Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

An early look at Phenom dual / tri core performance

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 25, 2007 1:43:34 PM

http://www.erenumerique.fr/test_processeur_amd_phenom_x...

The article is in French, but the benchmarks speak for themselves. It also shows the differences between ganged and unganged memory mode, something most articles have failed to mention, so kudos to the author for the added testing. It also serves as a good yardstick for measuring clock for clock performance between K8 and K10.

In a nutshell, a Phenom X3 @ 2.3GHz is ~= to E6750/E6850 in multithreaded benchmarks, with lower single threaded performance obviously. The Phenom X2 @ 2.3GHz is a good match for a E6400.

What is striking to me is that clock for clock, Phenom is not that much faster than K8. Improvements range between 5 - 10% generally. I was under the impression it was a lot higher than that...

These results make it very obvious why AMD is delaying dual/tri core Phenom until Q2 2008. Unless AMD can get the clockspeed up, a Phenom X3 is no better than current C2Ds, and they may as well forget about Phenom X2 until it reaches 3GHz, otherwise it will be outperformed by an X2 6400+.
November 25, 2007 6:55:31 PM

Ain't life a bit"c for AMD these days.....thanks guys for all the lies and delays. I was hoping for a upgrade and some performance increase from these new CPU's but it seems i should buy an intel cpu instead of W8ING for U guys to "ramp up production and clockspeads".... LOL
November 26, 2007 5:58:36 AM

interesting read
Related resources
November 26, 2007 12:14:31 PM

epsilon84 said:
http://www.erenumerique.fr/test_processeur_amd_phenom_x...

The article is in French, but the benchmarks speak for themselves. It also shows the differences between ganged and unganged memory mode, something most articles have failed to mention, so kudos to the author for the added testing. It also serves as a good yardstick for measuring clock for clock performance between K8 and K10.

In a nutshell, a Phenom X3 @ 2.3GHz is ~= to E6750/E6850 in multithreaded benchmarks, with lower single threaded performance obviously. The Phenom X2 @ 2.3GHz is a good match for a E6400.

What is striking to me is that clock for clock, Phenom is not that much faster than K8. Improvements range between 5 - 10% generally. I was under the impression it was a lot higher than that...

These results make it very obvious why AMD is delaying dual/tri core Phenom until Q2 2008. Unless AMD can get the clockspeed up, a Phenom X3 is no better than current C2Ds, and they may as well forget about Phenom X2 until it reaches 3GHz, otherwise it will be outperformed by an X2 6400+.



This is actually the test of K10 vs. K8 and you can see in Half Life the X2 @ 2.3GHz scores 91fps while the K10 dual scores 117fps which is a 23% boost clock for clock. It does scale 100% from 2-4 cores though, in POVray but the dual scores show only 4% improvement, while 3DStudio shows 11%. WinRar also shows 10%. I guess that's why AMD said "on a variety of workloads."

Hot Hardware has a really good Vista analysis though it doesn't have Kuma and Tolliman, it does show nice increases in the new PC Mark Vantage tests.
November 26, 2007 2:03:48 PM

Half-Life... what a mixed bag. Here's what I can draw:

- It doesn't use more than 2 cores.
- There is a disadvantage when moving from 90nm 1mb/core cache to 65nm 512kb/core cache. Whether it's the latency or amount of cache, I can't be sure, but cache seems more likely (affects Core 2 also).
- AMD's limitation to 1mb/core cache creates an illusion of the GPU starting to bottleneck the test, while Intel shows that is not the case.

It's a poor test to judge % improvement. The 2.3GHz Brisbane core you compared with also loses 10fps vs. the 90nm Windsor core when matched at 2.6GHz. And who cares, when everything AMD has loses so heavily to Core 2 anyway?

Why not bring up something more positive, like how Phenom sets the curve for WinRAR or reaches middle ground between A64 and Core 2 in 3dsmax?
November 26, 2007 3:21:25 PM

BaronMatrix said:
This is actually the test of K10 vs. K8 and you can see in Half Life the X2 @ 2.3GHz scores 91fps while the K10 dual scores 117fps which is a 23% boost clock for clock. It does scale 100% from 2-4 cores though, in POVray but the dual scores show only 4% improvement, while 3DStudio shows 11%. WinRar also shows 10%. I guess that's why AMD said "on a variety of workloads."

