Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The Inquirer: How AMD turned Barcelona into a right royal mess

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 10, 2007 12:00:38 AM

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/12/08/...

Quote:
By Charlie Demerjian: Saturday, 08 December 2007, 1:22 PM


THE SITUATION SURROUNDING Barcelona is quite puzzling. Not what happened, that much is very clear, but how people are reacting, and the ulterior motives they uncover.

Barcelona is turning into a running joke. From hard SKUs last February at 2.9GHz to badly bugged parts a year later. The roadmap situation has slipped from comical to changing days after release, and that shows little sign of improving. The entire community has gone from eagerly awaiting parts to not believing it even after you have one in your hands.

The situation is bad for AMD. Really really bad. Stepping B1, the supposed release part was revved to BA after B2 was in the oven. B2 is the TLB bugged stepping, and the supposed B3 'fix' won't be out until February in any sort of quantity. Given the track record of the last half dozen steps, the world is not holding their breath. We will see in a few months.

Now, the part that bothers me is why the current furore happened. AMD botched this one badly. For the third or fourth time. Anyone with a memory long enough to remember the rather sad gestation of K8 will have eerie flashbacks. Before that, the last major architecture was Palomino, the less said there the better. The more things change...

Basically, it is the same old mess they are always in, as one person from a much bluer company said, it looks like their tocks are better than their ticks. Amen.

This latest TLB fiasco is only one problem with the B2 stepping, it has two big ones. First lets look a little deeper at what B2 is. BA was the 'release' version, 1.9 and 2.0GHz parts released in September. The reason for the odd nomenclature is that a bug, strongly rumoured to be in the north bridge, was discovered and fixed after B2 was done.

On the up side, B2 raised the speeds available from 2.0GHz to 2.6+GHz with one problem, they couldn't be made. The production ramp was, to be charitable, running behind schedule by a tad, with tad being defined as a couple of quarters. Word is that it will be fixed some time in Q1. Again: maybe.

Did we say one problem? Just kidding, there is that TLB errata as well, that would be the second. That one is distinct from the ramp problem. The TLB problem is fixable, but the fix comes at a rather heavy price, a speed bin or more. Not only can they not be made, but they have to be cut down on top of that.

So, what is the problem? This news blew up again last week, the better part of a month after word of it first hit. It was hinted at during the launch of the chips in early November, and people grudgingly wrote off another quarter for AMD at that point. 2.4GHz parts were killed minutes before launch due to ramp problems. Speed was hammered after the problem hit the news again. Between those two, it became headline news again for no real reason that we can tell.

There have been dire rumours of the chips being recalled, scrapped or shipping stopped. None is true, but the stop ship is the closest to the truth. There are only small quantities of Barcelona out there, and those are still shipping. The thing is that they are only going to very specific customers that are aware of the TLB 'oopsie' and can work around it or better yet don't hit the patched code. Word has reached us that main recipient of these parts are HPC customers, specifically Redhat-based ones. This probably explains why the initial public non-BIOS patch is for Redhat.

In the end, nothing new has come out since mid-November, and now the world is about to end? Nope, not with Palomino, not with K8, and not with Barcelona. AMD squandered its best chance to regain any sort of parity, much less lead, until Bulldozer ships. That is another story though, and one to be told in 2010 or so if all goes well.

The headlines are being fueled by people and companies with very specific agendas. The people, most of them rabid board trolls, are doing their best to keep things fired up. Certain companies are sending out baiting mails to second tier gullible journalists (By this we do not mean the tech people who broke it and who restarted it, but mainstream media who don't understand the technical side) to keep the flames going, and it is turning into a mess.

In the end, what do we have? The usual AMD year-long nightmare launch, a second hosed-launch product, and a rehash of old problems. Add in people who want to see it kept alive for self-interested reasons, and top it off with AMD putting about every possible foot wrong, and you have a nightmare. Wonderful, but really, get over it people.

From this point on, what needs to be done? For AMD it is quite simple: shut up and deliver. Make damn sure your roadmaps are 100 per cent accurate. If this means only putting out roadies that look one month out and taking baby steps for that month, great, that is what you have to do.

