Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD releases Barcelona specs

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 23, 2007 5:42:38 AM

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/...

Cheers

Edit: Actually the performance numbers are still for the Opteron. Sorry for the misleading title. Noticed it late myself. Awfully sorry about that
April 23, 2007 5:46:38 AM

Do yuo think the next 2 days are going to have news released in little snippets at regular intervals?
April 23, 2007 5:47:14 AM

Somehow I fail to see a positive surprise in the workstation comparisons....

Am I missing something
Related resources
April 23, 2007 6:04:48 AM

These are K8 opteron numbers not K10 Barcelona numbers.
April 23, 2007 6:28:52 AM

Quote:
These are not Barcey specs, these are the same bogus benchmark figures they published in the WSJ a few weeks back claiming superiority over Intel....

These benches derive from rate and not non-rate, and report peak not base..... they are fudging slightly (but not inaccurately) to show numbers on benchmarks that play into the high BW available to the opty's.... it is a bit misleading.

Jack


Hi Jack,
I went through the links on the page as well and I certainly did get the feeling that its Barcey specs..

specially because of this link http://multicore.amd.com/us-en/quadcore/

Also if you look at the 2nd generation server performance benchmarks, it appears to have a healthy lead over Xeon 7160.

Cheers
April 23, 2007 6:35:41 AM

Here are some numbers AMD is claiming for Barcelona

Quote:
AMD also disclosed updated performance projections for its upcoming native Quad-Core AMD Opteron(TM) processors, code-named 'Barcelona.' The new Barcelona projections are based on the latest SPECcpu2006 benchmarks and show that AMD expects to have up to a 50 percent advantage in floating point performance and 20 percent in integer performance over the competition's highest-performing quad-core processor at the same frequency. These results, as well as the latest benchmark tests, based on AMD Opteron Model 2222 and 8222 SE processors can be found at www.amd.com/opteronperformance


If you notice the press release links to the same page.
April 23, 2007 6:45:48 AM

Quote:
These are not Barcey specs, these are the same bogus benchmark figures they published in the WSJ a few weeks back claiming superiority over Intel....

These benches derive from rate and not non-rate, and report peak not base..... they are fudging slightly (but not inaccurately) to show numbers on benchmarks that play into the high BW available to the opty's.... it is a bit misleading.

Jack


Hi Jack,
I went through the links on the page as well and I certainly did get the feeling that its Barcey specs..

specially because of this link http://multicore.amd.com/us-en/quadcore/

Also if you look at the 2nd generation server performance benchmarks, it appears to have a healthy lead over Xeon 7160.

Cheers

Yeah you are right, these are not Barcey specs
April 23, 2007 8:01:46 AM

I found some good points in their article:
Quote:
Saying you’re the “World’s Best Processor” is one thing.
Actually being the “World’s Best Processor” is another.


but hey, this ridiculous BS:
Quote:
The AMD Opteron™ processor continues to lead the industry in x86 dual-core performance.

preety much destroys all their credibility and reputation.
WTF is wrong with AMD?
Do they think that with blatant lies and BS they can make a good reputation or attract customers?
April 23, 2007 8:06:45 AM

I think the problem is that they fool more people than they piss off with ads like that. I mean, you would think that the media would be calling them on the carpet for that one, but no one really has.
April 23, 2007 8:30:29 AM

Quote:
They most certainly fool the weak minded, TB800-101 eats this stuff up and proclaims AMD the next worldly diety. :)  .... sometime you just need to shake your head and laugh.


Please show me where at any time did I declare AMD to be "the next worldly diety"

I wouldn't want to accuse you of making shit up.
April 23, 2007 9:04:05 AM

Quote:
AMD refuses to see reality
they are not the leader and havent been for a while
these statments they keep making are cultish and make me shake my head when i hear them


Intel keep mocking them too :lol: 
April 23, 2007 9:15:22 AM

Quote:
i dont think intel is mocking anyone
i think intel is not waiting around. the no benchmark statements are a sign of weakness and i doubt intel is going to wait around.


I was just talking about some of the ironic things. Only one i can think of on top of head is Multicore for dummies. :lol: 
Intel are making AMD eat their own words lately.
April 23, 2007 9:24:28 AM

Gimme a B!
Gimme a E!
Gimme a N!
Gimme a C!
Gimme a H!
Gimme a Y!