Hot Hardware has a really good Vista analysis though it doesn't have Kuma and Tolliman, it does show nice increases in the new PC Mark Vantage tests.



Once again, Baron 'cherry picks' the benchmarks which present his favored entity in the very best light possible, completely disregarding those (the majority) which do not show the results he desires.

Thats standard practice, but whats most interesting, had Baron bothered reading it, is the conclusion. The conclusion states the TLB bug reared its ugly little head during an un-GPU bound 3DMark test. Using the 9600. Seems pulling the 9700 from the launch was pointless after all, since this test demonstrates the TLB bug has now been shown to occur at clockspeeds less than 2.4GHz

Worth noting was the hardware used for the test...including the much vaunted 790FX chipset on a MSI K9 Platinum mobo, OCZ Gold XTC DDR2 800 and a Nvidia GeForce 8800 Ultra.....in otherwords, the CPU was not limited by the hardware, so no excuses there.


November 26, 2007 3:52:47 PM

turpit said:
Once again, Baron 'cherry picks' the benchmarks which present his favored entity in the very best light possible, completely disregarding those (the majority) which do not show the results he desires.

Thats standard practice, but whats most interesting, had Baron bothered reading it, is the conclusion. The conclusion states the TLB bug reared its ugly little head during an un-GPU bound 3DMark test. Using the 9600. Seems pulling the 9700 from the launch was pointless after all, since this test demonstrates the TLB bug has now been shown to occur at clockspeeds less than 2.4GHz

Worth noting was the hardware used for the test...including the much vaunted 790FX chipset on a MSI K9 Platinum mobo, OCZ Gold XTC DDR2 800 and a Nvidia GeForce 8800 Ultra.....in otherwords, the CPU was not limited by the hardware, so no excuses there.



Please. I selected all of the benches, not just a few. All of them showed per-core improvement. Did I mention I hate "high and mighty" people?

I already knew that the TLB issue.... Ehhhh, never mind. You'll never change.
November 26, 2007 4:00:37 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Please. I selected all of the benches, not just a few. All of them showed per-core improvement.


No you didn't, you selected the ones showing the most scaling between K8 and K10, and ignored the rest. Do you want me to highlight them?

November 26, 2007 4:12:15 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Please. I selected all of the benches, not just a few. All of them showed per-core improvement. Did I mention I hate "high and mighty" people?

I already knew that the TLB issue.... Ehhhh, never mind. You'll never change.


You most certainly did not 'select' all of the benches.
Here are all of the benches












Youve made the same comment about me never changing before, and I will give you the same response: You're right, I will never change...I will always despise liars and cheats, and will always work to afford them the credit they deserve.
November 26, 2007 4:17:23 PM

OK, here is a breakdown of the percentages in K8 -> K10 scaling:

3DMark05 GPU: +10.68%
3DMark05 CPU: +21.92%
3DMark06 CPU: +2.25%
Winrar: +10.15%
Photoship CS3: -8.64% (minus!)
PovRay: +3.29%
Half Life 2: +28.67%
3DS Max 9: +11.91%
x264 encoding: +3.37%

Average difference: +9.29%

We will need more benchmarks to confirm but so far K10 is under 10% faster than K8 per clock.
November 26, 2007 4:25:48 PM

So which one doesn't show scaling increases? Photoshop? Oh, so you just have to have something to say about the underdog.

Besides Anand got 15% so it shows that benchmarks ARE NOT GOSPEL. They are just a guide. I imagine that if the L3 bug IS affecting general perf (which I think it is) we will see at least 20% and maybe 30%.

It looks liek certain workloads don't hit the problem as AMD says, but if you look at Sandra Memory, NO chip should have higher bandwidth than a Phenom with 1066DDR2, but they ALL do.

