Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Barcelona/Shanghai Smackdown on Nehalem

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a c 94 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 10, 2008 2:37:14 PM

AMD unveils two-, eight-way Opterons clocked at 2.5GHz
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/14900
Tech Report
by Cyril Kowaliski
June 9, 2008

Quote:
Since its late arrival in April, AMD's quad-core Opteron lineup has been missing one key element: chips clocked at the same speeds as the fastest desktop Phenom X4 CPUs. No longer. AMD has rolled out four new Opteron SE processors with clock speeds of 2.4GHz and 2.5GHz—just like the Phenom X4 9750 and 9850.

The new Opteron SE line includes 2358 SE, 2360 SE, 8358 SE, and 8360 SE models. The first digit in the model name denotes the maximum number of supported sockets, while the last two digits denote clock speed. x358 models run at 2.4GHz, while the x360 parts are clocked at 2.5GHz. AMD doesn't appear to have revealed thermal envelopes for these chips yet, but their desktop counterparts are rated for up to 125W. Prices are $873 for the 2358 SE, $1,165 for the 2360 SE, $1,865 for the 8358 SE, and $2,149 for the 8360 SE.

According to AMD, these new CPUs are already "widely available," and servers based on them are on their way from "global OEMs and solution providers including Hewlett-Packard, Sun Microsystems, Dell and IBM."



Intel Nehalem Launch Expected to Be Delayed
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20080609204928...
xbilabs
by Anton Shilov
06/09/2008

Quote:
The delay of the mobile Intel Centrino 2 platform introduction may not be the only one for Intel Corp. this year, says an analyst. Apparently, the world’s largest chipmaker may also postpone mass release of its next-generation Nehalem microprocessor for unknown reasons.

Our checks suggest Intel’s Nehalem server parts will initially launch in single-socket only, which we believe will be viewed by customers and investors as a delayed ramp of the company’s second generation 45nm server architecture due out in late 2H ’08. We believe this may be viewed as the second launch delay in recent weeks and is likely to call into question Intel's solid record of on-time execution,” said analyst Doug Freedman of American Technology Research, reports EETimes web-site.

It is interesting to note that chief executive officer of Intel, Paul Otellini, said last year that the company would ship octa-core Nehalem processors in 2008, whereas now Intel claims that the firm will be able to produce code-named Bloomfield quad-core implementation of Nehalem design this year.

Earlier this month some other unofficial sources indicated that mainstream and performance-mainstream chips based on Nehalem micro-architecture will be available only in the second half of 2009, considerably later compared to server or high-end desktop oriented versions.

Still, Mr. Friedman believes that delays of Intel Nehalem launch may be positive for AMD.

“We believe the Nehalem launch plan opens the door for AMD’s Shanghai server chip (45-nm shrink of Barcelona) in 2H ‘08/1H ‘09 should AMD be able to execute to its present schedule,” the analyst said.



Possible shift in 'enterprise' market share looming in the next 12-18 months. Score one for Hector over Otellini on the server side.


a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 10, 2008 2:51:17 PM

I thought the delay rumors were found false by Intel. Either way I am not sure how this relates to AMD smaking down Nehalem. If they showed those CPUs somehow PWNed them then yea but that is yet to be seen.
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2008 2:54:10 PM

I am waiting for Yomama to get on his soapbox ...

*whips it out and waits to urinate on aforesaid shoes*
Related resources
June 10, 2008 2:55:39 PM

Hardly a smackdown...

1. If, indeed the MP nehalem are delayed, this is a huge misstep for intel and a chink in their armor. Considering this is the only place left where AMD holds any sort of an advantage, this is a ray of hope for AMD.

2. a 2.5 GHz K10 is hardly earthshattering. Recall, they were claiming the ability to produce a 3.0 GHz part by the end of last year. This falls in the bucket of "finally." However, this will not turn the tides -- not over a 10% clockspeed bump -- but serve to stem the losses.
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2008 3:04:10 PM

We are not talking about single socket systems ...

