Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD praying ‘Barcelona’ makes up for four-core mistake

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 17, 2007 12:02:16 PM

Actually, it allows you to double core count without reworking the arch or doubling sockets. Don't know if AMD can do it on K8/K10 arch but that is definitely a point Intel got better than AMD.
March 17, 2007 12:11:07 PM

Up until now they have boasted their exclusively NATIVE chips and now they tell a different story of that. They're also planning the 8-core Montreal to fit on existing sockets so I don't realy see where the crap lays here.
Related resources
March 17, 2007 12:52:58 PM

That was just one aspect of the article, however, you're the second who thinks this, so I just put the article's title.
March 17, 2007 1:19:34 PM

:?:
March 17, 2007 1:23:05 PM

Quote:
bit of a misleading title, it sounded as if they were saying it was better performance or other technical areas. instead they were basically saying it was more mpressive to the sheep of the world who will blindly believe 4 is better than 2.

it is a shame companies have to worry about marketing and not actual technical merit if you will.

this post is something i would expect form lordpope or BM, not you.



I don't think you know me so don't assume I would do something similar to ANYONE here, you follower.
March 17, 2007 1:29:09 PM

Quote:
They also say that Shanghai and the 8-core Montreal will still be aimed on the same sockets of Barcelona.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/17/amd_rivas_barce...



From the article:

Quote:
Sources tell us that the chip is cranking through software at an unreal clip in the labs, beating out AMD’s oft-cited 40 per cent performance gain figure.
March 17, 2007 1:32:50 PM

I'm confused. Has the title been changed?

I got the feeling in any case that they specifically _weren't_ saying it was a better idea to just stick two dual-cores together and call it 'quad', and that they were almost accusing Intel of cheating. (A bit like when you mix malt whiskies from different breweries and call it a 'pure malt': i.e. false advertising, basically).
March 17, 2007 1:36:46 PM

I guess they're making a wild inductive leap from your past forum behaviour. People are so unfair, aren't they, Baron?
March 17, 2007 2:24:07 PM

What Intel did by slapping two dual cores together is a good thing for a lot of IT companies. Remember, enterprise software charge per socket so if you can fit 4 cores in one socket instead of two, you effectively reduced your software cost in half. And enterprise software is alot more expensive than any piece of hardware. Intel should be applauded for bringing quad core so fast to market.
March 17, 2007 3:31:24 PM

Quote:
I guess they're making a wild inductive leap from your past forum behaviour. People are so unfair, aren't they, Baron?


You mean posting AMD news? Or slapping you for having Borat as your avatar?
March 17, 2007 3:32:31 PM

Quote:
bit of a misleading title, it sounded as if they were saying it was better performance or other technical areas. instead they were basically saying it was more mpressive to the sheep of the world who will blindly believe 4 is better than 2.

it is a shame companies have to worry about marketing and not actual technical merit if you will.

this post is something i would expect form lordpope or BM, not you.



I don't think you know me so don't assume I would do something similar to ANYONE here, you follower.

Baron, you do this routinely. It isn't that he knows you personally, he knows your posting habits, patterns, and methods. This is the reputation you have built for yourself, it has nothing to do about 'knowing you' but has everything to about knowing you.



Quote:
Sources tell us that the chip is cranking through software at an unreal clip in the labs, beating out AMD’s oft-cited 40 per cent performance gain figure.


Reply to this Brood Queen.
March 17, 2007 3:40:54 PM

I didn't know you had. Does it upset you terribly?
March 17, 2007 3:48:09 PM

Quote:
are you saying you have not created threads with a title that is based on a sentence of an article that you have twisted for your own purposes?

you cannot seriously say this is not your style of thread.



That's exactly what I'm saying. There was a Larrabee article that was straddling, but I take usually the exact title and then my commentary may be speculative or theoretical.
March 17, 2007 3:50:28 PM

Quote:
I didn't know you had. Does it upset you terribly?


From the article:


Quote:
Sources tell us that the chip is cranking through software at an unreal clip in the labs, beating out AMD’s oft-cited 40 per cent performance gain figure.


