Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD demonstrates first native quad-core CPU

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 30, 2006 7:34:11 PM

This is getting lost with all the 4x4 news. Topic title is from the article, I'm not insinuating that "Native" is better than "Glued".

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/11/30/amd_native_quad_core_barcelona/
Quote:
Analysts were able to get a sneak peek at the processor today, when AMD showed off a system running four 65 nm quad-cores - for a total of 16 processor cores.


Quote:
Opteron product manager Steve Demski confirmed in a conversation with TG Daily that there will be Opteron quad-cores that will consume 68 watts, 95 watts and 125 watts. Not only are 68 watt quad-cores impressive (especially when compared to the 250 watt Quad FX),


Granted, this is just a "hands-off" showing, but looks like AMD is on-track with their Barcelona roadmap.
November 30, 2006 7:39:21 PM

Hehey, nice post!!!
This makes the picture a lot more balanced and if AMD pushes these 68W quads within the first half of the year,... wow, an octo core machine may not be 1KW heater!!! and we're talking about Barcelona (K8L)!
November 30, 2006 7:42:02 PM

Quote:
This is getting lost with all the 4x4 news. Topic title is from the article, I'm not insinuating that "Native" is better than "Glued".

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/11/30/amd_native_quad_core_barcelona/
Analysts were able to get a sneak peek at the processor today, when AMD showed off a system running four 65 nm quad-cores - for a total of 16 processor cores.


Quote:
Opteron product manager Steve Demski confirmed in a conversation with TG Daily that there will be Opteron quad-cores that will consume 68 watts, 95 watts and 125 watts. Not only are 68 watt quad-cores impressive (especially when compared to the 250 watt Quad FX),


Granted, this is just a "hands-off" showing, but looks like AMD is on-track with their Barcelona roadmap.

At last, The next great processor war has begun.
Related resources
November 30, 2006 7:45:11 PM

I'd hesitate to say that until I could buy both of them.
November 30, 2006 7:47:06 PM



:D 
November 30, 2006 7:47:40 PM

You can shout it loud!!! Next year AMD is shooting a good 65nm quad and intel it's first 45nm.
The other good news, at the end of the article, was that these opterons would be available also as AM2, just a bios update away from any AM2 user!
November 30, 2006 7:48:52 PM

Thats true. 4x4 is still just a paper launch. Time will tell.

We know Intel isn't going to sit around and let AMD retake the crown so quickly, so it will be interesting to see what comes out of California in the next few weeks.

(But you have to admit, it will be fun to watch)
November 30, 2006 7:49:26 PM

If so, then looks like we won't have to worry too much about 4X4's lacklustre showing; looks like it isn't much more than a placeholder...
Quote:

Opteron product manager Steve Demski confirmed in a conversation with TG Daily that there will be Opteron quad-cores that will consume 68 watts, 95 watts and 125 watts. Not only are 68 watt quad-cores impressive (especially when compared to the 250 watt Quad FX),

That's what I call a compliment with a sting in the tail :lol: 
November 30, 2006 7:53:18 PM

Eh, I still feel like they rushed 4x4, but Barcelona seems to be proceeding on schedule. Hopefully when they release it I'll see great things moving.

I'll probably be ready to build my next computer by then... WOOT!
November 30, 2006 7:54:39 PM

no die shot? suuuuuuuuuucks
November 30, 2006 7:57:48 PM

Strange, these unbiased slides don't mention the clockspeed of AMD's quadcore. :wink:

@Doughboy - Kinda strange that the quadcore 4x4 may use less power than the dualcore setup.
November 30, 2006 8:14:59 PM

Excellent.... now only if I could see the article instead of getting a "Page Not Found - Error 404" message..... :cry: 
November 30, 2006 8:15:37 PM

Quote:
This is getting lost with all the 4x4 news. Topic title is from the article, I'm not insinuating that "Native" is better than "Glued".

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/11/30/amd_native_quad_core_barcelona/
Analysts were able to get a sneak peek at the processor today, when AMD showed off a system running four 65 nm quad-cores - for a total of 16 processor cores.