I guess AMD is moving totally away from Intel's "methodolgy" so they need K10-optimized benchmarks or they won't see the improvements.

That's my guess though, not meant to be taken as fact, like YOU ALL USUALLY DO.
November 26, 2007 4:32:29 PM

turpit said:
Youve made the same comment about me never changing before, and I will give you the same response: You're right, I will never change...I will always despise liars and cheats, and will always work to afford them the credit they deserve.
Now now, If you keep that up you will have to lock the thread. :lol: 
November 26, 2007 4:37:20 PM

I can't wait to get a monolithic tri-core. Oh never mind I think I'll just stick to my glued Q6600. :lol: 
November 26, 2007 4:38:10 PM

BaronMatrix said:
I imagine that if the L3 bug IS affecting general perf (which I think it is) we will see at least 20% and maybe 30%.


Sorry, but you make me laugh sometimes when you throw out number like that.
November 26, 2007 4:39:35 PM

C2D vs K10

Note I'm comparing the 2.33GHz E6550 against the 2.3GHz Phenom X2, so the results will favor the 2.33GHz by ~1% or so, keep that in mind.

3DMark05 GPU: +8.01%
3DMark05 CPU: +16.06%
3DMark06 CPU: +16.35%
Winrar: +8.2%
Photoshop CS3: +29.41%
PovRay: +32.31%
Half Life 2: +28.57%
3DS Max 9: +14.78%
x264 encoding: +9.88%

Average: +18.17% (~17% after compensating for 1.3% clockspeed difference)

Wow. This was more than I expected. A ~17% difference clock for clock between K10 and C2D. By the time Phenom X2 launches, it will be competing against Wolfdale 45nm, which would put the difference out to ~22%.

To put things into perspective, the slowest Wolfdale at launch, the $163 E8200, runs at 2.66GHz. It will take a 3.2GHz Phenom X2 to compete with Intel's slowest C2D in 2008. Unless AMD can get their **** in order real soon, they won't be selling Phenom X2s for over $150.
November 26, 2007 4:43:03 PM

There are 13 reviews on NewEgg for Phenom 9500. Gee, I wonder how many of the reviewers actually have one?

I don't think I've ever seen so much mixed bitterness / blind faith / anger over a product.

Baron, when you getting one? Or you still gonna get the 4x4? :D 
November 26, 2007 4:46:49 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Besides Anand got 15% so it shows that benchmarks ARE NOT GOSPEL. They are just a guide. I imagine that if the L3 bug IS affecting general perf (which I think it is) we will see at least 20% and maybe 30%.
.


Anandtech's results were comparing a single socket QC Barcelona vs dual socket DC Opteron, I would assume the dual socket Opteron would be running at a slight disadvantage in terms of per core scaling.

This is a direct Phenom X2 vs A64 X2 comparison, so I would say this is a more accurate reflection on the scaling between K8 and K10.

You're not seriously thinking Phenom performance will jump 20 - 30% due to the L3 bug right?! I am trying to be civil here, but sometimes you make it very hard for people to take you seriously. :whistle: 
November 26, 2007 4:52:55 PM

Now you know why Baron is the one who gets jumped all the time...
November 26, 2007 4:55:58 PM

yomamafor1 said:
Now you know why Baron is the one who gets jumped all the time...



Yup, he makes outlandish claims that end up being false. "AMD will change the color of the shipping boxes, that'll give 'em a good 2-3%".

I'll give him credit on this one, he didn't present it as fact, but rather as speculation. However, he needs to be careful, benchmark cherry picking is a Sharikou strategy.
November 26, 2007 5:12:25 PM

turpit said:
The conclusion states the TLB bug reared its ugly little head during an un-GPU bound 3DMark test. Using the 9600.

I missed that part because I was just trying to go off the pictures and didn't translate the article. So it looks like a currently released Phenom running at stock already contains a bug - they are not even sure if that is the TLB at fault, and it happened just once. Very troublesome if stock stability is at issue.