That statement shou dbe the entire discussion fo the rest of this thread. It was said that Henri's numbers were "very conservative."

I guess a sideline could be how AMD could have done an MCM, but they have to cognizant of resource limitations.

Continue. I'm going to the gym.
March 17, 2007 4:04:17 PM

Quote:
Continue. I'm going to the gym.


It's good to know that at least your body is getting a workout. ;) 

Look, we've heard all this speculative performance shite before. It's not hard to pluck a percentile out of the air. It's not discussion-worthy. Let's wait for the benchies.

What is discussion-worthy is an AMD exec thinking that they dropped the ball in not going for an MCM chip.
a c 99 à CPUs
March 17, 2007 4:17:30 PM

AMD could have done an MCM like Intel did, but there are several reasons whey they did not:

1. AMD didn't get to 65nm until recently, whereas Intel had a while ago. A 90nm quad-core would have been very impractical and ill-advised but a 65nm unit is doable.

2. AMD would have had to put two chips in a package and only one would have had an IMC if it were to be compatible with current sockets and motherboards. This would require the second die to only get data over NUMA, which would lead to poor performance.

3. AMD could have made an MCM that did not cut performance by putting two dies, each with an IMC and connecting the two by on-chip NUMA, making an Opteron-22xx-on-a-chip setup, so to speak. This would be fast but would require a new socket or at least a new pinout to handle the pins for four channels of RAM.

4. The one IMC, two dies approach could be done easily enough with using two Opteron 22xx/82xx dies and current hardware, but the two IMCs, two dies would require a new socket and the effort to get it all right with the channel. This would result in quite a bit of effort for AMD at a time when they are working on getting their new K10 chips made. This is why the 65nm chips sold to date are straight die shrinks- no extra effort beyond making new masks was needed.

I personally think that a two-IMC, two-die MCM would do well for AMD as long as they have good planning. Yes, it will take a new socket and new motherboards (with 2 RAM banks) but once the MCMs become monolithic dies, the sockets and boards can still be used. The second IMC's pins and RAM banks can just be left unused until future MCMs come along and need them. This kind of a setup can also be used to feed a ton of RAM bandwidth into a monolithic die by having two 128-bit or four 64-bit IMCs instead of one 128-bit or two 64-bit IMCs. That would allow many more cores to be placed in one socket and push the RAM bandwidth wall back a bit. One disadvantage to this setup would be the fact that you'd have to buy 4 RAM modules at a time and that it would not be ideal for servers as there would be a *ton* of RAM slots on the board.
March 17, 2007 4:41:49 PM

Customers don't care if there's one die, two dies, or a herd of hamsters inside the chip - they only care about how much it costs and how it performs. And since this is business, not some teenage bragging contest, sales are all that count.

The FAR more interesting comment in this article is the part about them expecting to use the integrated graphics circuitry as an adjunct to the CPU's math processing capabilities.
March 17, 2007 7:29:30 PM

I must have missed something. The Threads name came from the article and I saw nothing wrong with his post.

Quote:
“If I could do something different, I wish we would have immediately done a MCM - two dual cores and call it a quad-core,” said Mario Rivas, an EVP at AMD, during a recent interview in Austin, “because, I guess, the market sucks it up.”


All that matters is if it is in demand and if it will sell better than the competition, thus the title of the article. Obviously 4 is better than two for servers and for creating a upgrade path for people like me who couldn't afford a Quad, but will this summer and can just plug it in. :) 

I don't know why people are getting on M25???
March 17, 2007 8:51:05 PM

Yeah, the title was from the article and it follows the quote in the article I posted.

You sound a little defensive about native being better when it is not in more ways than just marketing.

It is better for yeilds, less product lines to ramp, higher bin yeilds, quicker to ramp to dual/Quad/Octa..., provides cheaper upgrade path to consumers, less of a low speed ram penalty, low cost production, low cost performance increase in product line.....

