Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Barcelona 30-40% faster than predecessors...

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 5, 2007 9:35:34 PM

Quote:
such as the expectation that the chip would outperform its predecessors by about 30 to 40% and that AMD considers the introduction of the chip as a significant launch, probably more significant than the launch of the original Opteron CPU.


I don't know if this is a miss print, but according to Hector Ruiz, Barcelona will be 30-40% faster than predecessors. Now, tell me if I'm wrong, but I thought refering to predecessors meant previous Opterons. That performance gain puts it in line with the Core lineup, which makes more sense than a 40% gain in "some applications" than Intel chips.

By all means, I'm a fan boy of consumerism. What I dislike is hype without proof. Intel hyped then showed proof. Where's the proof from AMD?
March 5, 2007 11:50:18 PM

30-40% faster than Opteron should make it a hair faster than Core 2, generally said to be 20-25% faster than K8 at the same clocks. Core 2 also has substantially more frequency headroom at the moment, as overclockers would know.

AMD isn't providing any proof yet. The funny suspicion I get is that AMD may tweak the performance claims and keep working on K10 till both match, delaying the product release as necessary.
March 6, 2007 12:18:01 AM

Quote:
such as the expectation that the chip would outperform its predecessors by about 30 to 40% and that AMD considers the introduction of the chip as a significant launch, probably more significant than the launch of the original Opteron CPU.


I don't know if this is a miss print, but according to Hector Ruiz, Barcelona will be 30-40% faster than predecessors. Now, tell me if I'm wrong, but I thought refering to predecessors meant previous Opterons. That performance gain puts it in line with the Core lineup, which makes more sense than a 40% gain in "some applications" than Intel chips.

By all means, I'm a fan boy of consumerism. What I dislike is hype without proof. Intel hyped then showed proof. Where's the proof from AMD?


According to a video interview with the EMEA guy and chipset guy, those estimates are extremely conservative. But in this case I believe it is talking about Kuma vs. Brisbane as there is no direct quad core correlation.

I expected 60-80% which in FP is what dual core gets with Barcelona according to AMD.

He probably meant overall averages. We can all say "show me the money" but the thing is not due to sample until May so we have a few more weeks until server benches start to pop up.

If they misrepresented it then I will have a 4400+ for a LOOOOONNNNNGGGGG time.
Related resources
March 6, 2007 1:15:44 AM

Here's the thing, from a little research, I found that the earliest testings(actual benchmarks) were in March of last year for the Conroe chips. Granted, it was presented by Intel, but they weren't lying or proclaiming anything without the proof in hand. Core 2 shipped in August, right? If AMD is following suit, we should have seen some benches already. What are they afraid of? I thought AMD was bold and ambitious. They have challenged Intel before, but that was with already proven facts. I want to see the gloves come off before I lose all respect for AMD. It's time to put up or shut up.

Baron, I hope for your sake, that AMD and you are correct. But either way, I think I'll stick with my QX6700 until penryn or nehalem hits the streets, no matter what AMD puts out. I have an X2 3800+ system which I choose to let my wife use, she doesn't know the difference.
March 6, 2007 1:28:04 AM

Quote:
Here's the thing, from a little research, I found that the earliest testings(actual benchmarks) were in March of last year for the Conroe chips. Granted, it was presented by Intel, but they weren't lying or proclaiming anything without the proof in hand. Core 2 shipped in August, right? If AMD is following suit, we should have seen some benches already. What are they afraid of? I thought AMD was bold and ambitious. They have challenged Intel before, but that was with already proven facts. I want to see the gloves come off before I lose all respect for AMD. It's time to put up or shut up.

Baron, I hope for your sake, that AMD and you are correct. But either way, I think I'll stick with my QX6700 until penryn or nehalem hits the streets, no matter what AMD puts out. I have an X2 3800+ system which I choose to let my wife use, she doesn't know the difference.



Please, this is not a game. It's about engineers. AMD has Itanium AND Alpha engineers. Intel has 10X the resources and can have a lot more test chips being produced before they sample, AMD can't.

Again, why would they lie unless they want to go out of business? Intel FUD'd everyone away from the Opteron launch the same way.

Bugger off, excuse my French.
March 6, 2007 1:36:25 AM

Quote:
Here's the thing, from a little research, I found that the earliest testings(actual benchmarks) were in March of last year for the Conroe chips. Granted, it was presented by Intel, but they weren't lying or proclaiming anything without the proof in hand. Core 2 shipped in August, right? If AMD is following suit, we should have seen some benches already. What are they afraid of? I thought AMD was bold and ambitious. They have challenged Intel before, but that was with already proven facts. I want to see the gloves come off before I lose all respect for AMD. It's time to put up or shut up.

Baron, I hope for your sake, that AMD and you are correct. But either way, I think I'll stick with my QX6700 until penryn or nehalem hits the streets, no matter what AMD puts out. I have an X2 3800+ system which I choose to let my wife use, she doesn't know the difference.

You seem to have mistaken AMD and Intel as being the same company. Every company doesn't run by the same business strategies. AMD is talking about it's chip, so what? Intel talked about Conroe a long time before it launched, and I didn't see anyone complaining. Why is it that everyone finds Intel to be more credible than AMD?
March 6, 2007 1:50:55 AM

Quote:
Here's the thing, from a little research, I found that the earliest testings(actual benchmarks) were in March of last year for the Conroe chips. Granted, it was presented by Intel, but they weren't lying or proclaiming anything without the proof in hand. Core 2 shipped in August, right? If AMD is following suit, we should have seen some benches already. What are they afraid of? I thought AMD was bold and ambitious. They have challenged Intel before, but that was with already proven facts. I want to see the gloves come off before I lose all respect for AMD. It's time to put up or shut up.