Quote:
Opteron product manager Steve Demski confirmed in a conversation with TG Daily that there will be Opteron quad-cores that will consume 68 watts, 95 watts and 125 watts. Not only are 68 watt quad-cores impressive (especially when compared to the 250 watt Quad FX),


Granted, this is just a "hands-off" showing, but looks like AMD is on-track with their Barcelona roadmap.
Well, this is just what QuadFX needs to be a success!!
November 30, 2006 8:17:09 PM

Quote:
Strange, these unbiased slides don't mention the clockspeed of AMD's quadcore. :wink:

@Doughboy - Kinda strange that the quadcore 4x4 may use less power than the dualcore setup.


If you read the title of the benchmarks , its says ESTIMATED performance of the AMD quad core. Its not like they have a sample to test yet. So how are they gonna put a clockspeed rating on it.
November 30, 2006 8:20:33 PM

Are you serious? What browser are you using?
November 30, 2006 8:23:07 PM

I'm using Firefox 2.0, but that's not the issue... its the TGD "Page Not Found" page, not the browser's message.... must be because the UK site hasn't got the article yet, and my IP address is bound to the UK site, and can't access the american one... damn localisation!
November 30, 2006 8:26:24 PM

Quote:
If you read the title of the benchmarks , its says ESTIMATED performance of the AMD quad core. Its not like they have a sample to test yet. So how are they gonna put a clockspeed rating on it.


I know. I'm just questioning the data as it's estimated. For example, are they estimating that a Barcelona at 3GHz is going to be faster than a Xeon at 2.66? (It may very well be, that the Barcelona will tromp the Xeon at the same clockspeeds, but I just found that the omission of this factor in their performance projection to be suspect.)
November 30, 2006 8:29:55 PM

old & probably changed
November 30, 2006 8:32:27 PM

yeh good point! ,but at the end of the day , they are AMD benchmarks and anybenhcmarks from them should be taken with a grain of salt! , and are very hard to believe.
November 30, 2006 8:33:21 PM

Quote:
Well, this is just what QuadFX needs to be a success!!


I agree. I was hoping to get a 4x4 rig this spring (I liked the idea of upgrading to quads for my yearly update), but I'm going to go with a Kensfield, as the Barcelona tech won't be out until later in the year. I'll pencil-in a 4x4 for 2008 however. (I just hope that the initial launch doesn't tank the whole concept.)
November 30, 2006 8:50:12 PM

Personally Ill Just Stick With My Current System And Drop Another 10 Bills Into It And Wait Till Right Before Apps Start Using Quad-Cores And They Are A Bit Cheaper (In The $350.00 - $450.00 Range Then Ill Switch Over To An AM2 Board And Snatch Me A Good Mid-Price Quad-Core, My Current Plans Are To Switch My Current S939 Board Over To A Custom Designed Case, Upgrade To An Opteron 175 Dual-Core @3.2GHz (Up From My X2), 2GB Of DDR600, 15K 36GB U320 SCSI Boot Drive, Take My Current 80GB Western Digital WD800s In RAID-0 And Convert Them To My Application Drive, A Gigabyte iRAM w/2GB Of DDR, A Soundblaster Audigy, Geforce 8800GTS And A 5ms 22" TFT-LCD
November 30, 2006 9:22:43 PM

Quote:
If so, then looks like we won't have to worry too much about 4X4's lacklustre showing; looks like it isn't much more than a placeholder...

Opteron product manager Steve Demski confirmed in a conversation with TG Daily that there will be Opteron quad-cores that will consume 68 watts, 95 watts and 125 watts. Not only are 68 watt quad-cores impressive (especially when compared to the 250 watt Quad FX),

That's what I call a compliment with a sting in the tail :lol: 
Much more than that; it means that one will be able to put togeather a 8 core machine as soon as quads come out: every number of cores they put on a processor is automatically multiplied by 2. This was a pretty smart move to counter Intel's permanent technological edge.