I hear you talking, but I disagree with your motives to flame. Especially envoking BM factor in a flame. :lol: 
March 17, 2007 9:10:27 PM

Quote:
gay or straight?

:lol:  :lol:  make sure the knot will slip easilly enough. :lol: 

I can only assume you are referring to one of your homosexual practices.

Maybe you should start a CPU thread about that, it would make as much sense as you last two.
March 17, 2007 9:17:43 PM

Quote:
you take that in college or work on it your whole pathetic life?


Actually I was getting a college education while you were " getting punched in your head by your vietnam vet. father " .

I guess we can see which is the best path to enlightenment.
March 17, 2007 9:18:20 PM

Quote:
his original title was "AMD admits Intel's non-native Quad is a better idea"
it is misleading as they were only really referring to it in marketing terms, not as was implied by his title a better solution than a native one.
people get on to others like lord pope for using misleading titles and what not so why not get on to other people for the same.

Holy sh!t; are you still arguing about this?! Do you think I put there a 'misleading' title because I wanted people to get on me for that?! I simply put that title because I wanted to highlight that particular paragraph in the article and after people read the article, they understand it was from a marketing standpoint. I did it because for the first time AMD was accepting the real advantage of a non-native multi core and that's all. I am sorry for someone who might have misunderstood but I didn't make any comment on the article so I didn't distort anything.
March 17, 2007 9:43:13 PM

Quote:
Leave it to our dear Baron to skim through an article and pick out the one sentence that gets him all hot and bothered related to his beloved.... Wink

Unfortunately, such things as 'sources say' and 'we estimate this' are hearsay and rumor.... if and when it is validated by real data, then it is a good discussion topic.

Alas, this article is more about AMD stating that they are wrong about poking fun at the 'glued on' approach (I wonder if they footnoted this in their Multicore for Dummies pamphlet).... it also illustrates a certain degree of frustration that their progress has been somewhat stymied over the past several quarters.... to the point that they are going to lose money this quarter, next quarter and likely in the third quarter and probably for the entire year.



Again you prove my point. For a chip that isn't due for several more months I will take any references that are around. I guess it would be wrong of me to say I thought it would do 60% and more than 100% FP.

I was actually hoping to see benchmarks by now but it's AMDs game so I'll be waiting and speculating along with everyone else.

It's still good news.
March 17, 2007 10:07:44 PM

Quote:
is it just me or did BM just take pride in the fact that he deals in BS rather than fact?


Lol!

I found this link that says that in 1000 years' time, we'll all evolve into bicycles. Of course, there's no evidence as of yet, but I'm going on the best information we have at the moment.
March 17, 2007 10:31:19 PM

Quote:



Again you prove my point. For a chip that isn't due for several more months I will take any references that are around. I guess it would be wrong of me to say I thought it would do 60% and more than 100% FP.

I was actually hoping to see benchmarks by now but it's AMDs game so I'll be waiting and speculating along with everyone else.

It's still good news.


It's non-news, it is a statement thrown out there to sucker in the gullible such as yourself.


They can't sucker me. The specs speak for themselves. I expect it to do to X2 what C2D did to PD. I believe Intel's numbers were 80-90%. Fortunately AMD is starting with Opteron, so 60-70% would be incredible; though the reported 40% would do well enough.
March 17, 2007 10:52:30 PM

Quote:
The specs speak for themselves..


No they don't. I believe that's why people use benchmarks...

Don't get me wrong. I would be very surprised if Barcelona didn't show a performance benefit. But you have to be mindful of the difference between speculation and evidence.
March 17, 2007 11:08:02 PM

Quote:
hell, i do not even know why i am arguing this. but one final point, if 2 cpu's on one socket are so great, why did they not just keep it that way instead of making the core2duo a "native" dual core?