Baron, I hope for your sake, that AMD and you are correct. But either way, I think I'll stick with my QX6700 until penryn or nehalem hits the streets, no matter what AMD puts out. I have an X2 3800+ system which I choose to let my wife use, she doesn't know the difference.



Please, this is not a game. It's about engineers. AMD has Itanium AND Alpha engineers. Intel has 10X the resources and can have a lot more test chips being produced before they sample, AMD can't.

Again, why would they lie unless they want to go out of business? Intel FUD'd everyone away from the Opteron launch the same way.

Bugger off, excuse my French.

Not to start a flamewar or anything, but it might be in their interest to lie because;
1) they need a good news coming through - theirs stocks have hit a new 52-weeks low. Some are predicting doom and gloom for 07 for AMD
2) stop from all the server sales going to Intel. By saying that their chip is X% faster, some ppl/companies might delay their buying decision to see what AMD could offer (not always the case)

Both of those are valid reasons why they would 'want' to lie. IM NOT SAYING THAT THEY ARE LYING (excuse my caps).
March 6, 2007 1:53:10 AM

Quote:
Here's the thing, from a little research, I found that the earliest testings(actual benchmarks) were in March of last year for the Conroe chips. Granted, it was presented by Intel, but they weren't lying or proclaiming anything without the proof in hand. Core 2 shipped in August, right? If AMD is following suit, we should have seen some benches already. What are they afraid of? I thought AMD was bold and ambitious. They have challenged Intel before, but that was with already proven facts. I want to see the gloves come off before I lose all respect for AMD. It's time to put up or shut up.

Baron, I hope for your sake, that AMD and you are correct. But either way, I think I'll stick with my QX6700 until penryn or nehalem hits the streets, no matter what AMD puts out. I have an X2 3800+ system which I choose to let my wife use, she doesn't know the difference.



Please, this is not a game. It's about engineers. AMD has Itanium AND Alpha engineers. Intel has 10X the resources and can have a lot more test chips being produced before they sample, AMD can't.

Again, why would they lie unless they want to go out of business? Intel FUD'd everyone away from the Opteron launch the same way.

Bugger off, excuse my French.

Not to start a flamewar or anything, but it might be in their interest to lie because;
1) they need a good news coming through - theirs stocks have hit a new 52-weeks low. Some are predicting doom and gloom for 07 for AMD
2) stop from all the server sales going to Intel. By saying that their chip is X% faster, some ppl/companies might delay their buying decision to see what AMD could offer (not always the case)

Both of those are valid reasons why they would 'want' to lie. IM NOT SAYING THAT THEY ARE LYING (excuse my caps).



In a fantasy world where misrepresentation doesn't have repercussions perhaps that would be a proper course but in the real world, Opteron is not a lie and neither will Barcelona be a lie.
March 6, 2007 1:53:13 AM

Quote:
Here's the thing, from a little research, I found that the earliest testings(actual benchmarks) were in March of last year for the Conroe chips. Granted, it was presented by Intel, but they weren't lying or proclaiming anything without the proof in hand. Core 2 shipped in August, right? If AMD is following suit, we should have seen some benches already. What are they afraid of? I thought AMD was bold and ambitious. They have challenged Intel before, but that was with already proven facts. I want to see the gloves come off before I lose all respect for AMD. It's time to put up or shut up.

Baron, I hope for your sake, that AMD and you are correct. But either way, I think I'll stick with my QX6700 until penryn or nehalem hits the streets, no matter what AMD puts out. I have an X2 3800+ system which I choose to let my wife use, she doesn't know the difference.

You seem to have mistaken AMD and Intel as being the same company. Every company doesn't run by the same business strategies. AMD is talking about it's chip, so what? Intel talked about Conroe a long time before it launched, and I didn't see anyone complaining. Why is it that everyone finds Intel to be more credible than AMD?

i been sayin this for a while.... AMD is doing no different than INTEL did last year.... but for some reason AMD is villified for it
March 6, 2007 2:07:20 AM

Quote:
Here's the thing, from a little research, I found that the earliest testings(actual benchmarks) were in March of last year for the Conroe chips. Granted, it was presented by Intel, but they weren't lying or proclaiming anything without the proof in hand. Core 2 shipped in August, right? If AMD is following suit, we should have seen some benches already. What are they afraid of? I thought AMD was bold and ambitious. They have challenged Intel before, but that was with already proven facts. I want to see the gloves come off before I lose all respect for AMD. It's time to put up or shut up.

Baron, I hope for your sake, that AMD and you are correct. But either way, I think I'll stick with my QX6700 until penryn or nehalem hits the streets, no matter what AMD puts out. I have an X2 3800+ system which I choose to let my wife use, she doesn't know the difference.

You seem to have mistaken AMD and Intel as being the same company. Every company doesn't run by the same business strategies. AMD is talking about it's chip, so what? Intel talked about Conroe a long time before it launched, and I didn't see anyone complaining. Why is it that everyone finds Intel to be more credible than AMD?

i been sayin this for a while.... AMD is doing no different than INTEL did last year.... but for some reason AMD is villified for it
That's not what I was saying.
March 6, 2007 2:10:08 AM

I don't see where Intel did the same as AMD is doing now. If I'm wrong put in some links to show me. Intel showed demonstrations to support their claims, that's all I'm saying. Where's the demo's(from AMD)? And they may be two different companies, but Intel has been on top because of the way they do business. It would suit AMD to at least do some of the things that Intel has. And to talk about resources is rediculous when comparing multibillion dollar businesses. You may hate what I say, but again, it's my opinion, and I'd rather stick with Intel until AMD can prove otherwise.