Credibility is easily chucked away and very hard to regain. There isn't much to chuck away at this point, so the only way to go is up. When Intel was at the bottom of the Prescott disaster, it promised to deliver roadmaps with 90 per cent or more accuracy. It did. It promised to deliver better chips. It did. It promised to deliver on time. It did. AMD has to do exactly that.

Ironically, just as ATI gets its house in order, AMD's falls apart. AMD kept to a rigorous schedule and hit almost all K8 roadmap points dead on for about four years. It has the engineering skills and discipline to do things right. ATI was a mess a year ago, and now it is completely back on track. Both sides can do, so now they need to simply shut up and do. It is all about the execution. µ


This is a new source that many of our pro-AMD people read as if it were The Bible about a year ago, let's see what they have to say about it now.

Also, what ever happened to reverse hyperthreading? LOL
December 10, 2007 12:19:05 AM

Baron insists Barcelona is 40% faster 'across a variety of workloads' so what is the problem? There IS NONE! DOOM AND GLOOM! ;)  :whistle: 
December 10, 2007 12:21:53 AM

Interesting read. I agree that AMD needs to stop saying things and start DOING things. They need much more product out there than they do right now. A sad lineup of K10 at the moment is all they have. They need to expand their market and start producing chips that can deliver on all fronts.

AMD doesn't need the FASTEST products out there, they just need a lot of products out there. While K10 might be "true quad core experience" as I quote a Newegg product headline; it doesn't offer broad marketing. So what if they can make a few sales in the high end, what matters are those mass sales in the low end and mid-range markets.

AMD needs to stop trying to be an enthusiast company and start becoming a company on all fronts. Tri-cores are looking to be its only hope in my eyes right now. If that falls through, than shoot, I think we might as well call Intel the winner.
December 10, 2007 12:42:52 AM

TC posting old stuff again are you........now here is some nice doom and gloom for you right here hot off the presses.


Bug In AMD's Quad-Core Barcelona And Phenom May Be More Serious Than Previously Suspected


http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/...;jsessionid=2FXPXCIHPGCGSQSNDLPSKHSCJUNN2JVN
December 10, 2007 12:44:34 AM

I would praise AMD if it had a successful, in quantity launch of a quad-core processor that at least is faster than a couple of Intel quad-cores. But since AMD can't manage to beat even Intel's lowest of offerings and even the year-old original quad-core, it's just a plain failure. The TLB issue is what turns this from failure to utter disaster.

I wonder if the post-marketing closing market will be a good or bad one. Typically I've seen post market close statements made so that people have time to digest and not to over-react to the (bad) news.

We'll see!
December 10, 2007 12:46:50 AM

caamsa said:
TC posting old stuff again are you........now here is some nice doom and gloom for you right here hot off the presses.


Bug In AMD's Quad-Core Barcelona And Phenom May Be More Serious Than Previously Suspected


http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/...;jsessionid=2FXPXCIHPGCGSQSNDLPSKHSCJUNN2JVN


lol, both our articles are from this weekend! Thanks for the link Mr. Caamsa. Interesting read.

DOOM AND GLOOM! DOOM AND GLOOM!

Prediction: AMD stock trades near 8.50 this week.

DOOM AND GLOOM! DOOM AND GLOOM!
December 10, 2007 2:56:13 AM

Quote:
Credibility is easily chucked away and very hard to regain. There isn't much to chuck away at this point, so the only way to go is up.


I guess the Inq is speaking from experience :D 
December 10, 2007 3:29:38 AM

jbj190 said:
Quote:
Credibility is easily chucked away and very hard to regain. There isn't much to chuck away at this point, so the only way to go is up.


I guess the Inq is speaking from experience :D 


lol, post of the day!

Best,

3Ball
December 10, 2007 3:34:48 AM

jbj190 said:
Quote:
Credibility is easily chucked away and very hard to regain. There isn't much to chuck away at this point, so the only way to go is up.


I guess the Inq is speaking from experience :D 



LOL

QFT
December 10, 2007 3:57:24 AM

bastard company cant produce descent hardware
now i have to buy over priced intel products
December 10, 2007 5:32:07 AM

cruiseoveride said:
bastard company cant produce descent hardware
now i have to buy over priced intel products


If Intel and AMD have very similar price/performance rations then you'd have to say that AMD's products are overpriced as well.