Quote:
3DMark05 GPU: +10.68%
3DMark05 CPU: +21.92%
3DMark06 CPU: +2.25%
Winrar: +10.15%
Photoship CS3: -8.64% (minus!)
PovRay: +3.29%
Half Life 2: +28.67%
3DS Max 9: +11.91%
x264 encoding: +3.37%

Looks like HL was indeed cherry-picked, being the best K10/K8-Brisbane performance ratio across all 9 benches. The scary thing is most of these improvement ratios would be lower if compared to prior generation K8-Windsor parts. I say this because we are in the odd situation that the generation immediately preceding K10 was a downgrade in two ways - smaller cache and higher latency design - with no accompanying clock frequency improvement typical of node shrinks. In technology I like to evaluate a company based on best pre-existing design, not simply what came last.

Quote:
So which one doesn't show scaling increases? Photoshop? Oh, so you just have to have something to say about the underdog.

"I selected all of the benches" but really only 8/9 are true to the statement? Then there is no basis to say "all," but only to say "almost all."

Quote:
I imagine that if the L3 bug IS affecting general perf

Generally, memory-related bugs artificially inflate performance by allowing a logic shortcut that should not be there because it is not always logical - a dangerous situation. If it were a bug that cuts performance, an OS or program patch would often be enough to get around it until the next stepping. The product wouldn't have to be recalled. That 9700 was recalled hints at the more serious type of bug.

What if that 3dmark-CPU bug hit a scientific application? It is perhaps that AMD has such a minority share of the CPU market that, despite its being a multibillion dollar corporation, it is unlikely to be forced to recall its existing and, likely, buggy Phenoms.
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2007 5:24:40 PM

Quote:
3DMark05 GPU: +10.68%
3DMark05 CPU: +21.92%
3DMark06 CPU: +2.25%
Winrar: +10.15%
Photoship CS3: -8.64% (minus!)
PovRay: +3.29%
Half Life 2: +28.67%
3DS Max 9: +11.91%
x264 encoding: +3.37%


That drop in Photoshop makes me wonder how they "created" the dual core Phenom I am wondering if it has to do with the way the memory controller works in the Phenom compared to how it works in the Athlon 64's making it the reason for the slow down.. We will see when the actual Phenom X2's are released if this is an issue or not.

My thinking is that if they created it by using the affinity command in Windows is that they may have used two cores that were connected to one memory controllers instead of the ones that are connected to separate controllers. Either way I can't read French to find out what they did so.. If someone knows do tell..

EDIT: Ok nm I see what they did.. Still the issue I talk about is still viable for what they did. I am wondering if those two cores are on the same side of the chip, heck even being adjacent from each other might cause a latency issue..
November 26, 2007 5:48:47 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Sorry, but you make me laugh sometimes when you throw out number like that.



That's because all of you want AMD buyers to be wrong you read what you want. It should be obvious that I meant GROW to 20% over X2 K8.
November 26, 2007 5:52:39 PM

yomamafor1 said:
Now you know why Baron is the one who gets jumped all the time...



Now they also know why you can't even quote yourself in YOUR sig. You just take your silly reasoning and run. I'm not going to preface my statements anymore cause it never worked in the past.
November 26, 2007 5:54:31 PM

epsilon84 said:
Anandtech's results were comparing a single socket QC Barcelona vs dual socket DC Opteron, I would assume the dual socket Opteron would be running at a slight disadvantage in terms of per core scaling.

This is a direct Phenom X2 vs A64 X2 comparison, so I would say this is a more accurate reflection on the scaling between K8 and K10.

You're not seriously thinking Phenom performance will jump 20 - 30% due to the L3 bug right?! I am trying to be civil here, but sometimes you make it very hard for people to take you seriously. :whistle: 


It's a certain % faster now. Only biased people would jump by the fact that it means GROW to 20%. Not add 20% on top of the current. I guess context clues weren't your forte.
November 26, 2007 6:03:32 PM

My apologies for misinterpreting your post, after rereading it I understand what you mean. To be fair, your point wasn't exactly clear, and it seems others had the same interpretation as I did. And no, not because they are 'biased', but because you worded things rather ambiguously.

