Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Updates Quad-Core performance projections.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 23, 2007 6:36:15 AM

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070423/20070422005085.html?.v=1

Quote:
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.


So Intel will still have the Highest performing with their 3Ghz?
If this is true, AMD can't charge as much for their top model, which isn't a good thing, as they need money.

Thoughts?
April 23, 2007 6:40:36 AM

Too much speculation at this point for me. But if AMD is at the same performance level with Barcelona @ around 2.5 Ghz and Intel is say at 3.0+ then AMD will very likely be the better part when it comes to performance/watt.
April 23, 2007 7:19:26 AM

Quote:
Too much speculation at this point for me. But if AMD is at the same performance level with Barcelona @ around 2.5 Ghz and Intel is say at 3.0+ then AMD will very likely be the better part when it comes to performance/watt.


Except for the the metal gate transistors in Penryn will allow for a higher clock speed with a lower power consumption. I would "speculate" that the performance/watt crown will not be with AMD. Either way, I am guessing that both will be very close in perf/watt. I expect to see a ton of cherry picked benches by both sides.
Related resources
April 23, 2007 7:23:41 AM

ya..rite...no stats or benchies...just big statements
April 23, 2007 7:35:19 AM

Quote:
First they say, 50% and 20% compared to the highest performance quad of their competitor (meaning Intel), at the same frequency --- Intel currently has a 3.0 GHz quad on the market, so are they measuring clock for clock?

If so, are we expecting Barcey to launch at 3.0 GHz?? This would be interesting.... hmmmmm.

Comprehension is not your strongest attribute. Read the link.
April 23, 2007 7:42:22 AM

Quote:

Hmmmmmm.... I think others may disagree.

no, really? On one of the biggest zombie Intel fanboy forums in the free world, ya think?
April 23, 2007 7:51:29 AM

well i would take the advise of a doctor over someone whom watches futurama. and if barcy is better than intels offerings this will become an amd zombie bla bla forum. personally i'm sick of all the vague super secret crap from amd. to amd it IS time to put up or shut up, seriously it is getting really old now.
April 23, 2007 7:54:50 AM

Quote:
Too much speculation at this point for me. But if AMD is at the same performance level with Barcelona @ around 2.5 Ghz and Intel is say at 3.0+ then AMD will very likely be the better part when it comes to performance/watt.


65nm @ 2.5GHz vs 45nm High-K @ 3GHz+... I'm not so sure.
April 23, 2007 8:01:18 AM

Quote:
Wait, let me see....

this is still vague --- they are not specifying clocks again....

First they say, 50% and 20% compared to the highest performance quad of their competitor (meaning Intel), at the same frequency --- Intel currently has a 3.0 GHz quad on the market, so are they measuring clock for clock?

If so, are we expecting Barcey to launch at 3.0 GHz?? This would be interesting.... hmmmmm.

In the past they were quoted as stating they were making the comparision to the 2.67 GHz clovertown, the 5355....

So, AMD, which is it? 50% better than a 5355 or 50% better than a 3.0 Ghz? It makes a difference.

EDIT: Ooops, sorry... my bad, Intel is readying a 3.0 GHz Xeon 53XX but have not launched -- but it still makes one wonder the wordplay here.

Jack


If the early roadmaps we saw a while back is true, then AMD will release Barcelona up to 2,5Ghz this year, and a 2,6Ghz early next year.

AMD stated that Barcelona would fit in the same power envelope as the Dual-Core versions, and then if theinquirers numbers are correct:

(1,9Ghz 68W,
2,3Ghz 95W,
2,4Ghz 120W,
2,5Ghz 120W)

then releasing a 3Ghz wouldn't be possible at this early stage, would it?

What I think these numbers indicate is that their performance projections are at the same clock as the Clovertown.

