Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dell reveals Barcelona perf numbers

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 5, 2007 11:06:01 PM

Yes, the entity known as Dell was quoted by EETimes as saying that though AMD has a 30% lead in fp, Intel still leads in integer perf.

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201804214

The interesting thing is that this means Barcelona's improvements like dual loads, OoO loads, SideBand Stack Optimizer only provide about 10% boost in integer perf. They didn't give any apps where this is the case but the writing's on the wall.
September 5, 2007 11:43:36 PM

Interesting, but 30% lead in fp, but what application was being used? Same with the 30% behind in integer? No application(s) mentioned.

Only 5 more days until the reveal, and still really no hard facts about this processor. 30% is a nice safe number in my personal view. But I'd rather know what application(s) were ran to show this 30% better/worse performance ratings.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 6, 2007 12:00:08 AM

Do we assume Dell is commenting on clock for clock performance? Or is he comparing a chip to a chip, and if so which ones?
September 6, 2007 12:04:58 AM

looks like more amd trickery with fixed app's and rearranged tests!
September 6, 2007 12:05:38 AM

doesnt seem theres going to be another delay, since major manufacturers are starting to quote performance numbers too. as was said, only 5 more days... so in 5 days well have plenty more than just a few random numbers available it looks like, from anandtech, THG, and other major sites most likely.
September 6, 2007 12:07:35 AM

At least it means more to me than all these inquirer articles.
a b à CPUs
September 6, 2007 12:09:59 AM

doghills said:
At least it means more to me than all these inquirer articles.



And what exactly does it mean? It seems hopelessly vague to me. But then again I'm an amateur in these heated CPU debates.
September 6, 2007 12:10:29 AM

doghills said:
At least it means more to me than all these inquirer articles.


True, it is a more reliable source. However:

What tests?
What chips?
What configurations?
September 6, 2007 12:16:29 AM

well... the only real quoted numbers and chips was:

"If you look at floating point instructions, Barcelona is about 30 percent faster than Clovertown. However, if you look at integer instructions, Clovertown is about 30 percent faster than Barcelona," Dell said.

so that at least looks that clock for clock, thats how two specific chips compare at specific endeavors. 30% delta at a said clock speed, it might be too much reading into it to assume the clock speeds are different between chips, or the other hardware used was drastically different, in this respect anyhow.

barcelona was clocked up to 3GHz in an earlier video on youtube, so, similar scaling looks feasible between competing chips.
September 6, 2007 12:22:47 AM

So......Will the Barcelona be able to axcess all 4 cores at once?
September 6, 2007 12:40:11 AM

"Yes, the entity known as Dell was quoted by EETimes as saying that though AMD has a 30% lead in fp, Intel still leads in integer perf."

Dell may be using the trumphed up numbers AMD used in it's simulated comparisions as the basis for what was said. If I remeber correctly amd had a 30% lead fp and Intel also a 30% ip lead. Dell may not know anything more about the performance than we do other than what AMD has claimed.
September 6, 2007 1:38:18 AM

could be. seems dell is counting on them arriving by the 10th, if they dont already have them in stock, so regardless of any performance claims up till now, well hopefully know for sure what theyre capable of within a week.
September 6, 2007 2:28:12 AM

what, still no benches. Another corporate whammy. amd execs bailing left and right. WTH.
September 6, 2007 2:51:26 AM

Dell has them IN STOCK. Of course that place is buried deep in the bowels of Dell with techs and engineers trying to find shortcuts in the building costs of new computer systems. HP has the chips, as does every other major systems builders. Most likely has had prototypes for several months.
September 6, 2007 3:03:27 AM

Hopefully the CPUs will trade blows in different applications, providing clear solutions for consumer needs. I don't like seeing one clear winner in the technology field. Also, I'm interested in what the new chips are going to cost. Is it going to take a $500 new chip to beat a $150 old chip? I hope not!
September 6, 2007 3:06:40 AM

"It is simply unacceptable for a company of Dell's size to only have one of these choices," Dell said. "We think having two suppliers is absolutely in our best interest."

I wonder why they never thought of that before. Funny they were the only major maker that wasn't aware of this..... or were they?
September 6, 2007 6:30:39 AM

who cares the new intel chips will blow out amd - plus with g0 q6600's running 3.4-3.6ghz with air cooling i think amd needs to really put out some test systems with many apps for us reg's to try!
September 6, 2007 6:35:47 AM

well thats no good, lol... if none of intels newest chips get outperformed, even by a relatively sizable margin, what incentive would they have to keep improving then, as theyve done fairly recently? wed probably go through several years of P4 stagnation all over again if that was the case... something im sure none of us want.

the only reason the core march is even out is because intel felt threatened... no more threat = no more improvement... it takes years to get an marchitecture up and running, and we probably will be seeing years of virtually no progress again if amd doesnt kick intel around some again. and price hikes again more than likely too, if this ends up being the case, because they simply wont have much real competition, again.
September 6, 2007 8:18:02 AM

weskurtz81 said:
"It is simply unacceptable for a company of Dell's size to only have one of these choices," Dell said. "We think having two suppliers is absolutely in our best interest."

I wonder why they never thought of that before. Funny they were the only major maker that wasn't aware of this..... or were they?



Intel offered Dell exlusive prices for only selling Intel processors, they had the same kind of deals with a lot of other major vendors. That's the reason behind all these Anti-Trust law suit.
September 6, 2007 1:20:12 PM

intelamduser said:
"Yes, the entity known as Dell was quoted by EETimes as saying that though AMD has a 30% lead in fp, Intel still leads in integer perf."

