Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Upon release, Barcelona will only go up to 2.3Ghz

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 30, 2007 5:49:04 PM

http://www.8080.net/html/200702/n28928030.shtml

however, its in simplified chinese. feel free to use google translate.

it basically says that 2.3Ghz will be the highest for 2007 summer, 2.4, 2.5 for Q3. the higher version, 2.6Ghz, will be released in summer of 2008.

Barcelona will be utilizing HyperTransport 1.0, while the desktop version will use HT 3.0.

TDP for the first Barcelonas, (2.1~2.3) will be at 95W, while the higher clocked version, 2.4~2.5, will be rated at 120W. we don't know what's the TDP rating for 2.6.

my take? i would say jack was right about AMD's 65nm process. (kudos for you jack :p  ). not only Barcelona's circuitry is way too complex to scale, AMD's SiO2 65nm manufacturing process basically cannot take Barcelona pass 2.5, until improvements are made next year.

also comparing Barcelona's TDP (95W), with Clovertown's TDP, (80W for 5345, 2.33Ghz), it is evident that AMD cannot compete @ 65nm.

More about : release barcelona 3ghz

March 30, 2007 5:58:32 PM

I think that most of this info was out before. The only change would be bumping the 2.6 from Q4 to Q3 2008 which IMHO is gonna be way too little and way too late.
Related resources
March 30, 2007 8:15:17 PM

Quote:
http://www.8080.net/html/200702/n28928030.shtml

however, its in simplified chinese. feel free to use google translate.

it basically says that 2.3Ghz will be the highest for 2007 summer, 2.4, 2.5 for Q3. the higher version, 2.6Ghz, will be released in summer of 2008.

Barcelona will be utilizing HyperTransport 1.0, while the desktop version will use HT 3.0.

TDP for the first Barcelonas, (2.1~2.3) will be at 95W, while the higher clocked version, 2.4~2.5, will be rated at 120W. we don't know what's the TDP rating for 2.6.

my take? i would say jack was right about AMD's 65nm process. (kudos for you jack :p  ). not only Barcelona's circuitry is way too complex to scale, AMD's SiO2 65nm manufacturing process basically cannot take Barcelona pass 2.5, until improvements are made next year.

also comparing Barcelona's TDP (95W), with Clovertown's TDP, (80W for 5345, 2.33Ghz), it is evident that AMD cannot compete @ 65nm.

The fact that the Barcelonas will only go up to 2.3GHz initially shows that they're either a)screwed or b) very confident in their new architecture. Hope it's the latter.
March 30, 2007 8:17:14 PM

Quote:
http://www.8080.net/html/200702/n28928030.shtml

however, its in simplified chinese. feel free to use google translate.

it basically says that 2.3Ghz will be the highest for 2007 summer, 2.4, 2.5 for Q3. the higher version, 2.6Ghz, will be released in summer of 2008.

Barcelona will be utilizing HyperTransport 1.0, while the desktop version will use HT 3.0.

TDP for the first Barcelonas, (2.1~2.3) will be at 95W, while the higher clocked version, 2.4~2.5, will be rated at 120W. we don't know what's the TDP rating for 2.6.

my take? i would say jack was right about AMD's 65nm process. (kudos for you jack :p  ). not only Barcelona's circuitry is way too complex to scale, AMD's SiO2 65nm manufacturing process basically cannot take Barcelona pass 2.5, until improvements are made next year.

also comparing Barcelona's TDP (95W), with Clovertown's TDP, (80W for 5345, 2.33Ghz), it is evident that AMD cannot compete @ 65nm.



Here we go again. Intel's first 65nm chips were ovens.
March 30, 2007 8:28:11 PM

Quote:
I think that most of this info was out before. The only change would be bumping the 2.6 from Q4 to Q3 2008 which IMHO is gonna be way too little and way too late.


Not if it actually comes out 100%+ faster than dual Opteron. I am certain it will so Penryn is going to need the help.
March 30, 2007 8:34:39 PM

Quote:



Here we go again. Intel's first 65nm chips were ovens.


Because they were a shrink of netburst. Not because of any problems with the 65nm process.
March 30, 2007 9:24:37 PM

Quote:
http://www.8080.net/html/200702/n28928030.shtml

however, its in simplified chinese. feel free to use google translate.

it basically says that 2.3Ghz will be the highest for 2007 summer, 2.4, 2.5 for Q3. the higher version, 2.6Ghz, will be released in summer of 2008.