What have you got?

THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS!

Gonna be a cold day in Tunisia if the benchys aren't real and they don't stack up.

AMD: Continuing to lead the world in baseless hype and outright BS. :twisted:
April 23, 2007 9:29:17 AM

Quote:
AMD refuses to see reality
Thats common for Baron. No wonder he is an AMD die-hard fanboy troll.
April 23, 2007 10:03:49 AM

Quote:
That would be industry leading BS. so true on so many levels.


Hey, Dewd, what do you think about the Tunis demo that was supposed to start exactly three minutes ago?

a) Rigged K10 CPU-Z from a sealed box
b) Rigged R600 from a one-off prototype GPU that will never see production
c) Real, verifiable benchys all the way around
or
d) None of the above
April 23, 2007 10:07:01 AM

Quote:
AMD also disclosed updated performance projections for its upcoming native Quad-Core AMD Opteron(TM) processors, code-named 'Barcelona.' The new Barcelona projections are based on the latest SPECcpu2006 benchmarks and show that AMD expects to have up to a 50 percent advantage in floating point performance and 20 percent in integer performance over the competition's highest-performing quad-core processor at the same frequency.


lol
April 23, 2007 10:07:50 AM

Quote:
AMD also disclosed updated performance projections for its upcoming native Quad-Core AMD Opteron(TM) processors, code-named 'Barcelona.' The new Barcelona projections are based on the latest SPECcpu2006 benchmarks and show that AMD expects to have up to a 50 percent advantage in floating point performance and 20 percent in integer performance over the competition's highest-performing quad-core processor at the same frequency.


lol

Didn't AMD previously announce that they were gonna max out K10 at 2.5GHz and introduce 2.6GHZ only over a year later?
April 23, 2007 10:11:53 AM

Quote:
That would be industry leading BS. so true on so many levels.


Hey, Dewd, what do you think about the Tunis demo that was supposed to start exactly three minutes ago?

a) Rigged K10 CPU-Z from a sealed box
b) Rigged R600 from a one-off prototype GPU that will never see production
c) Real, verifiable benchys all the way around
or
d) None of the above
e) Secretly stolen penryn oc'd to 4.0ghz with a 8900GTX

I vote e
April 23, 2007 10:13:27 AM

Quote:
I vote e


I'm with ya. :D 
April 23, 2007 10:15:08 AM

Quote:
How easy could they fake a cpuz shot and make it read amd? cuz 8O thats a good idea for them. :lol: 


How hard can it be to hack CPU-Z and have it show anything you want? I'll bet there are some guys on here that could do that in 20 minutes. 8)
April 23, 2007 10:19:12 AM

Quote:
How easy could they fake a cpuz shot and make it read amd? cuz 8O thats a good idea for them. :lol: 


How hard can it be to hack CPU-Z and have it show anything you want? I'll bet there are some guys on here that could do that in 20 minutes. 8)

It's very easy. Spy++, Wndproc hooks etc.. Or Photoshop if thats your thing :p 
April 23, 2007 10:22:16 AM

Quote:
How easy could they fake a cpuz shot and make it read amd? cuz 8O thats a good idea for them. :lol: 


How hard can it be to hack CPU-Z and have it show anything you want? I'll bet there are some guys on here that could do that in 20 minutes. 8)

It's very easy. Spy++, Wndproc hooks etc.. Or Photoshop if thats your thing :p 

Well then what are you waiting for? Get on it! Haven't you seen AMD's marketing? They sure need all the help they can get.

Perhaps they will show this in Tunis:

April 23, 2007 10:45:00 AM

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31729/135/

Quote:
So far, we the company had claimed that Barcelona will surpass the performance of Clovertown by about 40% at any given clock speed. Now the company says that it believes that Barcelona will have a 50% advantage over Clovertown in floating point applications and 20% in integer performance “over the competition’s highest-performing quad-core processor at the same frequency.”
April 23, 2007 10:49:39 AM

Quote:
Perhaps they will show this in Tunis:


ROFL :lol: 
BTW, task manager, running at 100% CPU load will be nice also.
April 23, 2007 10:51:33 AM

I think they're working on the CPU-Z screenshots in the Vietnamese Photoshop CS3 sweatshops right now!

