Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Ziff Davis: Barcelona will not be the Intel quad-core killer

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 5, 2007 9:41:46 AM

... won’t even be close.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=567



Based on AMDs own numbers Barcelona will launch at a 25% performance deficit to Intels best Core-based quad core ... and thats just in synthetics 8O
July 5, 2007 10:23:43 AM

ZD has a bit more cred than the inq... But they're still basing their #'s on speculation.

Patience.... Time will tell.
July 5, 2007 11:03:05 AM

I don't think it will be that bad, so when is it coming out? I heard August but it looks like its been pushed back again. Also thats pretty sad its taken them over 1 year to respond to intel only to have penryn come crashing down on them soon after they release Barcelona. O well that will teach them to not underestimate intel again.
Related resources
July 6, 2007 3:51:49 PM

Quote:
ZD has a bit more cred than the inq... But they're still basing their #'s on speculation.

Patience.... Time will tell.


Actually, I think this may actually be one of the few bits of actual solid information we have.

A 3.0 ghz Quad Xeon does 106 on SPECint_Rate2006 - this is a hard data point, it is real.

AMD projects that a 2.6 ghz part will do 102. - We can assume AMD would not understate it's own product fairly safely.

Unless Barcelona gets pretty close to 3 ghz, we can safely assume a 3.33 ghz Penrym will still be champ, at least on this benchmark.
July 6, 2007 4:35:21 PM

Actually I don't think they have ever seen a Barcelona, and until someone not only does, but is willing to post real benchmarks the article (much like this thread) is just so much rubbish.
July 6, 2007 5:42:07 PM

In fareness to AMD, it took Intel three years to respond. The barky project team were surpised when they saw the C2s performance.

"Holy Crap" would have echoed through the halls.
July 6, 2007 5:42:34 PM

Quote:
I don't think it will be that bad, so when is it coming out? I heard August but it looks like its been pushed back again. Also thats pretty sad its taken them over 1 year to respond to intel only to have penryn come crashing down on them soon after they release Barcelona. O well that will teach them to not underestimate intel again.


I think most people are underestimating Intel. In 1999, Intel Gave a tour for some of the Hardware Techs, that worked T/S for dell. They came back talking about how fast the P6 (Probably renamed) was and the Hyper-Threading that Intel had been working with, and that they were also talking about multiple cores. In reality if it wasn't for AMD, we may just be getting CPU's that are breaking the 2Ghz barer. Intel had a slower release planes, then what has happened. If anything AMD is just trying to research far enough to be as good as or a little better then what Intel is going to release.
July 6, 2007 6:06:45 PM

plus look at the money difference Intel should be leaps and bounds ahead of AMD, they hold the majority market share, AMD might be struggling, but if they can keep up with Intel, that shows a tremendous effort on AMD's part. If things were like they should be, AMD would not be even close, and Intel would be giving us 6Ghz dual cores by now. But they don't want to release anything more then they have to and want to enjoy fat pockets vs way outperforming the competition. I am not saying Intel is a better company at all, I am strictly saying that they could be spending a lot more money on R&D and giving us much better processors then they are. Just my opinion for what it's worth.
July 6, 2007 6:31:20 PM

i agree, one barcelona won't be faster than one 3.0ghz quad xeon...
of course, intel isn't out of the game, they're still in front but amd has a cost efficient solution with a 320$ server cpu for socket F. also, you might be surprised as barcelona specs could have gone up since this benchmark...

at the same frequency, barcelona is better. it's clocked lower because it's a native quad...
low TDP (68w/4cores makes 17w/core up to 2.0ghz)
low price (320$)
native quad architecture
onchip memory controller

entry-level parts are competitively priced and a 4 socket motherboard will fix this as allowing 16 cores to run easier in a 4x4 than in a 4x(2x2) ... everything is up to it...


how much does 2x 3.0ghz xeon costs ? -> over 2000$
how much does 4x 1.9ghz barcy costs ? -> 1280 $
the motherboard could cost more... but not 500$ more...
ram support getting twice as high
which would be faster... then, 2x3.33ghz quad vs 4x2.3ghz quad
remembers me of the 4 socket opteron board on s940 ... lol

8x3.0ghz vs 16x1.9ghz
as barcy is the more efficient/clock architecture as soon as it gets available, AMD should be ready to compete with Intel.
as long as both remains at about the same level, we'll have good priced high performing hardware
July 6, 2007 6:44:01 PM

Quote:

at the same frequency, barcelona is better. it's clocked lower because it's a native quad...