I will agree with you that any top end chip (which AMD no longer has) is over priced. I've never spent more than $250 on a CPU, and I hope I never will.
December 10, 2007 5:48:24 AM

Hey TC. Just to rub you the wrong way. I was given a B3 QX6800. :)  I have never come close to pushing it to its max.

I would really like one of the Wolfdale processors since they are going to have such a low idle that keeping it running all the time for a HTPC will be really cost effective.
December 10, 2007 5:48:46 PM

epsilon84 said:
Baron insists Barcelona is 40% faster 'across a variety of workloads' so what is the problem? There IS NONE! DOOM AND GLOOM! ;)  :whistle: 



Baiting is for trolls. Check out Anand's latest. A tie is 25% faster. Add the win % to that. There are palces where you get 40% and that is not with a 2.6GHz Barcelona - which is what they said. Add 1-3% more for that.
December 10, 2007 5:52:37 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I would praise AMD if it had a successful, in quantity launch of a quad-core processor that at least is faster than a couple of Intel quad-cores. But since AMD can't manage to beat even Intel's lowest of offerings and even the year-old original quad-core, it's just a plain failure. The TLB issue is what turns this from failure to utter disaster.

I wonder if the post-marketing closing market will be a good or bad one. Typically I've seen post market close statements made so that people have time to digest and not to over-react to the (bad) news.

We'll see!



Yeah, they totally suck. Someone should take their fabs away. Clock for clock is close enough. Give it a rest. I told you your head would explode.
December 10, 2007 5:59:19 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Baiting is for trolls. Check out Anand's latest. A tie is 25% faster. Add the win % to that. There are palces where you get 40% and that is not with a 2.6GHz Barcelona - which is what they said. Add 1-3% more for that.


...which has been proven, that you have no idea what you're talking about.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/page-246807_28_160.ht...

There is no 40%, not even across "variety of workload".
December 10, 2007 6:05:23 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Baiting is for trolls. Check out Anand's latest. A tie is 25% faster. Add the win % to that. There are palces where you get 40% and that is not with a 2.6GHz Barcelona - which is what they said. Add 1-3% more for that.


I'm reading Anandtech's latest on Barcelona and this is what I see at the conclusion...

http://anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3162&p=12

([color=#0000ff said:
Blue numbers mean Intel is faster; green show a victory for the AMD chip)

AMD vs. Intel Performance Summary

General applications - Opteron 2360SE vs. Xeon E5365 - Opteron 2360SE vs. Xeon 5472

WinRAR 3.62 23% faster 6% faster

Fritz Chess engine 24% slower 26% slower

HPC applications

LINPACK 4% slower* 9% slower*

3D Applications

3DS Max 9 19% slower 25 % slower

zVisuel 3D Kribi Engine 7% faster 14% slower

zVisuel 3D Kribi Engine (AA) 2% slower 23% slower

Server applications

SPECjbb (Sun) 28% faster 11% faster

SPECjbb (BEA) 12% faster 12% slower

MySQL 14% faster Equal

* Faster LINPACK binaries from Intel were available at the time that we finished this article.
](Blue numbers mean Intel is faster; green show a victory for the AMD chip)

AMD vs. Intel Performance Summary

General applications - Opteron 2360SE vs. Xeon E5365 - Opteron 2360SE vs. Xeon 5472

WinRAR 3.62 23% faster 6% faster

Fritz Chess engine 24% slower 26% slower

HPC applications

LINPACK 4% slower* 9% slower*

3D Applications

3DS Max 9 19% slower 25 % slower

zVisuel 3D Kribi Engine 7% faster 14% slower

zVisuel 3D Kribi Engine (AA) 2% slower 23% slower

Server applications

SPECjbb (Sun) 28% faster 11% faster

SPECjbb (BEA) 12% faster 12% slower

MySQL 14% faster Equal

* Faster LINPACK binaries from Intel were available at the time that we finished this article.
[/color]

I'm reading the same article you did and I can not see 40% anywhere. Anandtech even states this in the same article.