:lol: 
Well, the only thing I know is that I only thought about that specific concept but didn't really have in mind a 'Wow' effect, sincerely. Strategically speaking, I like AMD much more than Intel, in most of their moves, but that thing of the native this and native that was really getting annoying and I was happy to hear they finally admitted that native or non-native, Intel had the quad and they didn't and they'd better not mention it anymore.
Again, I am sorry if the first title was not placed that well :oops: 
March 17, 2007 11:17:24 PM

Core 2 Quad and Pentium D both had the same idea for implementing multiple cores on a single die. But no one complains about Core 2 Quad lacking in the performance department. Native, "glued" or otherwise, the thing that makes it perform is the m/arch, and not the arrangement, and those buying can care less on how they did it, as long as its done, can perform and is affordable. Native vs glued is only relevant to fanboys... or in this case, marketing reps.
March 17, 2007 11:20:29 PM

No, but I just looked it up. I confess I wouldn't have known the problem initially, but I had a vague thought there might be a problem with static.

The funniest bit in your thread is BM's comment:

"What have I, What have I, What have I done to tdeserve this?"
a b à CPUs
March 17, 2007 11:45:25 PM

Quote:
bit of a misleading title, it sounded as if they were saying it was better performance or other technical areas. instead they were basically saying it was more mpressive to the sheep of the world who will blindly believe 4 is better than 2.

it is a shame companies have to worry about marketing and not actual technical merit if you will.

this post is something i would expect form lordpope or BM, not you.



I don't think you know me so don't assume I would do something similar to ANYONE here, you follower.

Baron, you do this routinely. It isn't that he knows you personally, he knows your posting habits, patterns, and methods. This is the reputation you have built for yourself, it has nothing to do about 'knowing you' but has everything to about knowing you.



Quote:
Sources tell us that the chip is cranking through software at an unreal clip in the labs, beating out AMD’s oft-cited 40 per cent performance gain figure.


Reply to this Brood Queen.

I'm praying that Barcelona is a good performer... because I simply don't want to see ATi dissapear..

But you my friend have built a reputation of being an AMD supporter no-matter what.
March 17, 2007 11:48:26 PM

Quote:
But it is Baron's methodologies of formulating his arguments that is fun to see.... in the past few days he has berated other posters for doing exactly the same things he does.... quite hypocritical.



Links?
March 17, 2007 11:50:37 PM

Quote:
I'm praying that Barcelona is a good performer... because I simply don't want to see ATi dissapear..

But you my friend have built a reputation of being an AMD supporter no-matter what.


These are just CPUs. They have fast and cool enough before now so why get worked up about AMD having the slower chip right now. They are still adequately powering the PC I'm typing on and the one I take to work with me.

Expect no apologies and you won't be disappointed.
March 18, 2007 2:19:38 AM

Quote:
But it is Baron's methodologies of formulating his arguments that is fun to see.... in the past few days he has berated other posters for doing exactly the same things he does.... quite hypocritical.



Links?

Well, for demonstrating utter stupidity --
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...

How about Turpit demonstrating how you backtrack:
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...
(He did a nice job tracking you down there...)

Now --- a few days ago you berated 'brood' selective quoting:
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...
What is truly pathetic, he did not seletively quote, he provided linke and information that was spot on.... and you, in a fit of utter stupidity, mis-interpreted the statements.

Yet you did this exact same thing with this thread here.....


Then there are the baron quotables that make it into people's signatures, those are shown all the time.

If you want more links, just do a search for all posts by BaronMatrix and you will have all the examples you need...Maybe we should bring them all together. Sort of like a "Baron Matrix Bloopers" show. :D 
March 18, 2007 2:23:58 AM

Quote:
BTW Baron, I noticed that FX-55 and 57s are going for 900 bucks plus...
http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/
How the hell can they get away with this when 6000+ are going for 500??


Obviously, AMD is engaging in "predatory pricing"
March 18, 2007 2:36:27 AM

Quote:
BTW Baron, I noticed that FX-55 and 57s are going for 900 bucks plus...
http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/
How the hell can they get away with this when 6000+ are going for 500??


Obviously, AMD is engaging in "predatory pricing"Heh, did you look at how many shops were listed in the pricewatch search? If you look at newegg, you will see a FX 57 for 299$ (out of stock at the moment though).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

They don't even sell the FX 55 any more.

