saviour either. In Kentsfield's case, both processors are just 1 hop from the NB. However, in 4x4s case, the second chip is 2 hops away having to go through HT to the 1st chip and then HT again to the NB. That adds latency and even worse, differential latency between the chips.

Similarly, in terms of memory bandwidth through 2 IMCs, if it happens that the 1st chip needs data that is stored in the 2nd chips memory banks it'll have to go over HT to get it. That adds latency and also starves the 2nd processor of bandwidth needed to access the NB. People call for "true" multithreading, but in the event that 4 cores are running a single program this problem is actually increased since each core will need data from each other's memory banks more frequently. In this case, 2 or 4 completely separate programs each having a dedicated chip and it's memory banks would be better at avoiding conflict.

Both 4x4 and FSB have their inherent problems. So we'll have to see. I guess a factor is also the cost of 4x4. It is definitely looking more expensive as a complete system than Kentsfield right now. If 4x4s price is too high, Cloverton may become another option in addition to the cheaper Kentsfield.
September 22, 2006 10:16:48 PM

(Reply to BM)

Quote:
I think when mem usage is low Kentsfield will win but when you load past physical RAM, then 4x4 will more than likely outshine it because of the FSB.

PS
I load more than 2GB RAM at times and I need something that won't choke. When I go over to Server 2003 x64, I will load it even more. i hope that the FSB won't cause problems when overloading the physical RAm but FSB is uni-directional IIRC and for 4x4 disk IO will go over the South Bridge and memory IO won't. That may turn out to be huge.


You idiot!

How many times do I have to slap you, the FSB will have no impact on the performance once you use all of the physical RAM and are swapping

(reply to ltcommander_data)

Don't bother trying to argue that the FSB has nothing to do with swapping performance, BaronBS has not the reading comprehension to understand. In his case, why didn't his AXP 3200+ perform "worse" when swapping compared to his Craptiplex?
September 22, 2006 10:20:21 PM

Quote:
Mrs,

I am disappointed in you.

You forgot to use the correct Horde terms. Let me quote it for you here:

"Kentsfield is not that great because it is just two Core 2 Duos "glued" together. That means it is not a true quad core like the K8L"

Next time you go making a horde remark please use the quote above. I would hate to see you get banned from the Horde because of something so trivial.

Remember the "glued" part is critical to this statement. It infers that Intel is using two procs actually glued together.

If you are going to make pointless Horde comments you should at least get them right. Sheeeeeeesh I have to do everything for you.


I know this might be off-topic, but I needed to express the ownaged in laughter at MrsB, coming from this guy!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
!