We still cannot draw any solid conclusion on the server performance of AMD's quad-core as no MS Exchange, SAP ERP, TPC-C, or TPC-H results have been published. [b said:
In fact, with the exception of the SPECjbb and MySQL numbers in this article, all server benchmarks on AMD's third generation Opteron are MIA. This situation will probably continue for a few more months as most of these benchmark results traditionally come from OEMs and not AMD.]We still cannot draw any solid conclusion on the server performance of AMD's quad-core as no MS Exchange, SAP ERP, TPC-C, or TPC-H results have been published. In fact, with the exception of the SPECjbb and MySQL numbers in this article, all server benchmarks on AMD's third generation Opteron are MIA. This situation will probably continue for a few more months as most of these benchmark results traditionally come from OEMs and not AMD.
[/b]

I don't see how, where, or why you are concluding a 40% increase. It's not there. Maybe my eyes are different than yours? That would be the only rational explanation as far as I can see.

December 10, 2007 6:05:26 PM

Across a variety of workload, Tom's benchmarks would probably be 25% slower due to adding the L3 BIOS fix.
December 10, 2007 6:54:10 PM

This AMD K10 bug problem is nothing to worry about to be honest, because the performance decrease is actually rather small. Even with the bug, clock for clock Phenom is better than Intel.

At least AMD treated their customers with respect and fixed the problem really quickly and efficiently. Intel on the other hand have failed to fix the big problems that Core2 processors have like stability and heat. C2D is well known to freeze Microsoft Vista, so many Vista users do regret not buying AMD.

Quad2Duo's double cheeseburger Pentium 3 knock off design is not cutting the demands of professionals.

December 10, 2007 7:01:06 PM

thunderman said:
This AMD K10 bug problem is nothing to worry about to be honest, because the performance decrease is actually rather small. Even with the bug, clock for clock Phenom is better than Intel.


Definitely. It readily warms up your room faster than Intel's.
December 10, 2007 7:15:24 PM

Why aren't you counting the fact that 2360SE is clocked 25% slower than 5365 and 5472? So you either have to extrapolate out to 3GHz or add 25% on to any win. Like SpecJBB or WinRar or zVisuel.
December 10, 2007 7:25:20 PM

Baron you should know by now that if AMD is faster in any benchmark it doesn't count.

December 10, 2007 7:27:04 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Why aren't you counting the fact that 2360SE is clocked 25% slower than 5365 and 5472? So you either have to extrapolate out to 3GHz or add 25% on to any win. Like SpecJBB or WinRar or zVisuel.


As I said, how is 2.5Ghz 25% slower than 3.0Ghz? Care to show me the calculations for it?

In case you forgot, we're talking about what AMD said, not what YOU said. If you want to add another 100% performance on AMD's processor due to its 1337ness, be my guest. I have no interest in what you think. I only have interests in disproving what AMD said, and done.
December 10, 2007 7:35:22 PM

thunderman said:
This AMD K10 bug problem is nothing to worry about to be honest, because the performance decrease is actually rather small. Even with the bug, clock for clock Phenom is better than Intel.

At least AMD treated their customers with respect and fixed the problem really quickly and efficiently. Intel on the other hand have failed to fix the big problems that Core2 processors have like stability and heat. C2D is well known to freeze Microsoft Vista, so many Vista users do regret not buying AMD.

Quad2Duo's double cheeseburger Pentium 3 knock off design is not cutting the demands of professionals.


LOL. That was good....oh, wait, you're serious. LOL!!! Then it's even better.

:lol: 

:pfff: 
December 10, 2007 7:45:52 PM

yomamafor1 said:
As I said, how is 2.5Ghz 25% slower than 3.0Ghz? Care to show me the calculations for it?

In case you forgot, we're talking about what AMD said, not what YOU said. If you want to add another 100% performance on AMD's processor due to its 1337ness, be my guest. I have no interest in what you think. I only have interests in disproving what AMD said, and done.



So you don't care abut perf just proving that AMD lied? Oh you're not biased at all. BTW, you're right it's only 20% slower. 2500 + (2500*.2) = 3000.