Sorry, couldn't resist.
April 23, 2007 11:17:34 AM

I can't run specs, I need benches.
April 23, 2007 11:29:08 AM

Quote:
It's very easy. Spy++, Wndproc hooks etc.. Or Photoshop if thats your thing :p 


Photoshop, I could do in ten minutes. The rest, I'll leave to the Jolt Cola crowd.

Quote:
I think they're working on the CPU-Z screenshots in the Vietnamese Photoshop CS3 sweatshops right now!

Sorry, couldn't resist.


:p  Sorry, couldn't resist. :lol:  :wink:
April 23, 2007 1:38:05 PM

Quote:
Here are some numbers AMD is claiming for Barcelona

AMD also disclosed updated performance projections for its upcoming native Quad-Core AMD Opteron(TM) processors, code-named 'Barcelona.' The new Barcelona projections are based on the latest SPECcpu2006 benchmarks and show that AMD expects to have up to a 50 percent advantage in floating point performance and 20 percent in integer performance over the competition's highest-performing quad-core processor at the same frequency. These results, as well as the latest benchmark tests, based on AMD Opteron Model 2222 and 8222 SE processors can be found at www.amd.com/opteronperformance


If you notice the press release links to the same page.

So according to AMD, Barcy is supposed to be 50% better in floating point than the "same frequency competitors chip" (the 2.66 Clovertown would be my guess). I'm trying to figure out how they can spin this, like they did with the crappy Opteron ad. Maybe 50% better in a certain chip configuration (like 1-way instead of 2-way). Or peak instead of base or average performance. 20% in integer is not enough to save the company, especially if we cut their expectations in half to be a realistic expectation.
April 23, 2007 2:10:17 PM

Quote:
I can't run specs, I need benches.

Is it just me, or somebody else feels like we'll have much more questions than answers after AMD's K10 intro :roll:
April 23, 2007 2:23:47 PM

Quote:
I can't run specs, I need benches.

Is it just me, or somebody else feels like we'll have much more questions than answers after AMD's K10 intro :roll:

I think that this may have occurred when most of the parents of the people of this forum were embryos, but in the good ol' days there was a spectacularly heated competition between Ford and Chevy. Each year they'd come out with bigger and faster engines and the fanbois on both sides would cheer their team on. However, do you know how they determined who was King of the Year? On the freakin' racetrack!

AMD, you don't introduce a new high-compression big-bore V8 and claim it shuts down everyone else. PUT IT ON THE DAMN RACETRACK OR SHUT UP!
April 23, 2007 2:47:49 PM

Just for stats, Cap'n, I believe it was Ford and Chrysler, for the most part in the '60's. Chev's just had the look, and sold more. Chrysler had the Hemi, and Ford had that 427.
April 23, 2007 2:53:22 PM

The problem is that right now, not only are they still missing the performance figures to counter Intel, but their marketing and public relations are increasingly closing on themselves, just like the intel of 1+ tears ago. They're just claiming 'we have are the best' and not giving a damn about benchmarks, and this way they also ignore the competition, just like Intel used to do :roll:
April 23, 2007 2:56:09 PM

What else are you going to do? Race and get thrashed? Sure, some people would respect you for your honesty, but your business would be dead. Better to stick to Seinfeld's policy - "I choose not to race..."
April 23, 2007 3:12:17 PM

Quote:
I can't run specs, I need benches.

Is it just me, or somebody else feels like we'll have much more questions than answers after AMD's K10 intro :roll:

I think that this may have occurred when most of the parents of the people of this forum were embryos, but in the good ol' days there was a spectacularly heated competition between Ford and Chevy. Each year they'd come out with bigger and faster engines and the fanbois on both sides would cheer their team on. However, do you know how they determined who was King of the Year? On the freakin' racetrack!

AMD, you don't introduce a new high-compression big-bore V8 and claim it shuts down everyone else. PUT IT ON THE DAMN RACETRACK OR SHUT UP!