You can say my opinion is based on future roadmaps and the directions the two companies are heading. Now, I really don't like Apple because of their arrogant prick of a leader, Steve Jobs, but they saw enough in the future of Intel to use their CPU's. That's got to say something about the future of Intel. Now, if AMD comes up with something remarkable, I'll be the first one to use it, as long as they show me its remarkable.
March 6, 2007 2:14:21 AM

Quote:
I don't see where Intel did the same as AMD is doing now. If I'm wrong put in some links to show me. Intel showed demonstrations to support their claims, that's all I'm saying. Where's the demo's(from AMD)? And they may be two different companies, but Intel has been on top because of the way they do business. It would suit AMD to at least do some of the things that Intel has. And to talk about resources is rediculous when comparing multibillion dollar businesses. You may hate what I say, but again, it's my opinion, and I'd rather stick with Intel until AMD can prove otherwise.

You can say my opinion is based on future roadmaps and the directions the two companies are heading. Now, I really don't like Apple because of their arrogant prick of a leader, Steve Jobs, but they saw enough in the future of Intel to use their CPU's. That's got to say something about the future of Intel. Now, if AMD comes up with something remarkable, I'll be the first one to use it, as long as they show me its remarkable.

I don't even know where to start.
Quote:
It would suit AMD to at least do some of the things that Intel has.

Like I said, you seem to think they are the same companies. If AMD was Intel, then there might have been a working Barcelona demo with more than task manager open. But it's not.
I don't consider Steve Jobs a prick, he does, in my opinion, bend the facts sometimes, but he isn't a prick.
I'm not here begging you not to stick with Intel. I'm not trying to stick up for AMD, I'm just saying that there will be a demo, and AMD will not do it because you ask them for it. If I went to Intel and asked them for a free Core 2 Duo, Intel would not give it to me.
March 6, 2007 2:18:23 AM

Quote:
Here's the thing, from a little research, I found that the earliest testings(actual benchmarks) were in March of last year for the Conroe chips. Granted, it was presented by Intel, but they weren't lying or proclaiming anything without the proof in hand. Core 2 shipped in August, right? If AMD is following suit, we should have seen some benches already. What are they afraid of? I thought AMD was bold and ambitious. They have challenged Intel before, but that was with already proven facts. I want to see the gloves come off before I lose all respect for AMD. It's time to put up or shut up.

Baron, I hope for your sake, that AMD and you are correct. But either way, I think I'll stick with my QX6700 until penryn or nehalem hits the streets, no matter what AMD puts out. I have an X2 3800+ system which I choose to let my wife use, she doesn't know the difference.

You seem to have mistaken AMD and Intel as being the same company. Every company doesn't run by the same business strategies. AMD is talking about it's chip, so what? Intel talked about Conroe a long time before it launched, and I didn't see anyone complaining. Why is it that everyone finds Intel to be more credible than AMD?

i been sayin this for a while.... AMD is doing no different than INTEL did last year.... but for some reason AMD is villified for it

Not quite.... Intel did actually setup a running system, allowed journalist to scrutinize the setup, drivers, device manager, and even allowed Anand to update the AMD BIOS used for the comparision system.

What AMD is doing similar to Intel is what Intel stated in 2005 that everyone brushed off when they said they would lead in performance and power by 20% in both cases with a new architecture 2006.... it is exactly what they did.

AMD is making similar claims in performance within the same power envelop (actually quite bolder claims), there is no reason to doubt it but there is no reason to accept it either.... the same skepticism is valid now for AMD as it was in 2005 when Intel made the same claims without data.

Jack

I agree, Jack, but what is different now is timing. We are supposedly six months from a hard launch of Barcelona and where's the demo's? If AMD was so confident, why did it take so long to proclaim superior performance? These two companies may do business different, but if I've got a superior product that's launching in a pretty short time window, I think I would be putting all the speculation to rest and show some hard numbers, some real fact.

AMD has been working on K10 for a long time, it's time to give the people what they want. Maybe I'll eat my own words and Barcelona will be brilliant, but the way AMD is playing this "edge of your seat thriller" sucks. Give me something solid before I lose interest.
March 6, 2007 2:23:43 AM

Quote:
I don't see where Intel did the same as AMD is doing now. If I'm wrong put in some links to show me. Intel showed demonstrations to support their claims, that's all I'm saying. Where's the demo's(from AMD)? And they may be two different companies, but Intel has been on top because of the way they do business. It would suit AMD to at least do some of the things that Intel has. And to talk about resources is rediculous when comparing multibillion dollar businesses. You may hate what I say, but again, it's my opinion, and I'd rather stick with Intel until AMD can prove otherwise.

You can say my opinion is based on future roadmaps and the directions the two companies are heading. Now, I really don't like Apple because of their arrogant prick of a leader, Steve Jobs, but they saw enough in the future of Intel to use their CPU's. That's got to say something about the future of Intel. Now, if AMD comes up with something remarkable, I'll be the first one to use it, as long as they show me its remarkable.

I don't even know where to start.
Quote:
It would suit AMD to at least do some of the things that Intel has.

Like I said, you seem to think they are the same companies. If AMD was Intel, then there might have been a working Barcelona demo with more than task manager open. But it's not.
I don't consider Steve Jobs a prick, he does, in my opinion, bend the facts sometimes, but he isn't a prick.
I'm not here begging you not to stick with Intel. I'm not trying to stick up for AMD, I'm just saying that there will be a demo, and AMD will not do it because you ask them for it. If I went to Intel and asked them for a free Core 2 Duo, Intel would not give it to me.

Come on man, that's such a cop out. I know they are two different companies. One is called Intel and the other is called AMD. I'm disappointed in the way AMD is doing business right now.