So a 2,3Ghz Barcelona is "up to a 50 percent advantage in floating point performance and 20 percent in integer performance" in comparison to a 2,33Ghz Clovertown?
April 23, 2007 8:02:15 AM

Quote:
First they say, 50% and 20% compared to the highest performance quad of their competitor (meaning Intel), at the same frequency --- Intel currently has a 3.0 GHz quad on the market, so are they measuring clock for clock?

If so, are we expecting Barcey to launch at 3.0 GHz?? This would be interesting.... hmmmmm.

Comprehension is not your strongest attribute. Read the link.

That is funny. Jack is well known for having sub par comprehension and analytical skills. I am sure that most people here just feel sorry for him when he posts his nonsense.... You would think that with 10k posts, he would figure it out, but he just keeps posting.

I kid... I kid.
April 23, 2007 8:22:43 AM

Quote:

Hmmmmmm.... I think others may disagree.

no, really? On one of the biggest zombie Intel fanboy forums in the free world, ya think?

Whatever. I prefer real data, and drawing correct conclusions. AMD has you fooled in a big way....

Quote:
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


So it's 50% faster than the X5355 @ running 2.3ghz (Barca's top speed)
Or they are getting higher clocks than they said for Barca.
Either way this appears to be a clock for clock improvement.

Very poorly worded though.

Edit: it would appear http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/... is barcelona.
I'll take yahoo with a pinch of salt though.
April 23, 2007 8:55:48 AM

My interpretation of AMDs deliberately vague crap:

Barc up to 50% faster FP than 2.66 Clovertown
Barc up to 20% faster INT than 2.66 Clovertown

How will it compare to Penryn?

Comparing Penryn to Clovertown, assuming top bin of 3.66 GHZ and a 10% Penryn clock-foe-clock boost (estimated from recent Penryn benches):

(3.66/2.66)*1.1 = +51%

Conclusion: Barc wont beat Penryn.
April 23, 2007 8:59:22 AM

Quote:
Wait, let me see....

this is still vague --- they are not specifying clocks again....

First they say, 50% and 20% compared to the highest performance quad of their competitor (meaning Intel), at the same frequency --- Intel currently has a 3.0 GHz quad on the market, so are they measuring clock for clock?

If so, are we expecting Barcey to launch at 3.0 GHz?? This would be interesting.... hmmmmm.

In the past they were quoted as stating they were making the comparision to the 2.67 GHz clovertown, the 5355....

So, AMD, which is it? 50% better than a 5355 or 50% better than a 3.0 Ghz? It makes a difference.

EDIT: Ooops, sorry... my bad, Intel is readying a 3.0 GHz Xeon 53XX but have not launched -- but it still makes one wonder the wordplay here.

Jack


Jack, I think it states clearly that the comparison is made between cores at the approximate the same frequency ... so in this case, the advantage K10 has will be deleted when Intel launches higher frequency processors … If a 2,5 – 2,6 GHz K10 is 20%(int) faster in than a 2,66 GHz Kentsfield, than a 2,93 GHz Kentsfield with it’s ~12% speed advantage will nearly delete this gap.

I think that K10 will be better than Kentsfield (probably nothing earth shattering … maybe at most 10% faster than a 2,93 GHz Kentsfield in most common applications and probably 30% faster in very short list of applications )

The problem for AMD is that this advantage will not hold when Penryn will come with its 5-10% ipc improvement over Kentsfield + 14% speed improvement = 20 – 25 % boost, and K10 will not be able to mach this at its rumored 2,5 GHz speed launch … but than maybe we will see faster speeds than 2,5 GHz sooner rather than later.