Capt'n I can't beleive you don't remember it was Ford and Chrysler that went at it with the Shelby Mustang, and the Hemi Chargers in the late 60's.
April 23, 2007 3:17:22 PM

Quote:
Just for stats, Cap'n, I believe it was Ford and Chrysler, for the most part in the '60's. Chev's just had the look, and sold more. Chrysler had the Hemi, and Ford had that 427.


Thee speaketh heresy, oh trusty Canuckian. Mine Chev 427/435 of olde wouldeth spitteth forth Fords and doth muncheth on Mopars. :lol: 

Quote:
The problem is that right now, not only are they still missing the performance figures to counter Intel, but their marketing and public relations are increasingly closing on themselves, just like the intel of 1+ tears ago. They're just claiming 'we have are the best' and not giving a damn about benchmarks, and this way they also ignore the competition, just like Intel used to do :roll:


AMD's marketing and public relations dept. needs to be fired to the last man, woman and paperclip. I can't remember another corporate PR as abysmal.
April 23, 2007 3:22:02 PM

Quote:
That would be industry leading BS. so true on so many levels.


Hey, Dewd, what do you think about the Tunis demo that was supposed to start exactly three minutes ago?

a) Rigged K10 CPU-Z from a sealed box
b) Rigged R600 from a one-off prototype GPU that will never see production
c) Real, verifiable benchys all the way around
or
d) None of the above
FUD sums it up.
April 23, 2007 3:22:55 PM

Quote:
Capt'n I can't beleive you don't remember it was Ford and Chrysler that went at it with the Shelby Mustang, and the Hemi Chargers in the late 60's.


Oh, grand raptor of the skies, lest we forget that the Corvette 427/435 would showeth its tailfeathers to all who would challengeth! :wink:

68 Vette Creams Shelby

Quote:
FUD sums it up.


I verily sayeth unto thee. FUD tis the meaning of life! :lol: 
April 23, 2007 3:38:15 PM

Those 1968 numbers pale in comparison to the latest Z06 numbers (0-60 in 3.7 seconds!). But wait until late 2008, there is something special coming.......
April 23, 2007 3:41:14 PM

Quote:
Those 1968 numbers pale in comparison to the latest Z06 numbers (0-60 in 3.7 seconds!). But wait until late 2008, there is something special coming.......


Well, considering that 40 years ago we thought that by this time we'd be zooming to work in solar-powered helicopters... :lol: 

Might that something special be a Devil of a Bluish hue with the initials SS? :wink:
April 23, 2007 3:46:22 PM

While we wait for AMD benchmarks, check this - the fastest production muscle car was the 1967 Dodge Dart (remember, they had to make 75 to enter a car as a "stock car"): "approximately 80 Darts were fitted with the 426 Hemi. But this wasn't just a engine swap. They featured a fiberglass hood and front fenders, a front bumper and doors stamped out of a lighter gauge steel, special one-layer Corning Glass for the side windows (which did not meet DOT standards for use on public roads), no door window mechanisms, and no exterior side mirrors, all in an attempt to save weight. The weight saving measures continued inside with the deletion of the rear seat, the radio, and the replacement of the front seats with special lightweight van seats mounted on custom-fabricated aluminum mounting brackets. There was no insulation, no undercoating or sealers were used, and even the right side seatbelt was removed. Under the hood, the brake master cylinder was moved to clear the cylinder head, and rubber brake lines were used instead of metal so that they could be removed for access to the valve cover without disturbing the brake hydraulic system. The actual Hemi engine featured a pair of Holley carbs on a magnesium cross-ram intake. Iron heads (instead of aluminum) were used to keep the cost down. A heavy duty cooling package was standard, as well as headers, but the cars were delievered with no paint -- just primer and naked black fiberglass from the cowl forward on cheap black wheels with skinny tires. Final cost per car was around $4,500, and to make sure that the cars were raced and NOT driven on public streets, every Hemi Dart came with a sticker that stated that "This vehicle was not manufactured for use on Public Streets, Roads or Highways, and does not conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standards". But they definitely performed on the track, and would hit 10's in the quarter miles with minimal modification. This would make it the fastest factory built car in muscle car history."
Corvette? - bah! Sure a 1967 Dart was no beauty queen like the 'vette, but going in a straight line or around an oval, I'd take the Dart.
(Just imagine what they would have done with modern tires!)
April 23, 2007 3:54:27 PM

Quote:
Corvette? - bah! Sure a 1967 Dart was no beauty queen like the 'vette, but going in a straight line or around an oval, I'd take the Dart.
(Just imagine what they would have done with modern tires!)