Barcelona will be utilizing HyperTransport 1.0, while the desktop version will use HT 3.0.

TDP for the first Barcelonas, (2.1~2.3) will be at 95W, while the higher clocked version, 2.4~2.5, will be rated at 120W. we don't know what's the TDP rating for 2.6.

my take? i would say jack was right about AMD's 65nm process. (kudos for you jack :p  ). not only Barcelona's circuitry is way too complex to scale, AMD's SiO2 65nm manufacturing process basically cannot take Barcelona pass 2.5, until improvements are made next year.

also comparing Barcelona's TDP (95W), with Clovertown's TDP, (80W for 5345, 2.33Ghz), it is evident that AMD cannot compete @ 65nm.



ok where are the links to official benchmarks that led you to STATE that AMD cannot compete with the K10 @ 65um.

I haven't seem them...maybe you have... links please

or is your comment pure specualtion based on rumours, guesses and INQ stories?
March 30, 2007 9:34:07 PM

Quote:
I think that most of this info was out before. The only change would be bumping the 2.6 from Q4 to Q3 2008 which IMHO is gonna be way too little and way too late.


Not if it actually comes out 100%+ faster than dual Opteron. I am certain it will so Penryn is going to need the help.

dont you like how people make absolute remarks on unreleashed hardware with no benchmarks
March 30, 2007 9:39:13 PM

Quote:
dont you like how people make absolute remarks on unreleashed hardware with no benchmarks


Correct. As the first line of my sig reads.
March 30, 2007 9:41:35 PM

hey since this thread started with absolutes with no proof

let me take a stab at it

PENRYN absolutley will not overclock well because its FSB will be too high and i dont need any benches to prove it... i make an absolute statement so i am correct.

you should try it its fun...
March 30, 2007 9:46:57 PM

Quote:
you should try it its fun...


OK...

Barcelona and R600 won't launch on time because they won't be ready before the Mayan-forecasted end of the world on Dec. 21 2012.

:lol: 
March 30, 2007 10:03:21 PM

well isnt that just dandy, so much for overclocking enthusiasts who want to become early adopters of Barcelona

I hope Agena and Kuma don't have the same problem.... I was hoping to upgrade to quad core on the cheap when AMD releases its processor lineup. But it might not be worth it just yet if thats how it is.


of course thats what i got out of the article

im probably wrong
March 30, 2007 10:05:47 PM

Quote:



Here we go again. Intel's first 65nm chips were ovens.


Because they were a shrink of netburst. Not because of any problems with the 65nm process.

Brisbane was too, but there was no end to the complaints. Most of which were the decision to increase latency slightly for larger caches.

The 3600+ has gotten up to 3.1GHz stably. Funny enough AMDZone got the highest and had to actually post a CPU-Z shot to the amazement of other reviewers.
March 30, 2007 10:25:36 PM

Quote:
you should try it its fun...


OK...

Barcelona and R600 won't launch on time because they won't be ready before the Mayan-forecasted end of the world on Dec. 21 2012.

:lol: I thought they weren't going to launch on time because AMD knew they sucked? :wink: :lol: 
March 30, 2007 10:29:09 PM

if there are no benchmarks we must assume that barcelona will completely suck and amd is probably lying about barcelona, they speak in tongues.
March 31, 2007 5:09:01 AM

To Heyyou27 and mazzapan: Word. And the word is suck.

Bringing a 2.3GHz quadcore to the party and not even now but "someday" is like showing up at Hef's mansion with a Jolt Cola and your propeller beanie.
March 31, 2007 8:02:07 AM

Another AMD demise story,do you really think they're goin to put the company on the brink of disaster and promote a faulty chip?...By the sounds of it(or the way we interpret it) Howard Hughs is still alive and CEO of AMD trying to sell the "buy it now" public another Spruce Goose 8O .Lets see the goods first an access later.
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2007 8:38:36 AM

I'm going to find it funny if AMD ever comes out on top again (not saying whether it will or wont, since this thread has enough speculation as it is). The way people go on about how C2D is the best and barcelona is gonna suck and garbage like that (except the C2D part) is gonna reverse and end up like it was 2 years ago.

eg. "C2Q sucks why are you buying one of those when you can get a <insert AMD chip name here> for the same price and 50% more performance... blah blah blah blah blah blah blah... blah..."

The good old days of A64 vs P4, revamped. Why cant VIA bring out some ultimate chip from out of nowhere and drop kick Intel and AMD so hard that we will finally have a 3-way competition instead of just 2?
March 31, 2007 9:24:10 AM

Quote:
if there are no benchmarks we must assume that barcelona will completely suck and amd is probably lying about barcelona, they speak in tongues.