Why does it matter? It's old tech. You don't cry when you see a PD 965 EE selling for 1,049$
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
March 18, 2007 3:09:25 AM

Quote:
BTW Baron, I noticed that FX-55 and 57s are going for 900 bucks plus...
http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/
How the hell can they get away with this when 6000+ are going for 500??


Obviously, AMD is engaging in "predatory pricing"Heh, did you look at how many shops were listed in the pricewatch search? If you look at newegg, you will see a FX 57 for 299$ (out of stock at the moment though).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

They don't even sell the FX 55 any more.

Why does it matter? It's old tech. You don't cry when you see a PD 965 EE selling for 1,049$
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... does....that was Jack's point. Baron cries foul about it. :roll:
March 18, 2007 3:29:15 AM

Yeah I realized that after I read the rest of this thread. I just looked at the last post and the quote and hit the reply button too fast :oops: .
March 18, 2007 3:36:40 AM

Quote:
his original title was "AMD admits Intel's non-native Quad is a better idea"
it is misleading as they were only really referring to it in marketing terms, not as was implied by his title a better solution than a native one.
people get on to others like lord pope for using misleading titles and what not so why not get on to other people for the same.

Holy sh!t; are you still arguing about this?! Do you think I put there a 'misleading' title because I wanted people to get on me for that?! I simply put that title because I wanted to highlight that particular paragraph in the article and after people read the article, they understand it was from a marketing standpoint. I did it because for the first time AMD was accepting the real advantage of a non-native multi core and that's all. I am sorry for someone who might have misunderstood but I didn't make any comment on the article so I didn't distort anything.

i dont see a problem with the thread title

people kill going crazy over a theead title
March 18, 2007 7:21:34 AM

Wouldn't you kknow it. This is the first day I've missed reading thereg, in months, and they have a really important piece.
Thanks for bringing it up.
To be honest, if they are saying 40% or better, I may just start believing it.
March 18, 2007 8:03:22 AM

I dont want to rain on your parade, but we are talking server apps here. Just because barcelona chews through server workloads like a school of piranha, doesn't mean the desktop variant will do as well against core2 duo.
Amd has never quite got SSE to work properly on thier chips. How much of that is m-arch related and how much software, I dont know, but I wouldn't bet on a major change in that arena.
(besides, every time I've allowed myself to get sucked into the hype, I've been majorly disappointed)
March 18, 2007 12:44:24 PM

Quote:
The specs speak for themselves..


No they don't. I believe that's why people use benchmarks...

Don't get me wrong. I would be very surprised if Barcelona didn't show a performance benefit. But you have to be mindful of the difference between speculation and evidence.


Evidence can be found wherever Barcelona's specs are divulged. Every reviewer BELIEVES that the specs say it will be faster than C2D. PERIOD!!!!!

You are biased. Next you'll say I said Core 2 initial benches were rigged. I just can't wait to see actual benches and then you can stick them where you stick everything else.
March 18, 2007 12:47:38 PM

Quote:
I dont want to rain on your parade, but we are talking server apps here. Just because barcelona chews through server workloads like a school of piranha, doesn't mean the desktop variant will do as well against core2 duo.
Amd has never quite got SSE to work properly on thier chips. How much of that is m-arch related and how much software, I dont know, but I wouldn't bet on a major change in that arena.
(besides, every time I've allowed myself to get sucked into the hype, I've been majorly disappointed)



They have gotten SSE to work they just couldn't do single-cycle due to die real estate. Now they can do 4 DP FLOPS/cycle. The stack optimizer, wider L1, extra branch history buffers, etc will do the desktop integer apps.

Besides, Opteron did well as FX and that was the start of the ultimate gaming platforms.

Barcelona will do even better.
March 18, 2007 12:53:02 PM

Quote:
The specs speak for themselves..


No they don't. I believe that's why people use benchmarks...