Ah, the Dart! Just the thought brings a tear to my eye!



I drove this little 340 across the country to attend my freshman year at UCLA. I have nothing but great memories of that little Hang Ten! Ah to be young again! :cry: 

Now, how the heck are we gonna bring this thread back to Barcy specs before the Mods send us all to the Phantom Zone? :lol: 
April 23, 2007 4:06:19 PM

I'd forgot the "little elephant" 340. A friend had a Demon. Smokin' tires all the way up mainstreet. Sigh.
Hmm...how about "in the '60's, car manufacturers used to underplay their H.P. ratings (ever noticed that all the claimed H.P. ratings all topped out at 425?) unlike present AMD "benchmarks" which show only the most favourable scores". I hope the Barcelona scores are the same way, but I really, really doubt it. Do you think that'll work to bring the thread back on track?
April 23, 2007 4:11:11 PM

Quote:
Do you think that'll work to bring the thread back on track?


Definitely worth a try! Noble effort! :trophy: :D 

Considering it's early evening in Tunisia, I'm kinda wondering why we have heard absolutely nothing, not even a whimper. You'd think that someone would have posted something by now, even an "I saw it but I can't talk about it..."
April 23, 2007 4:11:52 PM

Quote:


Ah, the Dart! Just the thought brings a tear to my eye!



I drove this little 340 across the country to attend my freshman year at UCLA. I have nothing but great memories of that little Hang Ten! Ah to be young again! :cry: 

:lol: 


Hey, that doesn't do any justice....if the dart brings tears to your eyes...what would you say about the Ford Pinto? lol
April 23, 2007 4:21:51 PM

Quote:
Hey, that doesn't do any justice....if the dart brings tears to your eyes...what would you say about the Ford Pinto? lol


It's all in the memories. And the only memories I have of the Pinto is watching them explode when they got rearended! :lol: 

Maybe that might be a good way for AMD to get out of their K10 debacle. They could claim astronomical benchmark numbers but then every time a user plugs one into a motherboard it blows up! That way nobody could prove them wrong! :twisted:
April 23, 2007 4:39:49 PM

Quote:
Capt'n I can't beleive you don't remember it was Ford and Chrysler that went at it with the Shelby Mustang, and the Hemi Chargers in the late 60's.


Oh, grand raptor of the skies, lest we forget that the Corvette 427/435 would showeth its tailfeathers to all who would challengeth! :wink:

68 Vette Creams Shelby

Quote:
FUD sums it up.


I verily sayeth unto thee. FUD tis the meaning of life! :lol: 

Touche, I would love to have my Olds 442 with the 455 engine the darn thing was hard on tires though kept leaving them on the school parking lot. :lol:  :lol: 

Now when do we get some real numbers from AMD for Barcelona I suspect the thrilla in Tunisia is going to be underwhelming.
a b à CPUs
April 23, 2007 4:49:00 PM

Oh guys.

Everyone knows that Barcelone will be faster per clock. It has to be. The true performance indicator is not wether or not it's faster per clock but faster overall. And how much power it will consume.

Barcelona must beat Penryn, not the current Core 2.
April 23, 2007 4:52:52 PM

Quote:
Touche, I would love to have my Olds 442 with the 455 engine the darn thing was hard on tires though kept leaving them on the school parking lot. :lol:  :lol: 

Now when do we get some real numbers from AMD for Barcelona I suspect the thrilla in Tunisia is going to be underwhelming.


442! Aaaaaaah! Tell me it was a convertible and I'll melt right off my chair. Yeah, I know that's an unpleasant mental picture... :lol: 

It's a few minutes to 7 pm Tunisian time and still nothing. This is getting very strange, NDA or not...

Quote:
Oh guys.

Everyone knows that Barcelone will be faster per clock. It has to be. The true performance indicator is not wether or not it's faster per clock but faster overall. And how much power it will consume.

Barcelona must beat Penryn, not the current Core 2.


Agreed 100%. Penryn is the mark. Conroe is already passing into history...
!