So for AMD to be 40% faster than Intel per clock they need to win by 20% over 5365 or 5472. They do that in a variety of the tests on anands. At least according to your little chart. And remember to add the 2% for 2.6GHz - which is what AMD said.
December 10, 2007 7:49:50 PM

BaronMatrix said:
So you don't care abut perf just proving that AMD lied?

I'm only interested in what AMD claimed, and what they delivered. In this case, they claimed 40%, but failed to deliver.


So for AMD to be 40% faster than Intel per clock they need to win by 20% over 5365 or 5472. They do that in a variety of the tests on anands. At least according to your little chart. And remember to add the 2% for 2.6GHz - which is what AMD said. said:

So for AMD to be 40% faster than Intel per clock they need to win by 20% over 5365 or 5472. They do that in a variety of the tests on anands. At least according to your little chart. And remember to add the 2% for 2.6GHz - which is what AMD said.


That is, according to what YOU said, which is a world's different from what Randy Allen said in the first place.

Quote:
But AMD's "Barcelona" quad-core chip, due to arrive midway through 2007, will be a significant notch faster than the Clovertown chips expected to be on the market at that time, said Randy Allen, AMD's corporate vice president for server and workstation products.

"We expect across a wide variety of workloads for Barcelona to outperform Clovertown by 40 percent," Allen said.


So he said, "40% faster than the fastest Clovertown on the market at the launch", not 40% faster than Clovertown, clock for clock.

Once again, Baron is busted.
December 10, 2007 7:56:28 PM

thunderman said:
This AMD K10 bug problem is nothing to worry about to be honest, because the performance decrease is actually rather small. Even with the bug, clock for clock Phenom is better than Intel.

At least AMD treated their customers with respect and fixed the problem really quickly and efficiently. Intel on the other hand have failed to fix the big problems that Core2 processors have like stability and heat. C2D is well known to freeze Microsoft Vista, so many Vista users do regret not buying AMD.

Quad2Duo's double cheeseburger Pentium 3 knock off design is not cutting the demands of professionals.


LMFAO.

HAHAHAHA

Ya, a 20% performance hit isn't a big deal...

I'll take a tasty double cheeseburger over a recalled, sub-par K10 any day.
December 10, 2007 8:03:50 PM

thunderman said:
This AMD K10 bug problem is nothing to worry about to be honest, because the performance decrease is actually rather small. Even with the bug, clock for clock Phenom is better than Intel.

At least AMD treated their customers with respect and fixed the problem really quickly and efficiently. Intel on the other hand have failed to fix the big problems that Core2 processors have like stability and heat. C2D is well known to freeze Microsoft Vista, so many Vista users do regret not buying AMD.

Quad2Duo's double cheeseburger Pentium 3 knock off design is not cutting the demands of professionals.


lol, your an DELETED[#ff0000]!

Best,

3Ball
December 10, 2007 8:24:27 PM

yomamafor1 said:
I'm only interested in what AMD claimed, and what they delivered. In this case, they claimed 40%, but failed to deliver.



That is, according to what YOU said, which is a world's different from what Randy Allen said in the first place.

Quote:
But AMD's "Barcelona" quad-core chip, due to arrive midway through 2007, will be a significant notch faster than the Clovertown chips expected to be on the market at that time, said Randy Allen, AMD's corporate vice president for server and workstation products.

"We expect across a wide variety of workloads for Barcelona to outperform Clovertown by 40 percent," Allen said.


So he said, "40% faster than the fastest Clovertown on the market at the launch", not 40% faster than Clovertown, clock for clock.

Once again, Baron is busted.




Then it really does that, since it does outperform 5365 on a variety of workloads and it's still not 2.6GHz. You're going to hurt yourself. Maybe you need a few days off of the forum.
December 10, 2007 8:29:16 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Then it really does that, since it does outperform 5365 on a variety of workloads and it's still not 2.6GHz. You're going to hurt yourself. Maybe you need a few days off of the forum.


Very funny Baron. I never knew you have selective memory....