We are talking about 4 and 8 socket servers here ... where AMD is King and Intel runs out of bandwidth ... so the cores are starved and just sit there spinning.

Extreme apologies to Yomama who I respect immensely ... this was meant to be funny.




a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 10, 2008 3:11:40 PM

Reynod said:
We are not talking about single socket systems ...

We are talking about 4 and 8 socket servers here ... where AMD is King and Intel runs out of bandwidth ... so the cores are starved and just sit there spinning.

Extreme apologies to Yomama who I respect immensely ... this was meant to be funny.


And we are not talking about CPUs with a IMC vs CPUs with a FSB.

We are talking about Nehalem that in the desktop market so far has layeth the smakethdown (as the Rock would say) on everything in its path so far. Considering how fast it is in an unfinished product I wouldn't be suprised if Intels new MP systems give the "King" a run for their money easily.

a c 94 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 10, 2008 3:16:36 PM

jimmysmitty said:
And we are not talking about CPUs with a IMC vs CPUs with a FSB.

We are talking about Nehalem that in the desktop market so far has layeth the smakethdown (as the Rock would say) on everything in its path so far. Considering how fast it is in an unfinished product I wouldn't be suprised if Intels new MP systems give the "King" a run for their money easily.


Where might one of these be purchased ???
June 10, 2008 3:21:26 PM

Reynod said:
We are not talking about single socket systems ...

We are talking about 4 and 8 socket servers here ... where AMD is King and Intel runs out of bandwidth ... so the cores are starved and just sit there spinning.

Extreme apologies to Yomama who I respect immensely ... this was meant to be funny.


R u saying Intel cores can spin?!
a c 94 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 10, 2008 3:22:09 PM

ryman554 said:
Hardly a smackdown...

1. If, indeed the MP nehalem are delayed, this is a huge misstep for intel and a chink in their armor. Considering this is the only place left where AMD holds any sort of an advantage, this is a ray of hope for AMD.

2. a 2.5 GHz K10 is hardly earthshattering. Recall, they were claiming the ability to produce a 3.0 GHz part by the end of last year. This falls in the bucket of "finally." However, this will not turn the tides -- not over a 10% clockspeed bump -- but serve to stem the losses.


It ain't the clock - it's the instruction set :) 

Quote:
When it comes to raw SSE performance, the Intel architectures are 3% to 14% faster in the add/subtract/multiply scenarios. When there are divisions involved, Barcelona absolutely annihilates the 65nm Core architecture with up to 80% better SSE performance, clock for clock. It even manages to outperform the newest 45nm Xeon, but only by 8% to 18%. Notice once again the vast improvement from the 2nd generation Opteron to the 3rd generation Opteron when it comes to SIMD performance, ranging from 55% to 150% (!!).


AMD's 3rd generation Opteron versus Intel's 45nm Xeon
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3162&p=6
Anandtech


a b à CPUs
June 10, 2008 3:28:46 PM

*defends wisecracker armed with extremely lethal hippo eggs and elephant launcher system*
June 10, 2008 3:35:15 PM

jimmysmitty said:
And we are not talking about CPUs with a IMC vs CPUs with a FSB.

We are talking about Nehalem that in the desktop market so far has layeth the smakethdown (as the Rock would say) on everything in its path so far. Considering how fast it is in an unfinished product I wouldn't be suprised if Intels new MP systems give the "King" a run for their money easily.


If you are referring to the anand preview then that might be a VERY good thing for AMD.
a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 10, 2008 3:38:54 PM

Um Wisecracker, arent you the one who started a thread about AMD smaking Nehalem? What they are doing is just denying the obvious. When Nehalem comes out they will no longer have the "We have an IMC so we scale better" excuse.

It will basically be 2 of the same type of chips and one will sclae and perform better.

What I don't understand is how you talk about an AMD chip smaking down Nehalem and yet I mentuion that so far Nehalem is a beast in performance and you ask about getting one.
a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 10, 2008 3:42:17 PM

keithlm said:
If you are referring to the anand preview then that is a VERY good thing for AMD.