And Steve Jobs is a prick. Haven't you seen the Mac commercials? I have not seen Microsoft do anything as disrespectful as those commercials. And when was the last time Steve Jobs donated a billion dollars to charity? I respect Bill Gates for the man he is and they way he does business. But that's for another thread, not this one.
March 6, 2007 2:23:43 AM

I can't go on, the more I tell you that for now you should take it as fact until the benchmarks prove/disprove it, the more you will ignore me. They don't have to give you benchmarks, but you'll sit here and complain about them not giving them.
March 6, 2007 2:36:11 AM

does amd pay you to write this? if not say yeye to the better chip and boo to the loser chip! in 6 moths amd will be back on top and you can fanboy it.


Quote:
I don't see where Intel did the same as AMD is doing now. If I'm wrong put in some links to show me. Intel showed demonstrations to support their claims, that's all I'm saying. Where's the demo's(from AMD)? And they may be two different companies, but Intel has been on top because of the way they do business. It would suit AMD to at least do some of the things that Intel has. And to talk about resources is rediculous when comparing multibillion dollar businesses. You may hate what I say, but again, it's my opinion, and I'd rather stick with Intel until AMD can prove otherwise.

You can say my opinion is based on future roadmaps and the directions the two companies are heading. Now, I really don't like Apple because of their arrogant prick of a leader, Steve Jobs, but they saw enough in the future of Intel to use their CPU's. That's got to say something about the future of Intel. Now, if AMD comes up with something remarkable, I'll be the first one to use it, as long as they show me its remarkable.

I don't even know where to start.
Quote:
It would suit AMD to at least do some of the things that Intel has.

Like I said, you seem to think they are the same companies. If AMD was Intel, then there might have been a working Barcelona demo with more than task manager open. But it's not.
I don't consider Steve Jobs a prick, he does, in my opinion, bend the facts sometimes, but he isn't a prick.
I'm not here begging you not to stick with Intel. I'm not trying to stick up for AMD, I'm just saying that there will be a demo, and AMD will not do it because you ask them for it. If I went to Intel and asked them for a free Core 2 Duo, Intel would not give it to me.



dude you do this all the time: I'm not here begging you not to stick with Intel. I'm not trying to stick up for AMD,
March 6, 2007 2:42:23 AM

Quote:
Not quite.... Intel did actually setup a running system, allowed journalist to scrutinize the setup, drivers, device manager, and even allowed Anand to update the AMD BIOS used for the comparision system.

What AMD is doing similar to Intel is what Intel stated in 2005 that everyone brushed off when they said they would lead in performance and power by 20% in both cases with a new architecture 2006.... it is exactly what they did.

AMD is making similar claims in performance within the same power envelop (actually quite bolder claims), there is no reason to doubt it but there is no reason to accept it either.... the same skepticism is valid now for AMD as it was in 2005 when Intel made the same claims without data.

Jack


i agree good awnser.
March 6, 2007 2:46:57 AM

Dragon you're a hopeless cause. Anyone who's seen your posts completely disregards you, except me.
March 6, 2007 2:50:06 AM

Quote:
in 6 moths amd will be back on top and you can fanboy it.




OMG! 8O 8O 8O

DRAGONSLAYER SAID AMD WILL BE BETTER THAN INTEL!?!?!!??!!?!?!

8O 8O 8O
March 6, 2007 2:51:44 AM

Quote:
According to a video interview with the EMEA guy and chipset guy, those estimates are extremely conservative. But in this case I believe it is talking about Kuma vs. Brisbane as there is no direct quad core correlation.
No, he is talking about Barcelona. So it could be Barcelona vs Opteron K8 dualcore, or K10 core vs K8 core, clock for clock.

Quote:
If they misrepresented it then I will have a 4400+ for a LOOOOONNNNNGGGGG time.
What happened to your QFX order?
Now when you can have 8 gigs of RAM and have "300%" faster system for multithreaded apps and "100%" faster for singletheraded, why not buying it? :roll:
Also the QFX can win in something against C2Q in 64bit Vista using NUMA: Cinebench and POVray. :lol:  Linkage 8)
March 6, 2007 2:53:06 AM

Quote:
Here's the thing, from a little research, I found that the earliest testings(actual benchmarks) were in March of last year for the Conroe chips. Granted, it was presented by Intel, but they weren't lying or proclaiming anything without the proof in hand. Core 2 shipped in August, right? If AMD is following suit, we should have seen some benches already. What are they afraid of? I thought AMD was bold and ambitious. They have challenged Intel before, but that was with already proven facts. I want to see the gloves come off before I lose all respect for AMD. It's time to put up or shut up.

Baron, I hope for your sake, that AMD and you are correct. But either way, I think I'll stick with my QX6700 until penryn or nehalem hits the streets, no matter what AMD puts out. I have an X2 3800+ system which I choose to let my wife use, she doesn't know the difference.

You seem to have mistaken AMD and Intel as being the same company. Every company doesn't run by the same business strategies. AMD is talking about it's chip, so what? Intel talked about Conroe a long time before it launched, and I didn't see anyone complaining. Why is it that everyone finds Intel to be more credible than AMD?

i been sayin this for a while.... AMD is doing no different than INTEL did last year.... but for some reason AMD is villified for it

Not quite.... Intel did actually setup a running system, allowed journalist to scrutinize the setup, drivers, device manager, and even allowed Anand to update the AMD BIOS used for the comparision system.

What AMD is doing similar to Intel is what Intel stated in 2005 that everyone brushed off when they said they would lead in performance and power by 20% in both cases with a new architecture 2006.... it is exactly what they did.

AMD is making similar claims in performance within the same power envelop (actually quite bolder claims), there is no reason to doubt it but there is no reason to accept it either.... the same skepticism is valid now for AMD as it was in 2005 when Intel made the same claims without data.

Jack

Yes, or the same level of skepticism. Myself, I believed Intel's claims back then immediately. After all, we knew the PentM was a fantastic chip. I was hoping Goliath would not crush David, but as soon as I saw those claims, I knew that indeed David better start moving his feet!