But, I guess that's what it takes to be AMD's spin doctor.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 10, 2007 9:15:11 PM

thunderman said:
This AMD K10 bug problem is nothing to worry about to be honest, because the performance decrease is actually rather small. Even with the bug, clock for clock Phenom is better than Intel.

At least AMD treated their customers with respect and fixed the problem really quickly and efficiently. Intel on the other hand have failed to fix the big problems that Core2 processors have like stability and heat. C2D is well known to freeze Microsoft Vista, so many Vista users do regret not buying AMD.

Quad2Duo's double cheeseburger Pentium 3 knock off design is not cutting the demands of professionals.


Well to my knowledge AMD hasn't fixed the TLB mess up just a work around that lowers performance. And last time I looked my Q6600 G0 runs cooler and with less power than a Phenom 9600. Hell a QX9650 runs cooler at idle and load (thats at 3GHz) than a Phenom 9600(at 2.3GHz). So just shut it. BTW I am using Vista on my Q6600 nad have yet to have my CPU crash it. So :p 

And BM, give it up. I watch a interview with the VP of AMD on YouTube! and he was claiming that at launch the Barcy would have 40% more performance than anything Intel had which would include a 3GHz part. He was wrong. He opened his mouth and was just plain wrong and can't prove what he had on paper.

Enough this and that. Right now a Phenom 9700 clock per clock does not outperform a Q6600 nor is it anywere as efficient per watt. And I don't even want to think of how bad the Q9300 will stomp it efficiency wise. Not even a 9600 is as efficient. AMD made too many claims and didn't deliver on their promises and thats the problem. Intel promised a cooler, faster CPU than Prescott and they delivered. AMD promised 40% and better VT and they failed. Thats my main thing is that when you promise something make sure its true or at least don't try to run with the lie. Correct yourself at the end if you need to but don't lie and sit there confident when even in house tesing proved that the competitions product was superior.
December 10, 2007 9:44:02 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Well to my knowledge AMD hasn't fixed the TLB mess up just a work around that lowers performance. And last time I looked my Q6600 G0 runs cooler and with less power than a Phenom 9600. Hell a QX9650 runs cooler at idle and load (thats at 3GHz) than a Phenom 9600(at 2.3GHz). So just shut it. BTW I am using Vista on my Q6600 nad have yet to have my CPU crash it. So :p 

And BM, give it up. I watch a interview with the VP of AMD on YouTube! and he was claiming that at launch the Barcy would have 40% more performance than anything Intel had which would include a 3GHz part. He was wrong. He opened his mouth and was just plain wrong and can't prove what he had on paper.

Enough this and that. Right now a Phenom 9700 clock per clock does not outperform a Q6600 nor is it anywere as efficient per watt. And I don't even want to think of how bad the Q9300 will stomp it efficiency wise. Not even a 9600 is as efficient. AMD made too many claims and didn't deliver on their promises and thats the problem. Intel promised a cooler, faster CPU than Prescott and they delivered. AMD promised 40% and better VT and they failed. Thats my main thing is that when you promise something make sure its true or at least don't try to run with the lie. Correct yourself at the end if you need to but don't lie and sit there confident when even in house tesing proved that the competitions product was superior.


Owned? lol, +1

Best,

3Ball
December 10, 2007 9:50:00 PM

TC, the Baron will get jealous.....you asked him to marry you first.
December 10, 2007 9:50:02 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Why aren't you counting the fact that 2360SE is clocked 25% slower than 5365 and 5472? So you either have to extrapolate out to 3GHz or add 25% on to any win. Like SpecJBB or WinRar or zVisuel.


Why aren't I counting the fact that 2360SE is clocked 25% slower? Simple, AMD didn't release a 25% higher clocked product. You can only compare what you bring to the table. You don't OC a part and call it even. That's like saying I'm going to release a car, and claim it to be 40% faster, than produce the car, and claim it's only hindered because it doesn't have a turbo, than stating it's not my fault. If that doesn't make sense, good. it's not supposed to be clear, because that's what AMD is doing, and 99% of us, you being the >1% difference, are all aware of it.

On a side note, even if you bumped Barcelona up to 3.0GHz, you'd probably get bugs and errors left and right. So what than is the point of comparing clock for clock like you want, when at your suggested clock speed you get bugs and mishaps?