Um wait....Nehalem kreplows Penryn at a clock per clock basis and its a good thing for AMD?

What are you taking and where can we get some so we can all feel the same that Intel having a killer chip on their hands means puppydogs and rainbows and kittens galore for AMD and all will be happy and shiny and pretty.

Sorry dude but I don't live in a fantasy world where I think that way. I prefer to look at results. Nehalem so far is showing a lot of power. If it keeps at this pace I don't know where AMD will be.
June 10, 2008 3:43:27 PM

Another possible, and emphasize the "POSSIBLE" reason for a Nehalem delay could be the number of anti-trust lawsuits coming down on Intel lately. Intel is already under investigation for dumping chips below cast, illegal payoffs, and a number of other things. And this doesn't take into account that Intel is so far ahead of AMD that the only company its competing against is itself. In any case, if Intel plows ahead and buries AMD, such action could bring the wrath of governments around the world down upon its head. It makes better sense to hold back Nehalem a few months and let AMD die on its own, rather than plunging in the technological knife and giving a good twist for effect.
June 10, 2008 3:45:47 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Um wait....Nehalem kreplows Penryn at a clock per clock basis and its a good thing for AMD?

What are you taking and where can we get some so we can all feel the same that Intel having a killer chip on their hands means puppydogs and rainbows and kittens galore for AMD and all will be happy and shiny and pretty.

Sorry dude but I don't live in a fantasy world where I think that way. I prefer to look at results. Nehalem so far is showing a lot of power. If it keeps at this pace I don't know where AMD will be.



Let me rephrase my comment to make it more understandable to you:

Are you referring to the anand preview that has been shown to have Penryn numbers that are 17%-20% off to make Nehalem look better? The preview that doesn't show anything more than a few cherry picked reviews with those bad numbers?

That preview?

The preview where if you use the SAME PENRYN NUMBERS that the site had in a previous review for Penryn makes you realize that Nehalem is running about the same speed as Penryn?

That preview?
June 10, 2008 3:53:08 PM

Sailer ,AMD dying is funny.I guess you have not been paying attention.Lol
a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 10, 2008 4:06:04 PM

keithlm said:
Let me rephrase my comment to make it more understandable to you:

Are you referring to the anand preview that has been shown to have Penryn numbers that are 17%-20% off to make Nehalem look better? The preview that doesn't show anything more than a few cherry picked reviews with those bad numbers?

That preview?

The preview where if you use the SAME PENRYN NUMBERS that the site had in a previous review for Penryn makes you realize that Nehalem is running about the same speed as Penryn?

That preview?


Obviously you are someone who does not pay attention and read everything in order to get a clear view. This is from another thread on here about Anand "Duping" the benchmarks.

SMU_Pony said:
From a comment at Roborat's blog.... ( http://roborat64.blogspot.com/ )

Quote:
For someone so uptight about proper testing methodologies and calling into question all the details, it would be helpful if he actually looked the details of the tests before spouting off. When Sci points out that Anand's old review showed the Q9450 get a score of 3297 in the single threaded Cinebench run, which is obviously higher than the one reported in the Nehalem preview score of Q9450 = 2931, it should be noted that was because the old test was using the 64-bit Vista OS while the new one is using 32-Bit Vista.

Looking at this Vista comparison benchmark by Extremetech, the Vista 64-bit gives a 10% advantage over 32-bit, which easily explains a the difference.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2280813,00.a...


Hmmm.... whats that you say? 64Bit gives about a 10% advantage? Just like it gives AMD chips the same advantage? And they ran the Nehalem review in 32Bit. I wounder why they did it in 32Bit..... could it be that they had very little time and wanted to give people something to feed on?

Seriously man....the way you talk all the time about AMD and how Intels chips are worse this I would expect better from you. You know like you reading stuff instead of just jumping to a conclusion.