Of course there will be an increase in FSB speed for Intel from 1066 to 1333 MHz but this improvement alone will not change very much in the performance landscape between Kentsfield vs. Barcelona.
April 23, 2007 9:11:12 AM

Fair warnin'... Everyone on this forum should incorporate into their sigs a line of thanks to Jack for his invaluable continuing contributions. Anybody who messes with Jack messes with the Cap'n. I'd provide references of all those who have messed with me, but they are deceased or otherwise indisposed... :evil: 
April 23, 2007 9:20:27 AM

Quote:
Anybody who messes with Jack messes with the Cap'n. I'd provide references of all those who have messed with me, but they are deceased or otherwise indisposed... :evil: 


A cuppa tea and Cap'nFud. What other way is there to start a dull monday morning :D 
April 23, 2007 9:21:30 AM

Quote:
A cuppa tea and Cap'nFud. What other way is there to start a dull monday morning :D 


More than happy to brighten up your day! :D 
April 23, 2007 9:24:02 AM

I am very disappointed that AMD continues this cat and mouse game …
All the things we got from them all vague and the lack of real data and not just projections in some synthetic benchmarks is not helping them

I understand that they are trying to protect their product so that when it launches it will make a big splash, but were getting very close to the supposed release dates and I would find it useful especially in their current position to show to the world a little preview, Intel certainly cannot change anything this year at least … so event is K10 is 200% faster Intel cannot do anything about it.

So I say to AMD, stop with all this secrecy and show us some facts … if K10 is as good as u claim it is, than let the word know about it… And if it's not than you will not be able to hide it a very long time so why not be honest and show what you have ???
April 23, 2007 9:27:43 AM

Quote:
So I say to AMD, stop with all this secrecy and show us some facts … if K10 is as good as u claim it is, than let the word know about it…


I've run into a lot of similar situations: Guys in bars who try to pick up my chicks by tellin' them that they're bigger and better than the Cap'n. But when it comes time for the real benchmark, they all just run away in embarassment. :twisted:

So, Hector, you say you've got the "biggest one?" Stop boasting, pull out the (benchmark) ruler and prove it! :lol: 
April 23, 2007 9:29:40 AM

Quote:
So I say to AMD, stop with all this secrecy and show us some facts … if K10 is as good as u claim it is, than let the word know about it…


I've run into a lot of similar situations: Guys in bars who try to pick up my chicks by tellin' them that they're bigger and better than the Cap'n. But when it comes time for the real benchmark, they all just run away in embarassment. :twisted:

So, Hector, you say you've got the "biggest one?" Stop boasting, pull out the (benchmark) ruler and prove it! :lol: 

I subscribe to that ... be a man and show us what u got :D 
April 23, 2007 11:06:17 AM

Benchy Benchy Benchy Benchy Benchy

Even though i am an AMD fanboi I want benchies frm AMD to prove there supieority
April 23, 2007 11:21:48 AM

Well if they truly do perform similarily to the INTEL quads at the same clock speeds,then I'd have to say AMD is making headway again.C'mon people,have a little faith ok.AMD still makes a very satisfactory processor that is very competative with the INTEL processor,and still gives good performance per watt numbers.Look at how many people bought INTEL just because of their name,even though they ran very hot compared to AMD.Until AMD come out with the 64bit architecture.AMD is far from out of the game.Far from out of it.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.6 TOLEDO
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7950GT KO IN SLI
4X 512MB CRUCIAL BALLISTIX DDR500
WD300GIG HD/SAMSUNG 250GIG HD
ACER 22IN WIDESCREEN LCD 1600X1200
THERMALTAKE TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
3DMARK05 13,471
April 23, 2007 11:38:10 AM

Quote:
Benchy Benchy Benchy Benchy Benchy

Even though i am an AMD fanboi I want benchies frm AMD to prove there supieority


I'm on AMD and have been for years. And I'm right with ya. If, and it's a sizeable if, they are able to prove a better price/performance on dual socket quadcore, they get my buy. It's as simple as that.
April 23, 2007 11:56:36 AM

Quote:
Fair warnin'... Everyone on this forum should incorporate into their sigs a line of thanks to Jack for his invaluable continuing contributions. Anybody who messes with Jack messes with the Cap'n. I'd provide references of all those who have messed with me, but they are deceased or otherwise indisposed... :evil: 


The "I kid... I kid.." part of my post was to show that I was being sarcastic. The fact that someone would try to accuse jack of having poor comprehension skills was laughable, hence my post.

