http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197700269 Is this enough? Is this enough for the enthusiast class?
But us enthusiasts love to oc...I agree talk is cheap, but if these numbers are true, to what extent will Barcelona have to excel in integer, knowing that soi wont oc much better even at 65nm? Or will the posts of the future be : who needs oc when my Barcelona is faster already?
Well, based on what little information that AMD has released, the 42% advantage will be completely irrelevant on the desktop. The 42% advantage isn't in FP, rather it's in SPECfp_rate2000, which is heavily memory bandwidth dependent and AMD's platform is very well-suited for it but doesn't correlate with desktop applications. A dual-socket Opteron 2220SE, roughly analogous to a QuadFX FX-72 system scores 90.8, while a Xeon 3220 system, basically a Q6600, scores 64.2. And yet as seen in the numerous reviews, the Q6600 is a match for the FX-74 on desktop applications.Too true LOL , but I am asking some heady questions, and to add to that what if any effect or advantage do FP have on desktop?
Yeah, AMD's NUMA architecture works very well with SPECfp_rate. But as AMD has only given two rough numbers (this one plus a database related benchmark), there's not enough information to say other than the two architectures will be quite close to each other for the desktop. It'll probably end up being decided like it used to be, by CPU clock.So theyre touting their IMC? Will this advantage have any effect on multi media aps? Decoding graphics/movies? Or since its all 2 dimensional will have no effect? Im just trying to understand as Im new to this
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197700269 Is this enough? Is this enough for the enthusiast class?
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197700269 Is this enough? Is this enough for the enthusiast class?
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197700269 Is this enough? Is this enough for the enthusiast class?
When they claim a "double digit" lead in integer performance and a 40% advantage on fp performance, are they claiming it on a clock for clock basis? If not, what clock speed K10 are they comparing to what clock speed Kentsfield for this benefit?
C2D's have a lot of head room on their current process, it would not be difficult to put out a bump or two in clock speeds as a response.
But that's exactly what I mean by 'proudly pronouncing'. Sure, sounds great, but it doesn't really show anything. As interesting as it is, I want to know if they've actually demonstrated anything, instead of just listing specifications that put the Starship Enterprise to shame.
Frankly, I don''t care if there's a 512-entry indirect predictor under that heat spreader or a team of leprechauns sporting tiny pencils and paper pads. Either way, have they shown how well it works?
The Anand article doesn't address anything in terms of concrete performance numbers.
Is AMD making IPC claims, or are they comparing a particular clock to a particular C2Q clock? Since the C2's are expected to run at higher clock speeds, this can rather dramatically impact the performance claims they are making.
I'm not making claims that Barcelona will be better, in fact I didn't read in the article where the author said that either. I was trying to point to an informative source that manages to objectively look at both sides. From now on, I'll be sure to add "no benchmarks will be found here" at the end of my posts.
i like the articles and statements with them saying intel is cheating. reminds me of 4th grade.