It'd sure be nice for David if to be at least as fleet of foot as Goliath. And I suppose I couldn't say yet. Instead, it more like Goliaths club is swinging, and David's feet are moving, and it's all in slow mo, lol.

It should occur to people who like to build their own fast computers every year or two that we're a lot better off if AMD thrives enough to be competitive in 2010, etc, when we build future machines. If anyone here remembers AT&T from the 70s and early 80s, then they know what it's like to have one dominate company with no real competition.
March 6, 2007 5:50:59 AM

Quote:
outperform its predecessors by about 30 to 40%

Its same as expected by analysts, this would put them ~20% ahead of current C2D tech., but what worries me is Barcelona speed ramping up, Intel have an advantage there.

BTW, Penryn release isnt so distant (Q4 2007 - Q1 2008), its sampled and showed running Vista, etc, where are my benchmarks? :roll:
March 6, 2007 6:23:12 AM

I'd doubt that any of the alpha engineers are still working... Most of the DEC guys would have retired by now. AMD has IBM to lean on, and IBM has many time the R&D resources of Intel... So why is AMD keeping so quiet?

In your immortal words, 'pardon my australian, but bugger off'!
March 6, 2007 6:35:17 AM

Quote:
Here's the thing, from a little research, I found that the earliest testings(actual benchmarks) were in March of last year for the Conroe chips. Granted, it was presented by Intel, but they weren't lying or proclaiming anything without the proof in hand. Core 2 shipped in August, right? If AMD is following suit, we should have seen some benches already. What are they afraid of? I thought AMD was bold and ambitious. They have challenged Intel before, but that was with already proven facts. I want to see the gloves come off before I lose all respect for AMD. It's time to put up or shut up.

Baron, I hope for your sake, that AMD and you are correct. But either way, I think I'll stick with my QX6700 until penryn or nehalem hits the streets, no matter what AMD puts out. I have an X2 3800+ system which I choose to let my wife use, she doesn't know the difference.

You seem to have mistaken AMD and Intel as being the same company. Every company doesn't run by the same business strategies. AMD is talking about it's chip, so what? Intel talked about Conroe a long time before it launched, and I didn't see anyone complaining. Why is it that everyone finds Intel to be more credible than AMD?

i been sayin this for a while.... AMD is doing no different than INTEL did last year.... but for some reason AMD is villified for it

Not quite.... Intel did actually setup a running system, allowed journalist to scrutinize the setup, drivers, device manager, and even allowed Anand to update the AMD BIOS used for the comparision system.

What AMD is doing similar to Intel is what Intel stated in 2005 that everyone brushed off when they said they would lead in performance and power by 20% in both cases with a new architecture 2006.... it is exactly what they did.

AMD is making similar claims in performance within the same power envelop (actually quite bolder claims), there is no reason to doubt it but there is no reason to accept it either.... the same skepticism is valid now for AMD as it was in 2005 when Intel made the same claims without data.

Jack

I think that the differences here are that Intel had working samples, and within a very short time (weeks not quarters, if memory serves) people like Anand had ES samples with no NDA's, reviews were starting to come out. This was months in advance of the actual release. It's been over a year, so my memory may be a bit vague...

It will be interesting to see how Intel approaches the Penryn launch this time around. Will they wait until AMD shows its hand?
March 6, 2007 7:36:24 AM

You need to have some faith in our AMD boys.They keep getting kicked down by Intel and everyone else,yet they keep getting back on their feet and proving everyone wrong.Now just because AMD is having a hard time of it at the moment does not mean they are out of the game.Personally I think that given enough time,AMD will more than prove itself.And to go with what another has said,INTEL has the benefit of having more resources including money and personell than AMD.If AMD had the same resources as INTEL........well need I say more???

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.6 S-939
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7950GT KO IN SLI
2X 512MB CRUCIAL BALLISTIX DDR500
WD300GIG HD
ACER 22IN WIDESCREEN LCD 1600X1200
THERMALTAKE TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
3DMARK05 13,442
March 6, 2007 8:58:15 AM

Quote:
I'm disappointed in the way AMD is doing business right now.


You don't really see the big picture do you.

Don't you understand INTEL is getting deep into the graphics game , CSI, ODMC...tick tock method, Intel will have a FUSION type chip before long... AMD has to diversify to survive. AMD needed to purchase Ati for long term survival

that move, coupled with the price war, is killing them on the bottom line ... They also have to start getting 45um ready at the same time....and get Ati up to snuff.... get the Torrenza platform up to snuff ...as well as get the K10 out the door and have it be faster than conroe... all with tremendos pressure on them from INTEL and Stockholders ...

Its a tall task... but its an aggresive and needed move....

A war is not won with just a few battles....2007 is the lost battle....2008 the reinforcements hit the beach.

if they can survive until come
March 6, 2007 9:57:32 AM

i thought by implying the K10 "up to 40% faster than our current architecture at some application" meant what it said, lol, current architecture is the K8L, the 6000+ and 6200+ are K8L and compare well to the E6600 and E6700 so if the barc is 40% faster it would slaughter, lol, but i doubt it
March 6, 2007 10:00:51 AM

This isnt directly at you or anyone else, But as Ive read all the posts here it seems that sometime in July-August or Sept Barcelona is coming out. OK its now March, what do we know about Intel and C2D? In March of last year they came out with trickles of benches through Annand etc. Then in the Middle of July they launched the C2D, now if for sure the Barcelona chip were to launch in July or MID July then wed probably be seeing benches , BUT since we know that its more like July-August OR Sept then we may have 2 more months (using Intels timeframe) to wait. Is it that hard? SHEEESH
March 6, 2007 10:49:46 AM