Anyhow, that is still a rather bold claim, you are predicting a 5 - 15% increase just from the L3 issue alone.
November 26, 2007 6:06:53 PM

epsilon84 said:
My apologies for misinterpreting your post, after rereading it I understand what you mean. That is still a rather bold claim, you are predicting a 5 - 15% increase just from the L3 issue alone.


40% Improvement over C2D!!!
November 26, 2007 6:08:37 PM

cnumartyr said:
40% Improvement over C2D!!!


:kaola: 
November 26, 2007 6:13:17 PM

bold claim?

okay.. okay..

15 + 20 - 40 +2 -15 +12 = random numbers / = percent +/-

Bah... where's the A1 sauce?
November 26, 2007 6:15:14 PM

Grimmy said:
bold claim?

okay.. okay..

15 + 20 - 40 +2 -15 +12 = random numbers / = percent +/-

Bah... where's the A1 sauce?


If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, bamboozle them with stupidity... :lol: 
November 26, 2007 6:19:50 PM

:cry: . o O (hey, I try to do the best of what I got... I know A1 had bold sauce.. just can't figure out the percentage on it vs the original sauce)

:heink:  . o O (just give me a few years to figure that one out)
November 26, 2007 6:22:30 PM

BaronMatrix said:
That's because all of you want AMD buyers to be wrong you read what you want. It should be obvious that I meant GROW to 20% over X2 K8.


I thought you said the L3 bug affected at least 20%?

Quote:
I imagine that if the L3 bug IS affecting general perf (which I think it is) we will see at least 20% and maybe 30%.


How come it becomes "grow to 20%" all of the sudden?

Look Baron, no one wants to prove AMD buyers wrong. AMD buyers know what they got when they made that purchasing decision. We only want to prove YOU wrong. Almost all of your claims are based on that random number generator in your head. NOTHING solid.

And I thought TLB errata lead to BSOD, not performance hit?
November 26, 2007 6:23:30 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Now they also know why you can't even quote yourself in YOUR sig. You just take your silly reasoning and run. I'm not going to preface my statements anymore cause it never worked in the past.


At least I don't come up with random numbers, and rabidly defend them with name calling and personal attacks.
November 26, 2007 6:26:07 PM

BaronMatrix said:
It's a certain % faster now. Only biased people would jump by the fact that it means GROW to 20%. Not add 20% on top of the current. I guess context clues weren't your forte.


Really Baron? No one, and I mean NO ONE that I know of make that claim, only YOU. Even those who has extensive knowledge and experience in the field never claimed such number, only YOU

I guess we're all biased rabid Intel fanboy. :whistle: 
November 26, 2007 6:59:48 PM

Tri-core was the stupidest idea from AMD since.... forever
November 26, 2007 7:09:22 PM

itotallybelieveyou said:
Tri-core was the stupidest idea from AMD since.... forever


I don't agree. I think claiming it was a "native" tri-core was.

I don't really see this as anything different than the 6300/6400 with 2 MB of L2 Cache or the 21x0 line with 1 MB of L2 Cache.

If disabling a single core will for whatever reason let them run higher and can fill a "market" segment it will be a good idea. The question is where will they be priced.
November 26, 2007 7:24:42 PM

Yes there is still inefficiency with the L3 cache they have. It appears useless. And some errata still occur. Too bad AMD rushed so much about these things. Hence, we wait until 9700 officially comes out with fixings on the errata and other improvement.
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2007 12:00:58 AM

cnumartyr said:
I don't agree. I think claiming it was a "native" tri-core was.

I don't really see this as anything different than the 6300/6400 with 2 MB of L2 Cache or the 21x0 line with 1 MB of L2 Cache.

If disabling a single core will for whatever reason let them run higher and can fill a "market" segment it will be a good idea. The question is where will they be priced.



Where did they claim it was a native quad core? I read a lot of news and have never read that they claimed it was a native tri core... But I do agree that it will be a good processor as long as it is priced decently..