Don't get me wrong. I would be very surprised if Barcelona didn't show a performance benefit. But you have to be mindful of the difference between speculation and evidence.

You have just stumbled upon why Baron recieves such nasty responses.... he confuses opinon, specualtion with data and fact.... he does not know nor understand the difference.

Were you around when he recommended to a fella that he store and ship his CPU in styrofoam :) 


And you're a parasitic organism who thinks this is the key to world happiness.

That makes you truly lost and pathetic. You can have all of these Brood followers and I'll keep my speculation. I'm only doing this to give you more Barcelona rope to hang yourself with. Xbit believes it. Every person who has reviewed the specs believes it. Only Intel zombies would even try to disparage that with innuendo and deflection.

I have nothing to do with how well Barcelona will do. Only AMDs engrs do and they go all the way up to Dirk Meyer, the creator of Alpha 21264.

That's "hype" I would believe because he is proven. Just like the Itanium engrs they got last year.

Away with thee.
a c 99 à CPUs
March 18, 2007 12:53:31 PM

Let's just wait a couple of months for AMD to allow some ESes or even early production silicon to be released before we make any wild speculation as to "who pwns who." All that has been released are the general physical details, model numbers/speeds, thermal dissipation, and the top price of the desktop quad-core being set at $999.

I don't doubt that what AMD says about the Barcelona being "40% faster than Clovertown" as it probably IS 40% faster in one certain benchmark. Heck, one can make a claim of the Core 2 Duo being more than twice as fast as the Athlon X2s and they'd be correct- but only in running an integer math benchmark. Let's wait for the benches to see how things really line up.
March 18, 2007 1:00:41 PM

But Baron, I want the benchies to be impressive! So yes, you're right: I am biased towards AMD. I would like to see them do well.

I don't care how many reviewers said what-not. All this changes is one's _expectation_; it does not make it so. How is this in any way controversial? It's trivial.
March 18, 2007 1:01:27 PM

Quote:
But it is Baron's methodologies of formulating his arguments that is fun to see.... in the past few days he has berated other posters for doing exactly the same things he does.... quite hypocritical.



Links?

Well, for demonstrating utter stupidity --
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...

How about Turpit demonstrating how you backtrack:
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...
(He did a nice job tracking you down there...)

Now --- a few days ago you berated 'brood' selective quoting:
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...
What is truly pathetic, he did not seletively quote, he provided linke and information that was spot on.... and you, in a fit of utter stupidity, mis-interpreted the statements.

Yet you did this exact same thing with this thread here.....


Then there are the baron quotables that make it into people's signatures, those are shown all the time.

If you want more links, just do a search for all posts by BaronMatrix and you will have all the examples you need...


None of those are where I said people were doing what "I do." You just try to make people look bad that you know have the upper hand. The upper hand in this case being able to handle the name calling and Intel bias to not get banned.

AMD buyers will be represented. PERIOD!! If I give them advice that actually hurts their PC experience, I willl attempt to make amends. Though that isn't a worry. I have assembled tested and upgraded so many PCs that I don't have anything to prove.

I told you I hope I'm always wrong about this because I make my living developing SW. I just think you're a pompous jerk that has no life without your precious white papers and Brood followers.

That's why it was always:

HAVE AT THEE VERMIN!!!
March 18, 2007 1:08:04 PM

Quote:
Let's just wait a couple of months for AMD to allow some ESes or even early production silicon to be released before we make any wild speculation as to "who pwns who." All that has been released are the general physical details, model numbers/speeds, thermal dissipation, and the top price of the desktop quad-core being set at $999.

I don't doubt that what AMD says about the Barcelona being "40% faster than Clovertown" as it probably IS 40% faster in one certain benchmark. Heck, one can make a claim of the Core 2 Duo being more than twice as fast as the Athlon X2s and they'd be correct- but only in running an integer math benchmark. Let's wait for the benches to see how things really line up.



I believe that 40% is conservative.

I would like for Jumping Jerk to search through and find out what the Brood said about C2D specs last year. That will be interesting reading.
!