Quote:
This isnt directly at you or anyone else, But as Ive read all the posts here it seems that sometime in July-August or Sept Barcelona is coming out. OK its now March, what do we know about Intel and C2D? In March of last year they came out with trickles of benches through Annand etc. Then in the Middle of July they launched the C2D, now if for sure the Barcelona chip were to launch in July or MID July then wed probably be seeing benches , BUT since we know that its more like July-August OR Sept then we may have 2 more months (using Intels timeframe) to wait. Is it that hard? SHEEESH


Post of the day!
March 6, 2007 11:59:32 AM

Quote:
i thought by implying the K10 "up to 40% faster than our current architecture at some application" meant what it said, lol, current architecture is the K8L, the 6000+ and 6200+ are K8L and compare well to the E6600 and E6700 so if the barc is 40% faster it would slaughter, lol, but i doubt it


Presumably they are comparing per-clock. While the 6000+ is similar to the e6600, the 6000+ runs at 3GHz while the e6600 runs at 2.4. For one architecture, speed will be approximately linearly related to clock for any chip made with that architecture.

EDIT: Wow I didnt even notice you said K8L. No theyre not, theyre just K8.
March 6, 2007 12:43:09 PM

Quote:
According to a video interview with the EMEA guy and chipset guy, those estimates are extremely conservative. But in this case I believe it is talking about Kuma vs. Brisbane as there is no direct quad core correlation.
No, he is talking about Barcelona. So it could be Barcelona vs Opteron K8 dualcore, or K10 core vs K8 core, clock for clock.

Quote:
If they misrepresented it then I will have a 4400+ for a LOOOOONNNNNGGGGG time.
What happened to your QFX order?
Now when you can have 8 gigs of RAM and have "300%" faster system for multithreaded apps and "100%" faster for singletheraded, why not buying it? :roll:
Also the QFX can win in something against C2Q in 64bit Vista using NUMA: Cinebench and POVray. :lol:  Linkage 8)


Whatever. There IS NO WAY A QUAD CORE CHIP IS 30-40% FASTER THAN A DUAL CORE CHIP.

I guess the dual core Opteron is only 30-40% faster than single core huhn?

BTW, don't worry about my purchases.
March 6, 2007 12:44:37 PM

Quote:
i thought by implying the K10 "up to 40% faster than our current architecture at some application" meant what it said, lol, current architecture is the K8L, the 6000+ and 6200+ are K8L and compare well to the E6600 and E6700 so if the barc is 40% faster it would slaughter, lol, but i doubt it


There is no K8L for the desktop.
March 6, 2007 2:38:27 PM

Wow, this thread is decently AMD fanboy abused. Hopefully you didn't get scared away by the stretched truths and flames :D 

I think you laid out the current situation very well. Intel is on top across the board and there's no reason to go with AMD right now. The onus is on AMD to win customers right now - they have to produce something that is better than Intel's offerings. And they need to actually produce it and show it and let people play with it and have it actually available for purchase (these are their biggest problems lately). If AMD comes out with something that requires a new platform but doesn't beat Intel very well, then consumers are going to say "so what".

And since the first Mac commercial, it's been clear to me that Apple has gone the way of the super arrogant company. I had a notion that Apple and Apple users were elitists (unjustifably as well...their products aren't worth the cost), but the commercials completely reinforce the image that Apple is a bunch of jerks. I will never buy an Apple computer. Intel/AMD I'll switch back and forth. ATI/Nvidia I'll switch back and forth. You could not pay me to take an Apple computer. I think it's hilarious that Intel is making a chip to compete with the iPhone chips. I hope Intel's product wipes the floor and not for Intel's benefit, but for Apple's loss. :D 

Check out Youtube for some great parodies of the Apple/PC commercials. They have a lot more truth in them than the Apple commercials.
March 6, 2007 3:14:41 PM

Thanks for seeing what I was trying to say all along. I'm a fan of both sides, especially from a consumer standpoint. AMD needs to deliver, not delay. Talk is cheep. Demonstration is priceless. Show me something I can believe, not something I have to have faith in based on biased opinion.
March 6, 2007 3:18:07 PM

Regarding the topic, my impression is AMD is saying simply that at the same clock and per core, the new arch will be an average of around 30-40% faster at server type work.

[Obvious math: the new dual core opty about 40% faster than the old dual core opty, the new quad opty about 2.8 times faster than an old dual core opty it replaces in a socket, etc., ad nauseum]

Further, it will of course have a giant increase in floating point ability, which will be of interest to certain users and workloads of course. For a somewhat less common example, I once liked to create artificial ecosystem simulations, and the limit on the simulation is how many variables and how fine a time delta you can use, etc., so that cheaper FP power makes this little hobby interesting again, since it's been years since I played with it. But the major apps are things like science stuff, and certain encoding, and I'm sure many things I don't know about.

But back to the 40%. If it's 40% better at server stuff, it will be a fine chip for heavy multitasking, which may be of interest to me at some point. My current x2 4200 is almost never maxed, but....software changes, and new possibilities open up, and the future will be interesting.
March 6, 2007 3:33:25 PM

Quote:
Thanks for seeing what I was trying to say all along. I'm a fan of both sides, especially from a consumer standpoint. AMD needs to deliver, not delay. Talk is cheep. Demonstration is priceless. Show me something I can believe, not something I have to have faith in based on biased opinion.



They are delivering...25% of the world market. X2 is still the same gamer's CPU it was. give it a rest.

I hate that all of you act like designing, producng and deploying a new CPU architecture is soemthing anyne can do. It's not.

I guess if Core 2 wasn't faster, you'd be calling for Otellini's head? Or maybe you'd just say don't worry they'll catch up.


They are supposedly demoing R600 and Barcelona tomorow at GDC with the new Battlefield engine.