Dell may be using the trumphed up numbers AMD used in it's simulated comparisions as the basis for what was said. If I remeber correctly amd had a 30% lead fp and Intel also a 30% ip lead. Dell may not know anything more about the performance than we do other than what AMD has claimed.



Dell definitely has the chips. Intel has 1.8GHz quad and AMD has 1.9GHz so they could definitely see the difference. What maybe a stranglehold is that Barcelona is launching WITHOUT HT3.0. So a lot of the power savings stuff won't be there and apps need tuning to run in 128bit mode. Perhaps another reason for the delay. PGI juts got the new compiler ready.

These are reasons in my mind why it was delayed. You can't have a launch without mobos and chipsets. There have also been patches added to Windows and Linux recently. The Phenom boards are just showing up and there are no new boards that I know of for Barcelona. Unfortunately they can't just take 790 and slap it on a server mobo.

This launch is for people who are about to upgrade their servers. I hear that LucasArts will be at the launch as they have a huge Opteron render farm. Looking at EpIII, I would guess they could really push the FX envelope with Barcelona and R600 which is said to slay Quadro in GL apps.
a b à CPUs
September 6, 2007 2:08:50 PM

San Pedro said:
Hopefully the CPUs will trade blows in different applications, providing clear solutions for consumer needs. I don't like seeing one clear winner in the technology field. Also, I'm interested in what the new chips are going to cost. Is it going to take a $500 new chip to beat a $150 old chip? I hope not!

http://www.dailytech.com/AMD+Prices+Barcelona/article8729.htm
September 6, 2007 3:22:28 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Dell definitely has the chips. Intel has 1.8GHz quad and AMD has 1.9GHz so they could definitely see the difference.


I would assume comparing the 1.8 GHz Intel processor (are you actually talking about the 1.86 Ghz 5320?) compared to the 1.9 Ghz Barcy would be apples to oranges. The Barcy should do significantly better (although we don't know, yay for no real benchmarks), but the barcy should cost more than the ~$250-275 5320. The cheapest 1.9 Ghz Barcy (which has a higher thermal rating than the 1.86 from Intel) is slated for more than $300. Those aren't level comparisons and wouldn't be worth comparing.
September 6, 2007 4:35:43 PM

that really cool!!! quad here we come!!!
September 7, 2007 4:48:57 AM

Quote:
Hes comparing chip for chip meaning he's comparing a 2ghz barcy with 3ghz clovertown!
Unless they are using clock for clock comparison, no benchmarks mean anything. Meaning you really wont know whats better because they wont be released at the same clock speed.


Care to provide evidence about this? or is this your usual post FUD and "get a life" line?
September 7, 2007 6:58:07 PM

wolverinero79 said:
I would assume comparing the 1.8 GHz Intel processor (are you actually talking about the 1.86 Ghz 5320?) compared to the 1.9 Ghz Barcy would be apples to oranges. The Barcy should do significantly better (although we don't know, yay for no real benchmarks), but the barcy should cost more than the ~$250-275 5320. The cheapest 1.9 Ghz Barcy (which has a higher thermal rating than the 1.86 from Intel) is slated for more than $300. Those aren't level comparisons and wouldn't be worth comparing.



First the rating for AMD @1.9GHz is 68W with the B2 stepping. Second 1.86 is only 40MHz slower than 1.9 so it would be a clock speed comparison. If it's faster it's worth more.
September 7, 2007 7:53:24 PM

The 68W rating is supposidly for the more expensive HE part, so that just pushes the available comparison farther out.

The point is, you start comparisons based upon power and dollars. If we're talking about a $400 AMD part, let us look at the $400 Intel part, not the $250 part. If they're not in the same power envelope, we'll have to find some chip that corresponds. Then, when we have comparable chips, let's look at performance. For example, if we are comparing an AMD processor to an Intel processor and the AMD processor is more expensive at the same power level, it better perform better. How much better is an ok question to ask, but whether or not it performs better seems moot - if it doesn't, then that would be silly - why buy the product that costs more, but performs worse.

AMD runs the same tests as Intel and even though they don't publish their actual benchmarks (just the marketing, "we're so awesome" benchmarks), they tend to try to price their chips accordingly. Intel has a little more benefit as their brand is seen more highly than AMD (face the facts, AMD fanboys), so they can get away with a little bit of a premium, but not too much.

As you know, clock speed is not something we can use for comparison - the three pillars of chip comparison are performance, cost, and power. Other minor things have effects too (overclockability), but the other items are core.
September 7, 2007 8:39:52 PM

pete4r,

yes I am aware of this. I was being sarcastic. Intel has been denying any wrong doing, and Dell is acting like they would be stupid to not offer diversity in the product line yet for years they were Intel only.
September 8, 2007 6:04:06 AM

amd barcie is s.....l........o.............w

barcie on crack just plain "slow"

2ghz heck my mom can tape 2 930's together and make a barcie

i am so bad!

the reason amd has barcie's at 65w is only so the 250 watt hd 2900xt can run on 1000w psu!

i am doubly bad
September 9, 2007 8:43:00 AM

Now now, come on. We've had no real evidence of Barcy's performance (either negative or positive). Let's just sit tight and wait a few more days.

I do feel sorry for the AMD fans out there, though. If Barcy's great, just think of how hard it will be to wait until you can actually buy one for the desktop :( .
!