Now I was googling for benchmarks and came across this blog, which oh yeah it's heavy AMD perhaps to fanboy level of course. However I am wondering if there is any truth to NUMA being a differance between Intel and AMD chips.
That beside Microsoft, financially screwed AMD, a lot in Q1 and probably a bit in this quarter. NUMA architecture support, that AMD uses and Intel will not until 2009, is actually an essential part of Vista OS but not on 32bit XP. So AMD, essentially optimized for Vista OS support was actually performance handycaped after Vista delay, just in the most selling Christmas time.
I think this guy just likes to rave but if someone can shed light, I don't have time to read about NUMA architecture etc right now.
Now I was googling for benchmarks and came across this blog, which oh yeah it's heavy AMD perhaps to fanboy level of course. However I am wondering if there is any truth to NUMA being a differance between Intel and AMD chips.
That beside Microsoft, financially screwed AMD, a lot in Q1 and probably a bit in this quarter. NUMA architecture support, that AMD uses and Intel will not until 2009, is actually an essential part of Vista OS but not on 32bit XP. So AMD, essentially optimized for Vista OS support was actually performance handycaped after Vista delay, just in the most selling Christmas time.
I think this guy just likes to rave but if someone can shed light, I don't have time to read about NUMA architecture etc right now.I didn't know Shariboo had a sister site.
Now I was googling for benchmarks and came across this blog, which oh yeah it's heavy AMD perhaps to fanboy level of course. However I am wondering if there is any truth to NUMA being a differance between Intel and AMD chips.
That beside Microsoft, financially screwed AMD, a lot in Q1 and probably a bit in this quarter. NUMA architecture support, that AMD uses and Intel will not until 2009, is actually an essential part of Vista OS but not on 32bit XP. So AMD, essentially optimized for Vista OS support was actually performance handycaped after Vista delay, just in the most selling Christmas time.
I think this guy just likes to rave but if someone can shed light, I don't have time to read about NUMA architecture etc right now.
it has been reported (w/ benchmarks) that Vista only have improvements in taking the advantage of NUMA architecture. While in Vista, 4x4 can take the advantage of "improved" NUMA support, and showed some improvement in high bandwidth/ high threaded applications.
Now I was googling for benchmarks and came across this blog, which oh yeah it's heavy AMD perhaps to fanboy level of course. However I am wondering if there is any truth to NUMA being a differance between Intel and AMD chips.
That beside Microsoft, financially screwed AMD, a lot in Q1 and probably a bit in this quarter. NUMA architecture support, that AMD uses and Intel will not until 2009, is actually an essential part of Vista OS but not on 32bit XP. So AMD, essentially optimized for Vista OS support was actually performance handycaped after Vista delay, just in the most selling Christmas time.
I think this guy just likes to rave but if someone can shed light, I don't have time to read about NUMA architecture etc right now.I didn't know Shariboo had a sister site.
Indeed. Are their any mental Intel fanboi blogs anywhere? It's always some nutter with AMD.
Using NUMA as en excuse is weak. I thought only 4x4 had numa anyway?
Intel's Penryn gives a hint on AMD Barcelona performance.
It has to run at 3.3 Ghz clock with help of 12MB of cache !
Dangerously close to ill fated high clocked Pentium.
However, high-K might help this time. Don't forget that Intel will
try to fool audience actually with D1D research fab Penryn samples on July 15th.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.