I have nothing but respect for Jack and I appologize if I was misunderstood.
April 23, 2007 12:19:36 PM

Quote:

Hmmmmmm.... I think others may disagree.

no, really? On one of the biggest zombie Intel fanboy forums in the free world, ya think?

Whatever. I prefer real data, and drawing correct conclusions. AMD has you fooled in a big way....

Oh, really? and Intel hasn't? This forum mostly is a zombie forum. Before the launch of Conroe I was happy to recommend anyone who was asking me for a tip for buying a PC, to wait for Conroe. I wasn't wrong is it a good CPU but the sad part is that most believe it to be better than it truly is, due to flawed/tweaked benchmarking. Not only that but the Intel zombies saw this as an opportunity for payback and exaggerated even more Conroe's qualities recommending it even where it took a real beating from AMD, in the low end to mainstream sector.

What it really amazes me is that very few people saw the peculiarities and discrepancies in the testings done post Core 2. It's not a conspiracy theory it was so damn obvious at time that the zombie theory must hold true.
April 23, 2007 12:27:30 PM

April 23, 2007 12:53:41 PM

So what youre saying is that core2>k8 by 20% is no big deal just like barcelona>core2 20%? OK, sounds allll good to me
April 23, 2007 12:53:41 PM

*Sigh*

Yet another speculation thread.
April 23, 2007 12:54:12 PM

Quote:
Wait, let me see....

this is still vague --- they are not specifying clocks again....

First they say, 50% and 20% compared to the highest performance quad of their competitor (meaning Intel), at the same frequency --- Intel currently has a 3.0 GHz quad on the market, so are they measuring clock for clock?

If so, are we expecting Barcey to launch at 3.0 GHz?? This would be interesting.... hmmmmm.

This is what I think a must for them now; a clock speed of at least 2.6 or 2.7GHz for their top chip, only this way they can hope hold their own against penryn.
April 23, 2007 12:56:30 PM

Quote:
*Sigh*

Yet another speculation thread.
True... only thing I gleen from this is...IF its true, I win
April 23, 2007 1:02:56 PM

unfortunately for us they didnt specify what the clockspeed of the xeon was. Im guessing that since they said comparable that meant 3ghz.

im also guessing that barcelona and penryn will be very close clock for clock, or perhaps barcelona might even be better. I saw some claims from intel that the 3.33ghz vs a 2.93ghz qx6800 the 3.33 penryn won by around 20-40% compared to the 6800. Thats to say that the 6800 wasnt even running at similar speeds so those numbers will go down. Assuming that AMD isnt lying about its 20-50% performance lead clock for clock over conroe, its performance should at least equal that of penryn. So it seems that amd is trying to get ahead of the game with barcelona instead of matching intels current lead. Which might bring user preference down to whoever overclocks better than the other
April 23, 2007 1:07:00 PM

AMD knows better than to put out blatantly false benches, but the real question is, to what extent are they correct? What are the caveats? what are the conditions? What are the clock speeds? Even when they tell us something, we still know nothing.
April 23, 2007 1:15:23 PM

Kind of like the elephant and the blind men, both had their own descriptions
April 23, 2007 1:25:28 PM

Honestly, I hope its all true, and Penryn comes and kicks a lil arse too. Im still om k8.Not sure why Ive waited this long (OK I am sure, but I wont tell you her name). But after all the hype of C2D, and me not having one, going to this gen (Barc. or Pen.) will be very nice
a b à CPUs
April 23, 2007 1:38:43 PM

Hey, if these benches are MOSTLY right, AMD should be close again and should be able to get a little cash. I'd love for them to blow Intel out of the water, but any competition would be appreciated.
April 23, 2007 1:44:14 PM

Quote:
The "I kid... I kid.." part of my post was to show that I was being sarcastic. The fact that someone would try to accuse jack of having poor comprehension skills was laughable, hence my post.