AMD as always used viral adverticement + mout to mout adverticement...
IE, they prefer their products to speak for themselves..
not their marketting departent, thats why they dont like to toss benches everywere ala scared intel like last time :|



and as far I remember, AMD as almost always delivered the performance they promised.

if people trust false promises or total dumb & ludicrous performance claims ( a la BM and sharikuku), then thats the stupidity of the person who eats these FUD.
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2007 9:32:54 AM

as in the Yonah's aka Core Duo's??? 8O :lol: 

nice one baron

Quote:
http://www.8080.net/html/200702/n28928030.shtml

however, its in simplified chinese. feel free to use google translate.

it basically says that 2.3Ghz will be the highest for 2007 summer, 2.4, 2.5 for Q3. the higher version, 2.6Ghz, will be released in summer of 2008.

Barcelona will be utilizing HyperTransport 1.0, while the desktop version will use HT 3.0.

TDP for the first Barcelonas, (2.1~2.3) will be at 95W, while the higher clocked version, 2.4~2.5, will be rated at 120W. we don't know what's the TDP rating for 2.6.

my take? i would say jack was right about AMD's 65nm process. (kudos for you jack :p  ). not only Barcelona's circuitry is way too complex to scale, AMD's SiO2 65nm manufacturing process basically cannot take Barcelona pass 2.5, until improvements are made next year.

also comparing Barcelona's TDP (95W), with Clovertown's TDP, (80W for 5345, 2.33Ghz), it is evident that AMD cannot compete @ 65nm.



Here we go again. Intel's first 65nm chips were ovens.
March 31, 2007 10:05:51 AM

Quote:
http://www.8080.net/html/200702/n28928030.shtml

however, its in simplified chinese. feel free to use google translate.

it basically says that 2.3Ghz will be the highest for 2007 summer, 2.4, 2.5 for Q3. the higher version, 2.6Ghz, will be released in summer of 2008.

Barcelona will be utilizing HyperTransport 1.0, while the desktop version will use HT 3.0.

TDP for the first Barcelonas, (2.1~2.3) will be at 95W, while the higher clocked version, 2.4~2.5, will be rated at 120W. we don't know what's the TDP rating for 2.6.

my take? i would say jack was right about AMD's 65nm process. (kudos for you jack :p  ). not only Barcelona's circuitry is way too complex to scale, AMD's SiO2 65nm manufacturing process basically cannot take Barcelona pass 2.5, until improvements are made next year.

also comparing Barcelona's TDP (95W), with Clovertown's TDP, (80W for 5345, 2.33Ghz), it is evident that AMD cannot compete @ 65nm.



ok where are the links to official benchmarks that led you to STATE that AMD cannot compete with the K10 @ 65um.

I haven't seem them...maybe you have... links please

or is your comment pure specualtion based on rumours, guesses and INQ stories?
i did not "state", but i did speculate. those two are different things. i'm just merely putting out my opinions.

so now we need actual links to "prove" our opinions? nice one lordpope
March 31, 2007 10:11:28 AM

not being like a super c*ck or anything, but is it just me or have we got over the whole "clockspeed is everything"? intels retail, desktop quadcores only run at 2.4ghz and 2.66ghz, and they are making a qx6800 that will be 2.93ghz, i don't see why a difference of say 300mhz should make a super dooper difference to performance estimates..
March 31, 2007 10:16:58 AM

Quote:



Here we go again. Intel's first 65nm chips were ovens.


Because they were a shrink of netburst. Not because of any problems with the 65nm process.

Brisbane was too, but there was no end to the complaints. Most of which were the decision to increase latency slightly for larger caches.

The 3600+ has gotten up to 3.1GHz stably. Funny enough AMDZone got the highest and had to actually post a CPU-Z shot to the amazement of other reviewers.
yes, 3600+ does get up to 3.1Ghz, but that's as high as it will go. I haven't heard of anything past 3.1Ghz without BSOD.

however, E6300 can easily be clocked way above that, with the correct cooling solution and correct tweaks.

i think AMD's 65nm process might play a role into this. all of 65nm AMD X2s are all clocked below 2.6, while the rest belongs to the slightly outdated 90nm.
March 31, 2007 10:46:23 AM

Quote:
not being like a super c*ck or anything, but is it just me or have we got over the whole "clockspeed is everything"? intels retail, desktop quadcores only run at 2.4ghz and 2.66ghz, and they are making a qx6800 that will be 2.93ghz, i don't see why a difference of say 300mhz should make a super dooper difference to performance estimates..