Defending AMD at this point is only a matter of how much tolerance you have to let downs and utter frustration. :pfff: 
December 10, 2007 9:57:36 PM

Justin, will you marry me.


Great point. I'm sick of all this "clock for clock" bullpoop. What matters is what the processor will perform at. Baron want everyone to believe that Intel processors should be underclock to be "fair". Tough cookies, AMD should release such a miserably clocking architecture, not Intel's fault.
December 10, 2007 10:10:42 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Jimmy, will you marry me?


What...? What about me? YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO MARRY ME!!! :cry:  :cry:  :cry: 


[jk]
December 10, 2007 10:13:04 PM

That's exactly the point. You compare what is presented.

If you bring a Quad Core CPU @ 2.4GHzto the table and compare it against a Quad Core @ 3.0GHz, than that's what you're comparing. It is what it is, simple as that. If AMD wants higher clocked processors to compete against Intel's higher clocked processors, than the should do just that. Claims are claims, not facts, not hard evidence, it's a claim. Why can't some people see that?
December 10, 2007 10:28:18 PM

Just so much competition for TC's love...cant it just be all of us?!? Um, except Baron and whoever this thunderman character is of course :ange:  lol

Best,

3Ball
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 10, 2007 10:46:43 PM

I think TC just loves those who bring pure fact to the table instead of BS. TC got hurt by AMDs almighty claims that turned false and is sick of people trying to cover for AMD when all it would take is for AMD to say:

"We were wrong and we are sorry. We are working on it and will try our best to fix it for those who have stood by us."

Not:

"We are still better than Intel and BTW there is this new thing called ACP. TDP no longer exists."
December 10, 2007 11:04:05 PM

I remember thunderman starting a flame-war thread that got way out of control, but the whole time it came off to me as a joke. It looks like it's been deleted now, but come on, he can't be serious. Quad2Duo's double cheeseburger Pentium 3 :lol: 
December 10, 2007 11:07:53 PM

3Ball said:
Just so much competition for TC's love...cant it just be all of us?!? Um, except Baron and whoever this thunderman character is of course :ange:  lol

Best,

3Ball


Oh my, you trying to turn this forum into a polygamy scandel or something? :whistle:  I mean, I remember the 60's and 70's with free love and such, I don't know anyone back then who got into marrying anybody.

Jimmysmitty: What you want AMD to say would be too easy. Although it would require Hector and company to learn a whole new way of talking. I know I'd really like it if AMD made some new product that was a really good enough that I'd trade in my 4400+. Right now, I just don't see it, and whatever AMD says anymore, I don't trust it.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 11, 2007 12:33:06 AM

homerdog, technically its right. Conroe is based off of the awesome PIII Architecture but allowed Intel to push it beyond the barrier(speed and I believe above 1.3GHz) that they had hit back in those days. But the whole "cheeseburger" thing obviously works according to benches. I just wounder if Intel decided to go IMC and "native quad core" what would have happened.

You are right Sailer. It seems that it would be too hard for AMD to do or they would have already. Or we could take the whole "We will make more faster K8's" as thier we screwed up and are going to try to fix it. But thats not enough for me. I want Hector to stand on a stage in front of the world and admit they were wrong.

Maybe we can go to his house and tie him up until he does....... [j/k]
December 11, 2007 12:49:18 AM

jimmysmitty said:
I want Hector to stand on a stage in front of the world and admit they were wrong.

Maybe we can go to his house and tie him up until he does....... [j/k]


Maybe if there's an open pit bar-b-que under him while he's tied up he might learn a little faster. :lol: 

I'm just feeling a bit impatient with everyone these days. Must be the depths of winter and no girlfriend to cuddle up to. And of course, all those bits of hardware that are supposed to come out from Intel in January, or maybe Frebruary depending on what news item I read. I'd buy and build now, but I don't want to be obsolete before I get it finished and running decent.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 11, 2007 12:59:53 AM

Well I have a lot of plans for the future of my rig as I am certain that Nehalem will not let us down but thats just me. The Q6600 is great but I want a Q9450 for the pure ability to OC and have it use even less power and run cooler.