I have nothing but respect for Jack and I appologize if I was misunderstood.


Sorry, carlhungis, I should not have replied to your post specifically. My warning was not directed towards you, but towards the johnnycomelatelys who come onto this forum without a clue as to what we're all about and start dissing the most respected members without the slightest justification. They are welcome to the one way ticket on the CRA train right back to the depths of AMDZone or wherever they surfaced from. :evil: 

Quote:
Honestly, I hope its all true, and Penryn comes and kicks a lil arse too. Im still om k8.Not sure why Ive waited this long (OK I am sure, but I wont tell you her name).


That's funny. While in flagrante delicto hasn't she ever screamed out my name? :wink: :lol: 
April 23, 2007 1:47:30 PM

Quote:
Too much speculation at this point for me. But if AMD is at the same performance level with Barcelona @ around 2.5 Ghz and Intel is say at 3.0+ then AMD will very likely be the better part when it comes to performance/watt.


AMD's not claiming victory in performance/watt, they're saying performance/frequency. From what we've seen, Intel will have almost 500 Mhz improved frequency and at 45nm. Penryn vs Barcy should be incredibly close, by AMD's expectations (which may be bloated). This will be interesting.
April 23, 2007 1:58:24 PM

Quote:

Hmmmmmm.... I think others may disagree.

no, really? On one of the biggest zombie Intel fanboy forums in the free world, ya think?

Whatever. I prefer real data, and drawing correct conclusions. AMD has you fooled in a big way....

Oh, really? and Intel hasn't? This forum mostly is a zombie forum. Before the launch of Conroe I was happy to recommend anyone who was asking me for a tip for buying a PC, to wait for Conroe. I wasn't wrong is it a good CPU but the sad part is that most believe it to be better than it truly is, due to flawed/tweaked benchmarking. Not only that but the Intel zombies saw this as an opportunity for payback and exaggerated even more Conroe's qualities recommending it even where it took a real beating from AMD, in the low end to mainstream sector.

What it really amazes me is that very few people saw the peculiarities and discrepancies in the testings done post Core 2. It's not a conspiracy theory it was so damn obvious at time that the zombie theory must hold true.

This forum is big on proof.

I welcome you to present your case regarding the flawed benchmarking and exaggerated performance of the Conroe.

What I find here tend to be realists. This forum used to be very big on AMD when it was top dog. And now it is very big on Intel while it is top dog. All people are asking for is proof. Not word games.
April 23, 2007 2:06:50 PM

AMD is laying a golden turd. Performance per Clock means nothing when the company can't make a transistory go over 3 gig and the competitor is looking to go over 4 gig. They compared processors at 2.5 gig is what I got from the article.

AMD is about to get owned in the server market big time. Barcelona is a flop according to their own words. They will have no answer to Intels 45nm processors, Penryn will keep them down while Nahelam will kick them in the head.

AMD may die a slower death than Cyrix in the CPU market, but even they can see the writing on the wall now. Suddenly their actions make perfect sense. :cry: 
April 23, 2007 2:08:56 PM

Quote:

This forum is big on proof.

I welcome you to present your case regarding the flawed benchmarking and exaggerated performance of the Conroe.

What I find here tend to be realists. This forum used to be very big on AMD when it was top dog. And now it is very big on Intel while it is top dog. All people are asking for is proof. Not word games.


Well said. I STILL run on dual Opterons! In fact the last Intel CPU I bought was a PII.

However my AMD days are coming to an end ... I'm busy switching to Core 2's / Xeons now.

AMD seem to believe they can BS us on performance.

Hint to AMD: We've had years of training at spotting BS (thank you crapburst). That AMD are even trying to BS us, pisses me off no end :evil: 
April 23, 2007 2:48:06 PM

Quote:
AMD is laying a golden turd. Performance per Clock means nothing when the company can't make a transistory go over 3 gig and the competitor is looking to go over 4 gig. They compared processors at 2.5 gig is what I got from the article.