Just because clock speeds are lower now than the NetBurst days, doesn't mean that clock speeds aren't important. They still are.

Performance = Clock Speed x IPC
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2007 10:52:54 AM

So now performance is rated by a single number?
March 31, 2007 11:10:32 AM

Quote:
The highest barcelona will be is 2.6GHz
i have seen the die pics and am not really sure how amd expects it to be profitable. we will see
i could not figure out how mathmatically barcelona could get higher than 2.6Ghz
maybe someone smarter than me can help



Dual Opteron is 223mm^2 and is made at 90nm 200mm, while Barcelona is 283mm^2 and is made at 65nm 300mm. That mathematically means that they will get more Barcelonas per wafer than Opteron.
March 31, 2007 11:16:31 AM

Quote:
yes, 3600+ does get up to 3.1Ghz, but that's as high as it will go. I haven't heard of anything past 3.1Ghz without BSOD.

however, E6300 can easily be clocked way above that, with the correct cooling solution and correct tweaks.

i think AMD's 65nm process might play a role into this. all of 65nm AMD X2s are all clocked below 2.6, while the rest belongs to the slightly outdated 90nm.



E6300 is like the fourth rev of Intel 65nm.Brisbane is the first. AMD is supposedly releasing new SKUs on the 9th. The new chips may be a new rev. AMD does continually improve their process.
March 31, 2007 11:29:36 AM

Quote:
So now performance is rated by a single number?


My equation was just a simplification of performance.

Obviously there are a lot more factors that go into performance of a CPU. Bus', registers, memory, ALU setup...
March 31, 2007 11:53:09 AM

Quote:
yes, 3600+ does get up to 3.1Ghz, but that's as high as it will go. I haven't heard of anything past 3.1Ghz without BSOD.

however, E6300 can easily be clocked way above that, with the correct cooling solution and correct tweaks.

i think AMD's 65nm process might play a role into this. all of 65nm AMD X2s are all clocked below 2.6, while the rest belongs to the slightly outdated 90nm.



E6300 is like the fourth rev of Intel 65nm.Brisbane is the first. AMD is supposedly releasing new SKUs on the 9th. The new chips may be a new rev. AMD does continually improve their process.
so what you mean is, at the moment, AMD's 65nm IS inferior to Intel's 65nm process. in addition to that, i guess we won't see much improvement since Barcelona's top bin will only be clocked @ 2.6Ghz.

on the other hand, E6300 is the third rev (smithfield, yonah, conroe), and Intel's already moving to 45nm with high-k.
March 31, 2007 12:29:19 PM

It's to the consumers advantage if they would really compete with Intel's Offerings. I'm stock with prescott here but its sufficient for my current needs. Will upgrade soon when Blue Ray or HDDVD drives go down.
March 31, 2007 1:57:43 PM

Now,the frequency isn't the most important thing,and we know that it have four cores in one die(just one)
March 31, 2007 2:01:52 PM

Quote:
Now,the frequency isn't the most important thing,and we know that it have four cores in one die(just one)


So?

What performs better? An E4300 or an X6800? Clock speed still matters, with respect to other performance factors of the CPU.

Also, I don't see what's the big deal with the monolithic die approach. :/ 
March 31, 2007 2:03:06 PM

Quote:
yes, 3600+ does get up to 3.1Ghz, but that's as high as it will go. I haven't heard of anything past 3.1Ghz without BSOD.

however, E6300 can easily be clocked way above that, with the correct cooling solution and correct tweaks.

i think AMD's 65nm process might play a role into this. all of 65nm AMD X2s are all clocked below 2.6, while the rest belongs to the slightly outdated 90nm.



E6300 is like the fourth rev of Intel 65nm.Brisbane is the first. AMD is supposedly releasing new SKUs on the 9th. The new chips may be a new rev. AMD does continually improve their process.
so what you mean is, at the moment, AMD's 65nm IS inferior to Intel's 65nm process. in addition to that, i guess we won't see much improvement since Barcelona's top bin will only be clocked @ 2.6Ghz.

on the other hand, E6300 is the third rev (smithfield, yonah, conroe), and Intel's already moving to 45nm with high-k.