Which is not a good thing

Quote:

low TDP (68w/4cores makes 17w/core up to 2.0ghz)

For a low-power version only. Intel's low-power version will be at 2GHz/50W.

Quote:

low price (320$)

That's the price for the 95W 1.9GHz version. By September, Intel's 2GHz E5335 will be at $316.

Quote:

entry-level parts are competitively priced and a 4 socket motherboard will fix this as allowing 16 cores to run easier in a 4x4 than in a 4x(2x2) ... everything is up to it...

The $320 part is from the 2000 series and can't be used in a 4S system. You need a 8000 series part, which will start at around $790.
July 6, 2007 7:01:01 PM

Quote:

at the same frequency, barcelona is better. it's clocked lower because it's a native quad...

Which is not a good thing

Quote:

low TDP (68w/4cores makes 17w/core up to 2.0ghz)

For a low-power version only. Intel's low-power version will be at 2GHz/50W.

Quote:

low price (320$)

That's the price for the 95W 1.9GHz version. By September, Intel's 2GHz E5335 will be at $316.

Quote:

entry-level parts are competitively priced and a 4 socket motherboard will fix this as allowing 16 cores to run easier in a 4x4 than in a 4x(2x2) ... everything is up to it...

The $320 part is from the 2000 series and can't be used in a 4S system. You need a 8000 series part, which will start at around $790.

That'll be for something like 1.7/1.8. 2.0ghz is top bin at launch. If AMD has any brains they'll sell them expensive and just try and make money from the people who believe AMD. A 1.9 LV 8xxx series is going to cost a lotta money.

If Intel can get a quad down to 50watt now they may well be able to destroy AMD power campaign once they roll out 45nm.
July 6, 2007 7:19:20 PM

Is seriously would not call it crap, he just has some things mixed up or a lack of information, which is not good when your trying to prove a point, but nonetheless, should not be overlooked. Fact of the matter is, that the pricing will be the major deciding factor in purchases that this particular processor will be used for. If you can get a barcelona chip at less then half the cost of a xeon, but fairly close performance, most companies will go with the barcy. The TDP's are so close that I doubt that question will seriously come into play in most situations unless they are buying up a 1000 cpus at a time.

edit: there were some posts made in between mine and the one i responded too.

I have no doubt that the new procs from AMD will be competitive to say the least with Intel's offerings. And we are all enjoying the price wars between the two companies. And with AMD taking a bull front approach to shifting their entire line over to 45nm next year, it will make for even more interesting advances/prices in the next year - two years.
July 6, 2007 7:53:54 PM

What 3 year period was this? It's been 3 years since Prescott was out?
July 6, 2007 8:44:06 PM

Quote:
... won’t even be close.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=567



Based on AMDs own numbers Barcelona will launch at a 25% performance deficit to Intels best Core-based quad core ... and thats just in synthetics 8O


Go tell someone who cares...........
July 6, 2007 8:46:03 PM

I believe he would be talking about the time from the release of the original Athlons to the release of the Core series. AMD dominated the processor market all the way up the release of the Conroe processors.
July 6, 2007 11:43:53 PM

Quote:
... won’t even be close.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=567



Based on AMDs own numbers Barcelona will launch at a 25% performance deficit to Intels best Core-based quad core ... and thats just in synthetics 8O


Go tell someone who cares...........

Damn there's me thinking this is the CPU forum....
July 7, 2007 2:14:05 AM

Quote:

Go tell someone who cares...........


Would you care if it was AMD with a 40% lead in performance? :wink:
July 7, 2007 6:10:00 AM

Quote:

Go tell someone who cares...........


Would you care if it was AMD with a 40% lead in performance? :wink:

Of course! If AMD has even a 1% lead in just one benchmark that is newsworthy! If Intel has the speed crown in everything? Bleh. Who cares? :roll:

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
July 7, 2007 7:00:48 AM

It's called rooting for the underdog... :) 
July 7, 2007 7:40:01 AM

Quote:
ZD has a bit more cred than the inq... But they're still basing their #'s on speculation.

Patience.... Time will tell.