P.S:
also found this on the topic:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?a...
November 30, 2006 9:45:17 PM

ha ha ha, he looks pretty angry :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  maybe they can convert him to take intel's side this way.
November 30, 2006 10:15:06 PM

Quote:
no die shot? suuuuuuuuuucks

You have a DIE (4 of them exactly) and you want a DIESHOT???

This was clearly an attempt to draw attention of the buyers for the future, after the terrible performance of the new QFX-es, and whatever be the performance of Barcelona, AMD won't be willing to give intel much more reference points (like a dieshot would be) because the battle right now has gotten pretty hot. They've clearly shown that they're there but any early performance result now would help the adversary refine it's strategy.
November 30, 2006 10:19:53 PM

Quote:
Eh, I still feel like they rushed 4x4, but Barcelona seems to be proceeding on schedule. Hopefully when they release it I'll see great things moving.

I'll probably be ready to build my next computer by then... WOOT!


Actually it all makes sense now.

If they launched the 4x4 platform together with their quadcore, it would only confuse. Now they have the platform out and if the quad really needs only 68 Watt, then two take less than 140 Watt. So a 4x4 with quads suddenly becomes something interesting. Wow. 8O
a b à CPUs
November 30, 2006 10:52:59 PM

Quote:
Eh, I still feel like they rushed 4x4, but Barcelona seems to be proceeding on schedule. Hopefully when they release it I'll see great things moving.

I'll probably be ready to build my next computer by then... WOOT!


Actually it all makes sense now.

If they launched the 4x4 platform together with their quadcore, it would only confuse. Now they have the platform out and if the quad really needs only 68 Watt, then two take less than 140 Watt. So a 4x4 with quads suddenly becomes something interesting. Wow. 8O

Not only that, but 4x4 will provide a viable upgrade path all the way up to AM3 if the AM3's are a socket drop and a BIOS flash. If they play their cards right, AMD could have a mad crazy upgradeable enthusiast platform for the next 3-5 years.
November 30, 2006 11:05:38 PM

Quote:
Eh, I still feel like they rushed 4x4, but Barcelona seems to be proceeding on schedule. Hopefully when they release it I'll see great things moving.

I'll probably be ready to build my next computer by then... WOOT!


Actually it all makes sense now.

If they launched the 4x4 platform together with their quadcore, it would only confuse. Now they have the platform out and if the quad really needs only 68 Watt, then two take less than 140 Watt. So a 4x4 with quads suddenly becomes something interesting. Wow. 8O

Not only that, but 4x4 will provide a viable upgrade path all the way up to AM3 if the AM3's are a socket drop and a BIOS flash. If they play their cards right, AMD could have a mad crazy upgradeable enthusiast platform for the next 3-5 years.
Chunky How true it is , true how it is :)  .
November 30, 2006 11:42:29 PM

Quote:
ha ha ha, he looks pretty angry :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  maybe they can convert him to take intel's side this way.


What do you make of their other article on AMD's quadcore:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36085

I have opposable thumbs, but I think that article made me too dumb to use them. :?
a c 99 à CPUs
December 1, 2006 12:26:19 AM

It's not the IP address but your browser's locale setting. A browser has a user agent string like so:

[code:1:e7d4c924b0] Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.5; Linux; en_US) KHTML/3.5.5 (like Gecko)[/code:1:e7d4c924b0]

The "en_US" bit is the language and locale info. It says that my language is American English, as opposed to yours, which is likely British English, denoted by "en_GB." There are a lot of English locales, 15 in total, pretty much one for every country that has a majority or near-majority of English speakers.

You can change yours to en_US and get the U.S. site, but since you're highly likely a Windows user, that would require you to set your location as the United States. I don't know about Windows, but in Linux that also sets your default date format, thousands/decimal symbols, printer paper size, currency type, first day of the week, and measurement units. (I set my measurement units to metric as that's basically what I use- I am an engineer and scientist after all.) That may or may not be too much fiddling around for you to do, but it's out there.
a c 99 à CPUs
December 1, 2006 12:53:20 AM

Well, there are really a few reasons that could be why AMD did the QuadFX:

1. Have something in the super-high-end that competes with the Kentsfield. The sooner the better.

2. Try to bring a product with new capabilities as a platform to market- namely a machine that can harness 4 full-spec GPUs. Nobody else has done more than 2 GPU boards IIRC.