AMD is about to get owned in the server market big time. Barcelona is a flop according to their own words. They will have no answer to Intels 45nm processors, Penryn will keep them down while Nahelam will kick them in the head.

AMD may die a slower death than Cyrix in the CPU market, but even they can see the writing on the wall now. Suddenly their actions make perfect sense. :cry: 


Yes? Really and how do you know all that??? Do you have a reliable source for that or is it just coming out your ass???

Speed is not all these days you know??? Or where you asleep when a 2.0 GHz Athlon 64 was kicking the but of P4 at 3GHz and more...

Maybe their clock efficiency is way better than Core 2 , maybe their speed will be more than 2,5 , all the data we've received until know was speculative and we won't know for sure until AMD will release some benchmarks and the clock speeds for K10. Until then we can only speculate, it could end up faster, it could end up slower ... the point is stop making these stupid kinds of remarks ... it will get you nowhere...
April 23, 2007 2:53:20 PM

Quote:
They compared processors at 2.5 gig is what I got from the article.


And were exactly have you read that??? Can you point it out for me?
Because I’ve also read that article and it doesn’t say anything about clock speed???

Please read carefully in the future before posting …
Maybe than you wont embarrass yourself ...
April 23, 2007 2:59:44 PM

im starting to get a little pissed, i was hoping that some info would leak but its 11 already and no info :evil: 


uuuuusally when you have events like this information just comes from everywhere, but not this time


thanks for making everyone sign a stupid agreement AMD
April 23, 2007 3:02:44 PM

Something will leak soon, I am sure.
Something HAS to leak right?
Leaking is what journalist do...

Leaking can start any time now...
April 23, 2007 3:02:52 PM

Quote:
AMD is laying a golden turd. Performance per Clock means nothing when the company can't make a transistory go over 3 gig and the competitor is looking to go over 4 gig. They compared processors at 2.5 gig is what I got from the article.

AMD is about to get owned in the server market big time. Barcelona is a flop according to their own words. They will have no answer to Intels 45nm processors, Penryn will keep them down while Nahelam will kick them in the head.

AMD may die a slower death than Cyrix in the CPU market, but even they can see the writing on the wall now. Suddenly their actions make perfect sense. :cry: 


Yes? Really and how do you know all that??? Do you have a reliable source for that or is it just coming out your ass???

Speed is not all these days you know??? Or where you asleep when a 2.0 GHz Athlon 64 was kicking the but of P4 at 3GHz and more...

Maybe their clock efficiency is way better than Core 2 , maybe their speed will be more than 2,5 , all the data we've received until know was speculative and we won't know for sure until AMD will release some benchmarks and the clock speeds for K10. Until then we can only speculate, it could end up faster, it could end up slower ... the point is stop making these stupid kinds of remarks ... it will get you nowhere...
Denial is one of the first steps in grieving. :roll:

Common sense would dictate that if a company say's it is faster at the same clock speed and is going to be releasing a processor around 2.5, then they didn't benchmark it against a processor at 2.93.

What AMD is doing is very transparent to a nonfanboy.
April 23, 2007 3:13:48 PM

Quote:
Something will leak soon, I am sure.
Something HAS to leak right?
Leaking is what journalist do...

Leaking can start any time now...


Damn.... too much coffee this morning!

I'm impatiently waiting for some Barc/R600 info.

I don't expect it today, but I'd really like to see a Barc running in an AM2 board, and maybe a comparison with one in an AM2+ board. I don't expect the difference to be significant for desktops.
April 23, 2007 3:19:35 PM

Quote:
AMD knows better than to put out blatantly false benches, but the real question is, to what extent are they correct? What are the caveats? what are the conditions? What are the clock speeds? Even when they tell us something, we still know nothing.