Actually, I think this may actually be one of the few bits of actual solid information we have.

A 3.0 ghz Quad Xeon does 106 on SPECint_Rate2006 - this is a hard data point, it is real.

AMD projects that a 2.6 ghz part will do 102. - We can assume AMD would not understate it's own product fairly safely.

Unless Barcelona gets pretty close to 3 ghz, we can safely assume a 3.33 ghz Penrym will still be champ, at least on this benchmark.

Of late it seems that AMD has been spouting more FUD than the inq... This is pure speculation, based on 'synthetic simulations'... WTF??? What in the hell is a 'synthetic' simulation? Did this get done at the dreamscape studio?

When real product is on the retailers' shelves, and real tech sites have had a chance to provide real reviews, then I'll form my opinions based on real results.
a c 172 à CPUs
a b å Intel
July 7, 2007 8:27:04 AM

Quote:


A 3.0 ghz Quad Xeon does 106 on SPECint_Rate2006 - this is a hard data point, it is real.

AMD projects that a 2.6 ghz part will do 102. - We can assume AMD would not understate it's own product fairly safely.

quote]

But AMD doesn't have a 2.6 GHz part. And they are nowhere near releasing one.
July 7, 2007 6:24:51 PM

Quote:

Go tell someone who cares...........


Would you care if it was AMD with a 40% lead in performance? :wink:

Of course! If AMD has even a 1% lead in just one benchmark that is newsworthy! If Intel has the speed crown in everything? Bleh. Who cares? :roll:

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

LOL exactly what I said.................. :wink:
July 7, 2007 6:31:00 PM

Quote:

Go tell someone who cares...........


Would you care if it was AMD with a 40% lead in performance? :wink:

Of course! If AMD has even a 1% lead in just one benchmark that is newsworthy! If Intel has the speed crown in everything? Bleh. Who cares? :roll:

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

LOL exactly what I said.................. :wink:

If AMD just had an actual K10 benchmark, that would be news
a b à CPUs
July 7, 2007 8:54:56 PM

At the end of the day AMD pi**ed of Intel by doing the lawsuits against them.

Not that i blame them (AMD) if the allegations are true.

But at the end of the day Intel has been in 90% of my machines ( im using a amd 4800x2 whilst typing this and got a core duo 6700 next to it) and Intel always seems to be the name that I trust to process my pc.

I was even reluctant to go to a AMD 1400 when Intel still had problems with the 1.13 GHz P3

Maybe im a bit nieve or just me but my AMD system has had glitches where all my Intel stuff just seems to be more reliable.. it just works.

Getting to the point, Intel have much more money than AMD will ever have and they seem to have woke something in Intel that they never needed waking before - competitiveness, getting their act together using innovative technology, ( why can we have that 80 core chip in Intels mits i dont know).

I realy hope AMD survive this onslaught as it can only be one group benefiting from this and thats us, the consumer. Making faster machines for less. Their ( Intel and AMD ) slowest processor is a hundred times faster than a $7000 Compaq from 1986 and the slowest processor gets faster and faster.
July 7, 2007 9:59:22 PM

yeah, but if AMD ends up unable to compete in the performance arena, then they better bust their humps and kick out some rocking budget numbers. If they can give you a proc that is in the mainstream price range $100-200 that blow away intels proc for the same money, AND they make that a known fact, then they will stay afloat. I can easily see them able to do that, as they don't have to invest have the money in marketing intel does. That is why intel is so popular because they have one of the best marketing machines in the world, sitting next to MS, Coke, Dell, and Kool-aid (not so much anymore, but they already have the name rec so why bother?).
a b à CPUs
July 11, 2007 12:27:32 PM

I think FP is where Barcelona will shine as well as multicore intensive applications that will benefit from the HT Interconnects between cpus.

Remember the power savings area is one that hasn't been discussed much and I am sure those managing large servers and supercomps will be very intereted in savings.

I tend to be a little sceptic whether AMD can take the performance crown though ... because Intel's manufacturing process is clearly superior.

I am an AMD fanboi so don't bash me over this ...

I just want to see them survive this rough patch so Intel are forced to price match ... consumers benefitting ultimately.
July 11, 2007 1:22:25 PM

Agreed. Lets hope they both keep developing new procs with better performance at lower costs and we the consumers win.
!