3. They know something in the future that we do not that the QuadFX platform is perfect for (Altair/Barcelona?)

I'd not say that QuadFX stinks at all- a 2.6 GHz dual-processor dual-core workstation setup for about $900-1000 with the mobo is a damn good deal. It's about half the cost of using real branded-server-line chips and I'd take that deal any day.
December 1, 2006 2:32:11 AM

Agreed
December 1, 2006 9:27:14 AM

Quote:
Well, there are really a few reasons that could be why AMD did the QuadFX:

1. Have something in the super-high-end that competes with the Kentsfield. The sooner the better.

2. Try to bring a product with new capabilities as a platform to market- namely a machine that can harness 4 full-spec GPUs. Nobody else has done more than 2 GPU boards IIRC.

3. They know something in the future that we do not that the QuadFX platform is perfect for (Altair/Barcelona?)

I'd not say that QuadFX stinks at all- a 2.6 GHz dual-processor dual-core workstation setup for about $900-1000 with the mobo is a damn good deal. It's about half the cost of using real branded-server-line chips and I'd take that deal any day.

2X the computing power is always perfect as long as you keep the power envelope low, however the three latest FX-es are probably going to bee one of the most stupid products to be remmembared; who is going to spent $1000-2000 on them with the quads on schedule :?: :!:
December 1, 2006 10:05:55 AM

THG got it wrong.
They didnt manage to stay within the current (sky-high btw...) power envelope because they used a native quad-core but because of the process shrink.
December 1, 2006 10:55:48 AM

The Quad FX system will b able to show it true potential with NUMA aware OS & multithreaded application.

Quote:
"We have finally found the strength of the Quad FX platform that actually originates exactly from the server side. We can see that as the number of simultaneously processed tasks increases, Quad FX platform starts outpacing Intel based systems. And this is quite logical, actually. Sooner or later Intel processors use up the entire bandwidth of their memory subsystem that serves for data transfer between the Kentsfield core pairs that have no shared L2 cache. Quad FX platform features two independent memory controllers in two CPUs and hence features twice as high memory bandwidth. Therefore, Quad FX turns out more efficient than a much faster quad-core Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 once the multi-threaded workload increases dramatically.

Although we have to admit anyone will rarely have five or more resource-hungry applications running at the same time. Therefore, this advantage of the AMD Quad FX platform can hardly be determinative for common users."




If u look at the graph… Just running 4 process background causes the power hungry Quad FX to take the Lead! I wonder how well will it perform with a NUMA aware OS. The performance gap should close from Athlon X2 vs Core2 Duo.

The Platform will Rock when K8L comes out in 2H 2007. AMDs K8L will b drop-in compatable with current Socket F & AM2. Meaning u can have an 8 core system in 2H 2007. Intels current board probably doesn’t support more than 4 cores or u should buy a new motherboard to upgrade. Intel probably won’t b able to offer an 8 core system until 2008.

Quote:
AMD claims that Barcelona (K8L) offers an overall performance increase of around 70% and a floating-point performance increase of up to 40% compared to current dual-core Opterons—and all within the same power envelope.
As AMD has been saying for a while now, Barcelona is scheduled to make its grand entrance in the middle of next year.


I don’t get how they compared a Quad Core Barcelona with a Dual Core Opteron.
A quad core Barcelona should actually perform more than 100% better than a Dual core opteron! Did they mean a Theoretical Dual Core Barcelona will b 70% better than Dual core K8? Or they meant a Quad Core Barcelona will b 70% better than a 2P Opteron?