People these days.
June 10, 2008 4:17:19 PM

ro3dog said:
Sailer ,AMD dying is funny.I guess you have not been paying attention.Lol


Not quite sure how you intend that. Yes, I know that AMD is dieing, as it hasn't turned a profit in a long time and is nearly bankrupt. Without a great infusion of money, from someplace, AMD will run out of money within a few quarters.

Or is it that you mean to laugh at the idea that AMD is dieing? If that's the case, you haven't been looking at their financial picture, one that's bleeding red ink each and every quarter. Add in the effects of the recession, and AMD's chances for a long life look very bleak indeed.
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2008 4:19:04 PM

The Intel "Blue sticker licker" crowd still want to talk about their single socket gameboys now ... or something that isn't out yet.

Sounds like stalling tactics to me.

Cough up a response or shutup.

*notices it has gone blue with the cold*
June 10, 2008 4:21:43 PM

Reynod said:
I am waiting for Yomama to get on his soapbox ...

*whips it out and waits to urinate on aforesaid shoes*


Shanghai will "pre-frag" Nehalem.

Happy?
June 10, 2008 4:22:39 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Obviously you are someone who does not pay attention and read everything in order to get a clear view. This is from another thread on here about Anand "Duping" the benchmarks.


Thank you for the insult. (I guess you were desperate and frustrated and needed to find something to combat those nasty things called "facts".)

However your insult doesn't change the facts. What is not known is whether it was deliberate or an accident. However it does bring the question of credibility of all reviews on that site into question.

Until a review or preview is done by reputable site that doesn't have shifty numbers then we won't really know for sure.

Until then... I laugh at the people that will quote this preview as anything substantial.

(NOTE: I didn't see a thread on this site about how Anand duped the benchmark. I'll go find it. I got my information from Anand's site after reading somebody else mention that previous Penryn results from that site should be reviewed.)
June 10, 2008 4:26:41 PM

So if you're still insisted on your "claim", why don't you produce some evidence to support that?
June 10, 2008 4:32:10 PM

Oh great.... a gathering of mindless AMD fanbois?
June 10, 2008 4:34:36 PM

Quote:
desktop will be a long ways down the road so I dont know where you get that Nehalem will lay the smackdown in the desktop segment.

This is where Intels 'cheating' comes into play. Its hard to play fair against a cheater that steals its technology from companies like transmetta, AMD, etc. and used unfair business practices to increase its market share.



Come on... we were giving him the benefit of the doubt. **WE** know that Nehalem desktop chips won't be available until 2010... but hey...

Based on what will be available I'm sure we can say with certainty that a when a Desktop Nehalem becomes available it will put smack-down on any Phenom that is currently available at this time.
a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 10, 2008 4:36:31 PM

keithlm said:
Thank you for the insult. (I guess you were desperate and frustrated and needed to find something to combat those nasty things called "facts".)

However your insult doesn't change the facts. What is not known is whether it was deliberate or an accident. However it does bring the question of credibility of all reviews on that site into question.

Until a review or preview is done by reputable site that doesn't have shifty numbers then we won't really know for sure.

Until then... I laugh at the people that will quote this preview as anything substantial.


I don't see how it has shifty numbers or is it any site that gives a Intel chip a good name shifty to you? Both the Q9450 and the Nehalem were at 2.66GHz. Bothe ran on Vista 32Bit. Both used the same memory and GPU. So it was a fair test on the same setup just one being Penryn and one being Nehalem. So as far as I can tell those are far circumstances.

In most results like the one with a Q9450 doing better in 64Bit, it would have been the same for Nehalem. Hell Nehalem might get a bigger boost in 64Bit. All we do know that is in 32Bit Nehalem gives a 20-50% boost in performance clock per clock.

But of course you never like to admit when Intel does do well. Hell even if THG also posted the same you would still deny it.
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2008 4:37:07 PM

Anand is a pretty nice guy ... always posts a response to a genuine question.