I would suggest either a Q6600 for the next 2 years or a Q9450. Then upgrade to the 32nm Nehalem and Larabee when it hits the market as they plan on a discrte GPU with multiple processors.

As for AMD I don't see anything good in their near future until they get the TLB out. But even then they probably wont be able to hit their allmighty 40% faster claims.

All I want for Christmas is Hector to apologize.
December 11, 2007 1:05:38 AM

jimmysmitty said:
homerdog, technically its right. Conroe is based off of the awesome PIII Architecture but allowed Intel to push it beyond the barrier(speed and I believe above 1.3GHz) that they had hit back in those days. But the whole "cheeseburger" thing obviously works according to benches. I just wounder if Intel decided to go IMC and "native quad core" what would have happened.

I know, it's the fact that it's right that makes it so funny. thunderman must know what he's talking about, which begs the question, why is he touting AMD as having better processors? I think he is toying with us.
December 11, 2007 1:45:59 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Justin, will you marry me.


Great point. I'm sick of all this "clock for clock" bullpoop. What matters is what the processor will perform at. Baron want everyone to believe that Intel processors should be underclock to be "fair". Tough cookies, AMD should release such a miserably clocking architecture, not Intel's fault.



Clock for clock performance is not "bullpoop"....it is the only true measure of relative performance. However, AMD did fail to make their claims, in either clock for clock or overall performance, and ultimately it matters little at this time and any time in the forseeable future since (excepting cherry picked ESs tested under lab conditions using limited apps) AMD does not appear likely (or capable) of ever releasing a 3.0GHz or higher Phenom/Barcy @ 65nm using SOI to retail sales....meaning K10 will not top C2D/Q in ultimate performance.
December 11, 2007 1:55:18 AM

thunderman said:
This AMD K10 bug problem is nothing to worry about to be honest, because the performance decrease is actually rather small. Even with the bug, clock for clock Phenom is better than Intel.

At least AMD treated their customers with respect and fixed the problem really quickly and efficiently. Intel on the other hand have failed to fix the big problems that Core2 processors have like stability and heat. C2D is well known to freeze Microsoft Vista, so many Vista users do regret not buying AMD.

Quad2Duo's double cheeseburger Pentium 3 knock off design is not cutting the demands of professionals.


You tell 'em Flower.
December 11, 2007 2:02:16 AM

turpit said:
Clock for clock performance is not "bullpoop"....it is the only true measure of relative performance.


It's "bullpoop" if the entire argument is based upon it. Claiming a certain product to be better if it was at x.xx GHz is irrelevant. If you release a product at 2.2GHz and the competition has products at 3.2Ghz, than shame on you. The only real measure of performance is what you put on the table and how you design it. Frequency for a chip is a factor, this we know, but it's not the only true measure of relative performance.

It could vary across the FSB, it could vary between the HyperTransport (if comparing AMD products), it could vary between RAM times etc etc. The list goes on. Frequency is just one of the many factors. And if your frequency happens to be lower than the competitors; than release something higher or encourage over-clocking to your target markets.
December 11, 2007 2:24:55 AM

justinmcg67 said:
It's "bullpoop" if the entire argument is based upon it. Claiming a certain product to be better if it was at x.xx GHz is irrelevant. If you release a product at 2.2GHz and the competition has products at 3.2Ghz, than shame on you. The only real measure of performance is what you put on the table and how you design it. Frequency for a chip is a factor, this we know, but it's not the only true measure of relative performance.

It could vary across the FSB, it could vary between the HyperTransport (if comparing AMD products), it could vary between RAM times etc etc. The list goes on. Frequency is just one of the many factors. And if your frequency happens to be lower than the competitors; than release something higher or encourage over-clocking to your target markets.


Its never "bullpoop". It is a relative number, and only a number, and the only way to tell true relative calculation performance.

Now if an individual chooses to base their "entire argument" upon it, and their argument is incomplete, takes information out of context, or is blatently wrong, either accidentally or deliberately for the purpose of misleading, then it is the individual who misleads that is full of "bullpoop", not the numbers. Numbers never lie, only the people who use them.
!