If the 70% increase in performance claim is true then this Chip is about 50% better than a Core2 Quad! Now imagine 2 of these Barcelona in Quad FX system! It will be 100% better than Intel Octa Core which Intel will able to offer in late 2007 or 2008!?

Intel chips can clock higher, but I think Intel will lose the performance crown in 2H 2007. CSI
December 1, 2006 11:02:42 AM

I thought there already was a NUMA test. And it still sucked.
December 1, 2006 11:54:07 AM

Correct.

Apparently that's a NUMA super-ultra-megatasking test?

I don't know.

I also don't know where on earth they got their 40% and 70% numbers, as they should be in the 85% range if not better. Hopefully in the 110-120%+ range, but yeah.
December 1, 2006 12:29:08 PM

Quote:

If u look at the graph… Just running 4 process background causes the power hungry Quad FX to take the Lead! I wonder how well will it perform with a NUMA aware OS. The performance gap should close from Athlon X2 vs Core2 Duo.

4 memory background processes, which is very unlikely to happen. In normal situations, the FX-74 is no faster, and usually slower than a FX-62 in games and gets destroyed by a Core 2 based system.

Quote:
Or they meant a Quad Core Barcelona will b 70% better than a 2P Opteron?

That's what they mean.

Quote:
If the 70% increase in performance claim is true then this Chip is about 50% better than a Core2 Quad! Now imagine 2 of these Barcelona in Quad FX system! It will be 100% better than Intel Octa Core which Intel will able to offer in late 2007 or 2008!?

The 70% gain is 2 socket quad-core Barcelona versus 2 socket dual-core Opteron 2220. They don't mention the benchmark but my guess is TPC-C, the most important database transaction test. If the performance increase is only 70%, Intel already matches that score with a dual socket 2.66GHz Clovertown system sold by HP.
December 1, 2006 6:34:07 PM

With a NUMA aware OS the performance of a Quad FX shouldn’t go below the Athlon FX-62.
Quote:
“I thought there already was a NUMA test.”

Can u give a link plz?

Quote:
The 70% gain is 2 socket quad-core Barcelona versus 2 socket dual-core Opteron 2220.


A 2 socket Quad Core Barcelona should be more than 100% faster than 2 socket Dual Core Opteron. Come on… Its 8 Core vs 4 Cores plus the 8 core is a Barcelona (K8L)

Quote:
They don't mention the benchmark but my guess is TPC-C, the most important database transaction test. If the performance increase is only 70%, Intel already matches that score with a dual socket 2.66GHz Clovertown system sold by HP.

Dual socket Clovertown means an 8 core system r8?
Which is 70% faster than a 2P Dual core Opteron (4 core system)?
What r u trying to say?
December 1, 2006 7:56:46 PM

Quote:

A 2 socket Quad Core Barcelona should be more than 100% faster than 2 socket Dual Core Opteron. Come on… Its 8 Core vs 4 Cores plus the 8 core is a Barcelona (K8L)

Big enterprise benchmarks aren't 100% CPU limited.

Quote:
They don't mention the benchmark but my guess is TPC-C, the most important database transaction test. If the performance increase is only 70%, Intel already matches that score with a dual socket 2.66GHz Clovertown system sold by HP.

Dual socket Clovertown means an 8 core system r8?
Which is 70% faster than a 2P Dual core Opteron (4 core system)?
What r u trying to say?[/quote]
I'm saying that based on the OLTP performance, it is no faster than existing Clovertown systems.
December 2, 2006 11:16:45 AM

Well said; not innovative at all, but altogeather, I'd say its the smartest thing they could do. It will always put a X2 before the CPU exuation to counter intel's technological advantage. IMO it's a move even intel would have liked to adopt for the desktop, now that power envelopes ate dropping drastically.
December 2, 2006 11:56:54 AM

What I'd like to see is the upcoming AMD/ATi 4x4 motherboard. That, combined with newer 65nm dual cores might close the gap with Kentsfield further. I wish nVidia (or Intel) would release a similar dual socket workstation motherboard for Woodcrest/Clovertown. Is it technically possible to modify the Blackford chipset to allow use of unbuffered memory? Or can nVidia licence the DIB technology from Intel (in exchange for SLI)?
a b à CPUs
December 2, 2006 12:41:33 PM