No that's what your saying. I'm saying that Barcelona will probably be the third 65nm rev and won't be a shrink. It is designed for 65nm so I would expect slightly better OC and power.
March 31, 2007 2:30:29 PM

Quote:
not being like a super c*ck or anything, but is it just me or have we got over the whole "clockspeed is everything"? intels retail, desktop quadcores only run at 2.4ghz and 2.66ghz, and they are making a qx6800 that will be 2.93ghz, i don't see why a difference of say 300mhz should make a super dooper difference to performance estimates..


Just because clock speeds are lower now than the NetBurst days, doesn't mean that clock speeds aren't important. They still are.

Performance = Clock Speed x IPC

i know, hence why i said a 300mhz difference isn't everything... its a difference, but not a major enough one, and since when does clockspeed come into new core architecture? isn't the architecture more important in the chip vastly, than how high it's clock speed is?
March 31, 2007 2:43:00 PM

Quote:
Bringing a 2.3GHz quadcore to the party and not even now but "someday" is like showing up at Hef's mansion with a Jolt Cola and your propeller beanie.


Thge jolt is good for all nighters ;and some girls like propeller beanies :wink:

Nowhere near as good as a fifth of Jack Daniels and a 230V 2500W vibrator-jackhammer. A couple of tabs of X work wonders too... 8)

Now... on the subject of Barcy. I know that it is impossible to compare a nonexistent CPU against another nonexistent CPU, but anyone who thinks that AMD might have a technology ace up their sleeve that will make a 2.3/2.4/2.5GHz Barcy/Agena/Whatever competitive with a 3.66GHz Penryn must be late for their local meeting of the Flat Earth Society. :roll:
March 31, 2007 4:54:10 PM

The world is flat and AMD is round....r visa versa :oops: 
March 31, 2007 5:46:49 PM

Quote:
Now,the frequency isn't the most important thing,and we know that it have four cores in one die(just one)


So?

What performs better? An E4300 or an X6800? Clock speed still matters, with respect to other performance factors of the CPU.

Also, I don't see what's the big deal with the monolithic die approach. :/ 
you forgot the debacle of netburst vs amd's "low frecuency yet kicking intel's ass" o_O

frecuency does matter, but number of instructions per cycle do a lot too.
March 31, 2007 6:30:27 PM

Quote:



Here we go again. Intel's first 65nm chips were ovens.


Because they were a shrink of netburst. Not because of any problems with the 65nm process.

Brisbane was too, but there was no end to the complaints. Most of which were the decision to increase latency slightly for larger caches.

The 3600+ has gotten up to 3.1GHz stably. Funny enough AMDZone got the highest and had to actually post a CPU-Z shot to the amazement of other reviewers.

The only complaints were from people who expected Brisbane to "Pwn" Intel, because all the fanboy tripe & hype raised expectations astronomically beyond reason
March 31, 2007 6:43:59 PM

Quote:
I'm going to find it funny if AMD ever comes out on top again (not saying whether it will or wont, since this thread has enough speculation as it is). The way people go on about how C2D is the best and barcelona is gonna suck and garbage like that (except the C2D part) is gonna reverse and end up like it was 2 years ago.

eg. "C2Q sucks why are you buying one of those when you can get a <insert AMD chip name here> for the same price and 50% more performance... blah blah blah blah blah blah blah... blah..."

The good old days of A64 vs P4, revamped. Why cant VIA bring out some ultimate chip from out of nowhere and drop kick Intel and AMD so hard that we will finally have a 3-way competition instead of just 2?


Whose going on about "barcelona" is going to suck?

What Ive seen people going on about is:
-that no one knows how barcelona is going to do because its not here yet.
-that no one has any proof of any benchmarks only rumours - usually written in chineese
the Horde pulling numbers out of their arses with no poof whatsoever to back them up claiming barcelona is going to outperform C2D by 'X' %
-lots of questions as to why AMD hasnt released ESs for third party benchmarking yet, or if they have, why the NDAs havent lifted.
-logical application of the technical problems of AMDs 65nm process as they apply to barcelona

Barcelona may suck. It may not. No one knows except anyone who may have an ES, and theyre not talking.....yet. Anyone who says otherwise is pulling bullshite out of their arses, or regurgitating someone elses BS. Barcelona looks great on paper, but so did Netburst, and we all know how that turned out. We wont know until its here.
April 1, 2007 12:47:29 AM

Quote:

i am fairly certain after doing the math
with extra air cooling 2.8 is possible but its water cooling after that
i will repost if necessary


What the hell kind of equation/math are you using to come up maximum overclockability of a CPU that isn't out of full production? Are you using some of that "Fuzzy Logic" I've heard of before? Probably so.