After looking at the benchmarks closely I have to say that the Phenom X2 Benched here is being bottlenecked by something likely the point that it is a Quad Core running only 2 cores and likely those 2 cores are on the same Memory Controller (Phenom has 2 64-bit Memory Controllers one on the left and one on the right..) which would explain the Drastic change in performance from the Dual to the Tri-core on the PS CS3 benchmark..
November 27, 2007 12:04:31 AM

caqde said:
Where did they claim it was a native quad core? I read a lot of news and have never read that they claimed it was a native tri core... But I do agree that it will be a good processor as long as it is priced decently..

After looking at the benchmarks closely I have to say that the Phenom X2 Benched here is being bottlenecked by something likely the point that it is a Quad Core running only 2 cores and likely those 2 cores are on the same Memory Controller (Phenom has 2 64-bit Memory Controllers one on the left and one on the right..) which would explain the Drastic change in performance from the Dual to the Tri-core on the PS CS3 benchmark..



When they first started talking about the Tri-Core it was claimed that it would be a native tri-core and not a quad with a single core fused off.
November 27, 2007 12:11:06 AM

BaronMatrix said:
So which one doesn't show scaling increases? Photoshop? Oh, so you just have to have something to say about the underdog.

Besides Anand got 15% so it shows that benchmarks ARE NOT GOSPEL. They are just a guide. I imagine that if the L3 bug IS affecting general perf (which I think it is) we will see at least 20% and maybe 30%.
It looks liek certain workloads don't hit the problem as AMD says, but if you look at Sandra Memory, NO chip should have higher bandwidth than a Phenom with 1066DDR2, but they ALL do.

I guess AMD is moving totally away from Intel's "methodolgy" so they need K10-optimized benchmarks or they won't see the improvements.

That's my guess though, not meant to be taken as fact, like YOU ALL USUALLY DO.



Ding Ding Ding....we have a winner. Congrats to Yomamafo1 for calling it, here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/page-246375_28_160.html
Posted on 11-20-2007 at 04:30:03 AM



yomamafor1 said:
Very nice Turpit, but to be honest, I really don't think Baron will take any of these words seriously. As you, and other forum members who has spent the last 3 years on THGF, know Baron all too well.

I think the numbers and the facts speak for themselves. AMD took a shot at the moon, but instead, they land themselves in a toilet. To be honest, the phrase "colossal failure" is a pretty accurate description of what Phenom has become.

Baron, I've been saying this from day 1, and I won't stop saying it until you get it: you don't know jack about processor architecture, and manufacturing. My suggestion: Stop taking a small segment out of a report, and interpret it however you like.

Baron's next arguments:
1. Benchmark not optimized.
2. L3 cache TLB fix will yield 20%~30% performance.
3. B3 stepping will allow Phenom to go up to 3.4Ghz.
4. Its already been demonstrated that Phenom can run up to 4.0Ghz in lab.
5. Intel should be punished for devaluing the market.
6. Intel should be punished for overcharging, and rip off its customers.
7. I am a hater of monopoly, not a specific company.
8. I was traumatized when discovered how Intel's Pentium 3 1Ghz was so low performing.
9. I'm not an AMD fanboy, but I just don't buy Intel, ever.


Good call Yomama [:turpit:2]


November 27, 2007 12:12:52 AM

Zorg said:
Now now, If you keep that up you will have to lock the thread. :lol: 

;) 
November 27, 2007 12:20:17 AM

Quote:
When they first started talking about the Tri-Core it was claimed that it would be a native tri-core and not a quad with a single core fused off.

I would really, really doubt this, as it's hard to squeeze 3 equivalent cores in circular fashion into a square. You could still efficiently fit this on a wafer with a tetris-like design, but that opens a whole set of problems with the patterning and circuit testing machines.