Quote:
What I do disagree with though is chunkymonster's claim that the 4x4 is innovative.... it is not, it is creative, it is strategic, but not innovative. Nothing in the 4x4 is new except a revised 'newer' chipset from nVidia (which is evolutionary and not innovation). Ultimately, this creative assembly of a new platform will become the very high end consumer product. It won't sell many but it will keep AMD's name at the top of the charts --- which is what AMD wants and needs since they do not have huge marketing muscle.

Jack


Jack, given the fact that I stated that in an entirely different thread, you have gone out of your way to mention me in this post. I'm touched. It's nice to know that you are thinking about me. :D 

As a hardware and computer ethusiast, I am dissappointed that the introduction of the 4x4 platform is not getting positive recognition. Instead, it has been received and contextualized in the typical Intel vs AMD, my proc is better than yours debate that has totally permeated this forum. As an enthusiast level platform, 4x4 is something new, it has never been done before, and I challenge anyone to prove that it has. Some people would choose to call the introduction of a new platform innovative, some people would not; and as someone stated in another thread, that is a "difference of opinion".

As a forum filled supposedly filled with technology/computer/hardware enthusiasts and given the way 4x4 has been received, the bias and nearsightedness of these threads is a sorry state of affairs.

But hey, what do I know...according to Jack, I don't know, er, well, jack...
December 2, 2006 12:48:49 PM

What I don't understand is, rather than go to all the trouble of the 4x4 platform, why didn't they do an Intel and just stick 2 chips in one package? I appreciate if they used standard chips this might push TDP too high, but if they'd packaged 2 EE X2's into a package, then TDP wouldn't be any more than a top end FX. Is there some technical reason to do with the HT architecture that prevents this?
December 2, 2006 1:35:51 PM

Why wouldn't the TDP double along with the CPU's? They are still using the same process. I just don't see how it could do anything but double.

wes
December 2, 2006 1:41:52 PM

As far as I know Kentsfield isn't double the TDP of Conroe... think it's a bit less (due to only one FSB for example).

Assuming that was the case though, then 2 65W EE X2's together would take you up to 130W - we know there have been single chips in the past that have reached 125W so I don't see why they couldn't have done this, unless the HT bus prevents this.
December 2, 2006 1:56:42 PM

Someone had said that 4x4 was the only one to use 4 graphics cards and have dual cpu's. Only if AMD had come out with it earlier then Apple. I guess some people don't know the specs on the Mac G5 that came out a couple of months ago, which is Kenstfield ready too. I'm not a Mac fan , I use PC's exclusively, but guess what? It does use Intel CPU's, and it's been out and i would say pop 2 Kentsfield into it and it woud be a 4x4. But i'm just a truck driver so what do i know.

http://www.apple.com/macpro/

R Collins
December 2, 2006 1:56:58 PM

Someone had said that 4x4 was the only one to use 4 graphics cards and have dual cpu's. Only if AMD had come out with it earlier then Apple. I guess some people don't know the specs on the Mac G5 that came out a couple of months ago, which is Kenstfield ready too. I'm not a Mac fan , I use PC's exclusively, but guess what? It does use Intel CPU's, and it's been out and i would say pop 2 Kentsfield into it and it woud be a 4x4. But i'm just a truck driver so what do i know.

http://www.apple.com/macpro/

R Collins
December 2, 2006 2:03:46 PM

Well, nobody said that 4x4 was the first dual socket motherboard ever, far from it.
Both AMD and Intel have 2 socket server and workstation mobos (even 4 socket and more is possible).
But from a quick look at Apple's website, i don't see how you could do quad SLI on that workstation (and its video card options appear quite limited).
Also, yes anybody can do quad SLI using 7950 GX2 cards, but that's far different from having 4 high speed (2 16x + 2 8x) PCI-Express slots as in 4x4 .
!