Quote:
i will repost if necessary


No, that's ok. There's no reason to repost FUD.
April 1, 2007 12:56:37 AM

Quote:
Now,the frequency isn't the most important thing,and we know that it have four cores in one die(just one)


So?

What performs better? An E4300 or an X6800? Clock speed still matters, with respect to other performance factors of the CPU.

Also, I don't see what's the big deal with the monolithic die approach. :/ 
you forgot the debacle of netburst vs amd's "low frecuency yet kicking intel's ass" o_O

frecuency does matter, but number of instructions per cycle do a lot too.

I wasn't born yesterday, ya know. :wink:

Look at my simplified equation in my previous posts.

Quote:
its a difference, but not a major enough one, and since when does clockspeed come into new core architecture? isn't the architecture more important in the chip vastly, than how high it's clock speed is?


Of course it is, but that doesn't mean clock speeds are negligible. If you wanted to stick to a certain TDP limit, you would try to maximise clock speeds within that TDP bracket.
April 1, 2007 2:49:11 AM

Actually, the world is flat but round... at least surveyed as if flat... with state plane coordinate systems... go figure...
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2007 3:37:31 AM

Quote:
Whose going on about "barcelona" is going to suck?

To this I present:

Quote:
if there are no benchmarks we must assume that barcelona will completely suck and amd is probably lying about barcelona, they speak in tongues.

Its all the intel fanboys mainly. And then the AMD fanboys go on about, like you said, how its going to beat C2D by X%. I think I should upload some english rumours on the net, this Chinese stuff is really getting to me.
April 1, 2007 6:47:11 AM

Quote:
Whose going on about "barcelona" is going to suck?

To this I present:

Quote:
if there are no benchmarks we must assume that barcelona will completely suck and amd is probably lying about barcelona, they speak in tongues.

Its all the intel fanboys mainly. And then the AMD fanboys go on about, like you said, how its going to beat C2D by X%. I think I should upload some english rumours on the net, this Chinese stuff is really getting to me.

Who exactly is this mazzapan? A 17 post noob? This is who is represented as "fanboys"? Wow...with evidence like that, I guess its safe to conclude the world has united against AMD
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2007 8:16:58 AM

It was just an example gee... get all emotional about it. You did ask "Whose going on about "barcelona" is going to suck?", so I gave an example. Whether or not he is a 17 post noob or not is beside the point. Do you really need evidence for everything? :roll: :roll: :roll:
April 1, 2007 8:24:36 AM

yeah, i agree, sure, i am an amd fanboy, you may have gathewred that because i was quite defensive in the past posts, but personally, i think amd and intel will be competitive, no one will be significantly faster than the other, sure, one may be hotter or use more power, one may be clocked lower or higher, but still i think they will run about even.
April 1, 2007 12:47:20 PM

I'm a chinese,it's easy to me,haha,need no translation
April 1, 2007 12:53:38 PM

Quote:

Here we go again. Intel's first 65nm chips were ovens.


Absolutely incorrect.... 65 nm product launched on Jan 5, 2006. This included Netburst, Cedarmill and Presler, both long pipeline CPUs at top bins of 3.73 GHz (the ovens you refer to).... however, Yonah, the predessor to Core 2 Duo, came in cool running and superior to the K8:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=coreduo&...

Take note that a Yonah overclocked to 2.6 GHz took less power under load than an FX-60 did at idle. Yet bested the FX-60 in almost every benchmark.

You cannot make generalized conclusions about the process technology without accounting for the architectural features.... Neburst was a long pipeline, and consumes more power just be the nature of the architecture.

You should not comment on something you know nothing about.

Jack

Yes, Mrs. Semantics. I should have said first 65nm DESKTOP chips.
April 1, 2007 12:55:18 PM

Quote:

I'm saying that Barcelona will probably be the third 65nm rev and won't be a shrink. It is designed for 65nm so I would expect slightly better OC and power.


First sentence is correct, the second sentence is nonsense.... AMD will not make a processor on 65 nm that will bin to > 3.0 GHz, and Barcelona will not OC any better than a Brisbane core.... Dual core CPUs may reach 3.2-3.4 GHz later in the life of 65 nm.... but don't expect miracles this year.... 2008 will likely be the time where clock speed goes up after some improvements.

Jack


Things were much better without your hostility. If you can't be civil post in threads where you can.
!