Far more likely, they're just fusing off bad or weak cores off a quad. :) 
November 27, 2007 12:39:35 AM

turpit said:
Ding Ding Ding....we have a winner. Congrats to Yomamafo1 for calling it, here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/page-246375_28_160.html
Posted on 11-20-2007 at 04:30:03 AM





Good call Yomama [:turpit:2]

Yomama missed the bonus points for getting the correct order the arguments would be brought up in! Darn it...
November 27, 2007 1:02:47 AM

The next thing will be that the above post was a joke and sarcasm after having read Yomama's post and was done in jest...
November 27, 2007 1:26:13 AM

I do think there is a problem with Phenom that will be worked out .No ,I know nothing of cpu more than tweaks and little basics,but this steak is not done .I believe the tri-core will come out with faster clocks (2.6 and up,cant recall where I read this)the end or 1Q 08 begining of 2Q 08.Which will be closer to the time of the Sb700 chipset and R700 gpu.For now the Phenom is a sucky over priced econo cpu.I'm patient
November 27, 2007 2:12:10 AM

...just the facts, mam
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2007 2:30:48 AM

For those that are interested

After taking all of the scores and finding out how much faster AMD (unganged 2.3) is from moving from dual to tri, from tri to quad, and from dual to quad, and for Intel from dual to quad (2.4Ghz).

I have come up with this information

AMD Dual to Tri = AVG Increase = 26%
AMD Tri to Quad = AVG Increase = 20%
AMD Dual to Quad = AVG Increase = 54%
Intel Dual to Quad = AVG Increase = 45%

Of interest is also the point that AMD NEVER decreased in speed in any of the benchmarks although Intel Lost performance in both the 3DMark 05 GPU Bench (93% of the speed) and HalfLife 2: Lost Cost (96% of the speed) while AMD improved in speed by 3% and 1% respectively.

So I guess at least this shows that their Native QuadCore design does have it's benifits at least with scaling.

Oh and for those that wonder Intel did not once scale better in any given benchmark.. The minimum Scale difference was in Photoshop with 0.01% difference and a maximum of 22% in Winrar.
November 27, 2007 2:41:40 AM

I don't get the fascination with scaling. So even if the AMD processors scale better, wouldn't you care more about actual performance and the fact that the Intel processors still kick AMD processors any day of the week and eat them for breakfast?

Quad core market is just plain going to be owned by Intel.

Dual core is up for grabs in my opinion, especially if AMD gets out some high clocked K10 duals, that would be very interesting.


AMD needs to take advantage of the dual core market before software most becomes highly threaded, because like I said, QUAD = INTEL, hands down.
November 27, 2007 3:34:02 AM

I will be interested in seeing Intells native quad core in action......I wonder if they will be able to get it right. Also I was reading that Intell will release an native 8 core cpu next year>>>>?

Quote from an article I was reading on Economist.com

"AMD faces three handicaps. First, it has only two chip fabrication plants, or “fabs”, compared with Intel's 15, which still supply three-quarters of all processors for PCs. This makes AMD more vulnerable to manufacturing problems: its newest chips are not as fast as promised and have been hit by production delays. It also means that Intel can usually introduce new manufacturing processes faster. With Penryn, Intel has started using hafnium, an obscure metal, to insulate the transistors in its chips. This has made it possible to shrink the tiny switches even further without leaking too much current. AMD will not reach the same level of miniaturisation until mid-2008."

Here is the link for the full article if you are interested.

http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?stor...
November 27, 2007 3:54:13 AM

You can call that AMD's Achilles's heel. Back in the K8 days, it is AMD's manufacturing capacity that strained AMD's potential into becoming a much bigger company, not Intel's anti-competitive behavior. When AMD took its first step in expansion (ATI buyout, NY fab), BOOM, C2D debuted.

Strained manufacturing capacity might also be the sole reason why AMD continues to wither. If AMD has NY fabs up and running by this year, they could supply enough X2 chips with lower cost, without jeopardizing K10's production. This means Barcelona wouldn't be in such low volume, and further bring in desperately needed revenue and profit for AMD. Its already been two months since Barcelona launched, and very few OEMs have it.

To simply put, it isn't AMD's own product that brought AMD down, but its poor executive decision in not expanding at the right time that crippled AMD. In Rahul Sood's words, "AMD's execution this year has been nothing short of horrible."
!