Au contrare mon ami

AMD using bad Benchies?

And this is old news...I know you've seen it!


Quote:
So here we have AMD’s Richard screaming about Intel’s use of older stats from the previous SPECint standard which shows Intel killing AMD by a large margin, then promises not to do the same thing, then goes right on ahead and offers one month old stats showing AMD’s 3% lead on SPECint_2006. Would that be a problem if nothing has changed since that time? No, nothing wrong at all. But I checked with CPU analyst David Kanter of Real World technologies and here’s what he has to say:

In January, AMD lead Intel by about 3% in SPECint_rate 2006; currently, Intel has pulled ahead by around 6%. So right now, Intel beats AMD on SPECint_rate for both peak and base.

So we have AMD screaming about Intel’s misleading benchmarks, promises not to do same thing, then appears to turn around gives us outdated scores from a month earlier showing a small AMD advantage when the updated scores actually showed a larger advantage for Intel.


And AMDs response to this little faux pas?

Uh err I eee ohhh errr uhhhhhh our legal team didnt approve the updated scores showing Intel beating us by 9% yet...ya thats it, its the lawyers faults...we're innocent.

Quote:
AMD has notified me via email late Friday that they didn't show the updated Intel scores that were actually 9% higher because their legal team had not approved the updated Intel scores yet. Since SPEC.org posted scores are about as independent and legitimate as they come and the certification process is extremely rigorous, it’s a bit disingenuous to use your own legal department to block your opponent’s best scores. The AMD spokesperson told me that they will expedite this legal review process in the future and that “Thanks to you, we will add in a ‘day of’ check, even when presenting a benchmark that was updated only a few weeks earlier.” I will follow up with AMD on Monday because they want to poke some holes in what Intel presented Wall Street last week. If it turns out that Intel suppressed better AMD scores in the same way, I'll post that next week
April 23, 2007 3:23:09 PM

Quote:
AMD is laying a golden turd. Performance per Clock means nothing when the company can't make a transistory go over 3 gig and the competitor is looking to go over 4 gig. They compared processors at 2.5 gig is what I got from the article.

AMD is about to get owned in the server market big time. Barcelona is a flop according to their own words. They will have no answer to Intels 45nm processors, Penryn will keep them down while Nahelam will kick them in the head.

AMD may die a slower death than Cyrix in the CPU market, but even they can see the writing on the wall now. Suddenly their actions make perfect sense. :cry: 


Yes? Really and how do you know all that??? Do you have a reliable source for that or is it just coming out your ass???

Speed is not all these days you know??? Or where you asleep when a 2.0 GHz Athlon 64 was kicking the but of P4 at 3GHz and more...

Maybe their clock efficiency is way better than Core 2 , maybe their speed will be more than 2,5 , all the data we've received until know was speculative and we won't know for sure until AMD will release some benchmarks and the clock speeds for K10. Until then we can only speculate, it could end up faster, it could end up slower ... the point is stop making these stupid kinds of remarks ... it will get you nowhere...
Denial is one of the first steps in grieving. :roll:

Common sense would dictate that if a company say's it is faster at the same clock speed and is going to be releasing a processor around 2.5, then they didn't benchmark it against a processor at 2.93.

What AMD is doing is very transparent to a nonfanboy.

you're kidding right?
thats why AMd compared cpus not by mhz but by their "PR" ratting..

AMD as never said "MHZ" since the K7
but the "PR performance ratting of their cpus....

or you forgot that a AMD athlon 64 3000+ is actully at 1.8-2 Ghz?

talk about being hypocrital...
anyway if they claim 20%-50% improvements at CLOCK speeds, it should give a preety boost ..
sort of 2.5 Ghz X4 = 2.7-2.8 Ghz penryn
April 23, 2007 3:47:28 PM

I just realised something :lol: 

AMD are going to make consumers sign NDAs before they are allowed to buy a K10.

Henri is probably prepping the contract as I type this :D 
!