Quote:
Frostbite Rendering Architecture and Real-Time Procedural Shading and Texturing Techniques
Speaker: Johan Andersson, Natalya Tatarchuk (Staff Demo Engineer, ATI Research, Inc.)
Date/Time: Wednesday (March 7, 2007) 2:30pm — 3:30pm
Location (room): Room 3002, West Hall
Track: Programming
Format: 60-minute Sponsored Session
Experience Level: All

Session Description
An overview of the rendering systems and architecture of DICE's new Frostbite engine powering the upcoming Battlefield: Bad Company game. Discuss graph-based visual shader authoring, unified rendering & shading back-end (PC, Xbox 360 and PS3) and procedural shading and texturing techniques, including examples from the latest AMD/ATI graphics demos.
March 6, 2007 3:58:25 PM

why are these posts dated tomorrow?

i'd love to see a barcelona r600 combo eatup battlefield how many fps can i play counterstrike source at?!

I think everyone knows this is AMD's chance to become number one again...If barcelona can actually kick as much @ss as we know it could...i'm sure lots of educated people are going to hold off on upgrading their systems and wait for kuma and agena...

Intel is on top now but as many have pointed out increasing the FSB on their chips and reducing them to 45nm isn't going to make very much difference at all!!

C2D could end up costing them more if AMD sinks their flagship...cause intel would have to design C3D and put a rush on it for Q2 08
March 6, 2007 4:41:28 PM

Quote:
why are these posts dated tomorrow?

i'd love to see a barcelona r600 combo eatup battlefield how many fps can i play counterstrike source at?!

I think everyone knows this is AMD's chance to become number one again...If barcelona can actually kick as much @ss as we know it could...i'm sure lots of educated people are going to hold off on upgrading their systems and wait for kuma and agena...

Intel is on top now but as many have pointed out increasing the FSB on their chips and reducing them to 45nm isn't going to make very much difference at all!!

C2D could end up costing them more if AMD sinks their flagship...cause intel would have to design C3D and put a rush on it for Q2 08


Not sure what you mean abou the date, but Barcelona isn't a stretch for the company who created FX60. As far as FSBs, the big issue will be cost as a Quad FSB will be a bear.

I have the utmost faith in them because they have yet to NOT deliver. I mean even Vista was 3 years late, but XP is still a great OS.

I wish I could see that demo.

Agena will probably be my next purchase, but I don't know. I was thinkng about slapping some cheap Opterons in the QFX board but AMD only wanted it to support 4GB (what I have now).
March 6, 2007 5:25:57 PM

Quote:
such as the expectation that the chip would outperform its predecessors by about 30 to 40% and that AMD considers the introduction of the chip as a significant launch, probably more significant than the launch of the original Opteron CPU.


I don't know if this is a miss print, but according to Hector Ruiz, Barcelona will be 30-40% faster than predecessors. Now, tell me if I'm wrong, but I thought refering to predecessors meant previous Opterons. That performance gain puts it in line with the Core lineup, which makes more sense than a 40% gain in "some applications" than Intel chips.

By all means, I'm a fan boy of consumerism. What I dislike is hype without proof. Intel hyped then showed proof. Where's the proof from AMD?

Depends, to quote Bill Clinton, what your definition of "is" is :) 

He may have been refering to Opterron, or not.

Is Clovertown a predecessor of Barcelona?

Deffinition: one who precedes you in time (as in holding a position or office)

So by that definition Clovertown is a predecessor.

Bottom line?

Who knows....
March 6, 2007 6:07:59 PM

Quote:
Depends, to quote Bill Clinton, what your definition of "is" is

He may have been refering to Opterron, or not.

Is Clovertown a predecessor of Barcelona?

Deffinition: one who precedes you in time (as in holding a position or office)

So by that definition Clovertown is a predecessor.

Bottom line?

Who knows....




That is an excellent point about Kentsfield. I guess that they are giving the highest perf number and saying 30-40%.

All I can say is I hope AMD keeps the huge balls they have. It's takes a lot to spit in Intel's eye with a price war. They could have harped on the millions of Netburst chips that aren't faster as evidence of predatory pricing by Intel.
Instead they said

Have at thee, varlet.

Wow, they may have more balls than I do. And I should go down in history for bucking trends and fighting the good fight.
March 6, 2007 6:24:41 PM

Quote:
Depends, to quote Bill Clinton, what your definition of "is" is

He may have been refering to Opterron, or not.

Is Clovertown a predecessor of Barcelona?

Deffinition: one who precedes you in time (as in holding a position or office)

So by that definition Clovertown is a predecessor.

Bottom line?

Who knows....




That is an excellent point about Kentsfield. I guess that they are giving the highest perf number and saying 30-40%.

All I can say is I hope AMD keeps the huge balls they have. It's takes a lot to spit in Intel's eye with a price war. They could have harped on the millions of Netburst chips that aren't faster as evidence of predatory pricing by Intel.
Instead they said

Have at thee, varlet.

Wow, they may have more balls than I do. And I should go down in history for bucking trends and fighting the good fight.That's your job. :wink:
March 6, 2007 6:29:17 PM

This capability to continuously produce dumb arguments as to why AMD is better than Intel is actually incredible. I especially enjoy the ones about AMD's higher morals and sense of responsibility.
March 6, 2007 6:34:51 PM

Quote:
This capability to continuously produce dumb arguments as to why AMD is better than Intel is actually incredible. I especially enjoy the ones about AMD's higher morals and sense of responsibility.


Hopefully you don't mean me. I have never said that. Intel HAS proven themselves to be a big bully as evidenced by the $1B AMD got from them the last time Intel screwed them.

Morals aren't a factor but industry leadership is. Go to AnandTech and read the comments in the story about the lost emails.
March 6, 2007 6:38:14 PM

Quote:
Depends, to quote Bill Clinton, what your definition of "is" is

He may have been refering to Opterron, or not.

Is Clovertown a predecessor of Barcelona?

Deffinition: one who precedes you in time (as in holding a position or office)

So by that definition Clovertown is a predecessor.

Bottom line?

Who knows....




That is an excellent point about Kentsfield. I guess that they are giving the highest perf number and saying 30-40%.

All I can say is I hope AMD keeps the huge balls they have. It's takes a lot to spit in Intel's eye with a price war. They could have harped on the millions of Netburst chips that aren't faster as evidence of predatory pricing by Intel.
Instead they said

Have at thee, varlet.

Wow, they may have more balls than I do. And I should go down in history for bucking trends and fighting the good fight.That's your job. :wink:

Well, it's good to know that you still read subjectively. Maybe you could make a point?

Intel is the perfect example of why rich people invented the saying,

"Life is like a sh%* sandwich. The more bread you have the less sh%* you taste."

And you are the perfect example of not having enough bread.
March 6, 2007 6:38:48 PM

Quote:

Wow, they may have more balls than I do. And I should go down in history for bucking trends and fighting the good fight.


Parading as the forum fool hardly qualifies thee of valor. :lol: 
March 6, 2007 7:35:52 PM

Quote:

Wow, they may have more balls than I do. And I should go down in history for bucking trends and fighting the good fight.


Parading as the forum fool hardly qualifies thee of valor. :lol: 

Swinging on my jock doesn't impress me. Only Brood symbiotes are concerned of another.
Away with thee vermin.
March 6, 2007 8:25:25 PM

Quote:
Depends, to quote Bill Clinton, what your definition of "is" is

He may have been refering to Opterron, or not.

Is Clovertown a predecessor of Barcelona?

Deffinition: one who precedes you in time (as in holding a position or office)

So by that definition Clovertown is a predecessor.

Bottom line?

Who knows....




That is an excellent point about Kentsfield. I guess that they are giving the highest perf number and saying 30-40%.

All I can say is I hope AMD keeps the huge balls they have. It's takes a lot to spit in Intel's eye with a price war. They could have harped on the millions of Netburst chips that aren't faster as evidence of predatory pricing by Intel.
Instead they said

Have at thee, varlet.

Wow, they may have more balls than I do. And I should go down in history for bucking trends and fighting the good fight.That's your job. :wink:

Well, it's good to know that you still read subjectively. Maybe you could make a point?

Intel is the perfect example of why rich people invented the saying,

"Life is like a sh%* sandwich. The more bread you have the less sh%* you taste."

And you are the perfect example of not having enough bread.The point is, that you sound like a friggin' broken record....You rag about Netburst...at least 3 times/week. Get over it.

March 6, 2007 10:07:51 PM

Quote:
Here's the thing, from a little research, I found that the earliest testings(actual benchmarks) were in March of last year for the Conroe chips. Granted, it was presented by Intel, but they weren't lying or proclaiming anything without the proof in hand. Core 2 shipped in August, right? If AMD is following suit, we should have seen some benches already. What are they afraid of? I thought AMD was bold and ambitious. They have challenged Intel before, but that was with already proven facts. I want to see the gloves come off before I lose all respect for AMD. It's time to put up or shut up.

Baron, I hope for your sake, that AMD and you are correct. But either way, I think I'll stick with my QX6700 until penryn or nehalem hits the streets, no matter what AMD puts out. I have an X2 3800+ system which I choose to let my wife use, she doesn't know the difference.



Please, this is not a game. It's about engineers. AMD has Itanium AND Alpha engineers. Intel has 10X the resources and can have a lot more test chips being produced before they sample, AMD can't.

Again, why would they lie unless they want to go out of business? Intel FUD'd everyone away from the Opteron launch the same way.

Bugger off, excuse my French.

Not to start a flamewar or anything, but it might be in their interest to lie because;
1) they need a good news coming through - theirs stocks have hit a new 52-weeks low. Some are predicting doom and gloom for 07 for AMD
2) stop from all the server sales going to Intel. By saying that their chip is X% faster, some ppl/companies might delay their buying decision to see what AMD could offer (not always the case)

Both of those are valid reasons why they would 'want' to lie. IM NOT SAYING THAT THEY ARE LYING (excuse my caps).



In a fantasy world where misrepresentation doesn't have repercussions perhaps that would be a proper course but in the real world, Opteron is not a lie and neither will Barcelona be a lie.

This is just naive. Using your logic no executives would ever do anything dishonest. Yet as we've seen from Enron and Worldcom and countless other examples, plenty of executives choose to "misrepresent" things: they cook the book, backdate options, pre-book revenue, etc. Why? People do dishonest things when they're desperate, such as when their own jobs are on th line or millions of options are about to expire worthless.

In the real real world, companies lie occasionally. I'm not saying AMD is or isn't lying in this particular instance. But for you to say that they absolutely isn't lying without any insider information to back it up is just completely naive.
March 6, 2007 10:34:48 PM

Quote:
The point is, that you sound like a friggin' broken record....You rag about Netburst...at least 3 times/week. Get over it.



NetBurst is relevant to the predatory pricing of Core 2. Get over it yourself.
March 6, 2007 10:43:38 PM

Quote:
NetBurst is relevant to the predatory pricing of Core 2. Get over it yourself.


Please define "predatory pricing" ?

Are you suggesting that Intel should charge more for their processors?

I have never bought a processor that cost more than $170 because that is the most I could ever justify a processor is worth for my home PC. Currently $170 is what I would have to spend to even get the lowest of a C2D.

I think Intel's prices are kinda high right now considering Dual cores are mainstream and their lowest dual core they still make is $170.
!