I doubt he made a deliberate mistake.

I encourage you both to look at this with a sense of humour ... I try not to get too serious.

I haven't really got any hippopotamus eggs either ... they were confiscated along with my armadillo hat.

So there is no need to be frightened.

I have no doubt Nehalem is a superior product.

I do doubt they have the process refined because they seem to still have volume problems with 45nm products on the current offerings.

It would be silly to think they are stalling the ramp other than a purely fiscal one - AMD have no current single socket (read volume of sales) competitor in the pipe, and why would you ramp up something that would crush your own current highly successful product??

No company shoots themselves in the foot until they have forgotten the last time ... they havn't yet.

:) 
June 10, 2008 4:38:32 PM

Quote:
Mindless, you mean people talking real facts?




What is funny is that if you miss a "fact" in a discussion about AMD you will have 50 Intel fanboys correct you.

But if you point out that an Intel fanboy has missed a fact... those same 50 will jump on you to tell you that an irrefutable fact isn't important.

June 10, 2008 4:39:39 PM

Quote:
So many Intel fanboys, so little time.....
First of all Nehalem needs a new socket, nehelem will only be released for servers, desktop will be a long ways down the road so I dont know where you get that Nehalem will lay the smackdown in the desktop segment.

Quote:
Another possible, and emphasize the "POSSIBLE" reason for a Nehalem delay could be the number of anti-trust lawsuits coming down on Intel lately. Intel is already under investigation for dumping chips below cast, illegal payoffs, and a number of other things.


This is where Intels 'cheating' comes into play. Its hard to play fair against a cheater that steals its technology from companies like transmetta, AMD, etc. and used unfair business practices to increase its market share.


Whether or not they are cheating, fact is that Nehalem will probably be faster unless AMD's new chips coming out have their crap together, if it's another barcelona/phenom...they are not gonna beat anyrthing out at the same time.

June 10, 2008 4:45:56 PM

jimmysmitty said:
I don't see how it has shifty numbers or is it any site that gives a Intel chip a good name shifty to you? Both the Q9450 and the Nehalem were at 2.66GHz. Bothe ran on Vista 32Bit. Both used the same memory and GPU. So it was a fair test on the same setup just one being Penryn and one being Nehalem. So as far as I can tell those are far circumstances.

In most results like the one with a Q9450 doing better in 64Bit, it would have been the same for Nehalem. Hell Nehalem might get a bigger boost in 64Bit. All we do know that is in 32Bit Nehalem gives a 20-50% boost in performance clock per clock.

But of course you never like to admit when Intel does do well. Hell even if THG also posted the same you would still deny it.



FACT: Anand does a review. Penryn has certain scores.

FACT: Awhile later he does a Nehalem preview. Magically the Penryn has scores that are 17%-20% lower than the previous benchmark. The results should have been identical for the same test on the same chip using the same environment.

No credible explanation.

June 10, 2008 4:49:42 PM

Quote:
Mindless, you mean people talking real facts?

Quote:
Based on what will be available I'm sure we can say with certainty that a when a Desktop Nehalem becomes available it will put smack-down on any Phenom that is currently available at this time.


This is a great example of optimism, not facts. Your saying by 2010 AMD wont have anything to compete with nehalem? Now thats a mindless prediction.



Reading comprehension much? He said Nehalem will smoke current Phenoms. Still mindless, but he said nothing about AMD's future offerings.
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2008 4:50:05 PM

A well lubricated fact ... can lead to success or failure ...
June 10, 2008 4:50:41 PM

Quote:
Mindless, you mean people talking real facts?


Or, people who thinks they know what they're talking about, but in reality they don't?


Quote:
Its a fact that Intel cheats. Its a fact that they stole 12 patents from Transmetta, thats why Intel had pay TRansmetta all that money.

Its called "patent infringment", not "patent stealing". Patent infringment lawsuits are VERY common in semiconductor industry, and most of the "infringments" are only based on overlaping patents.


Quote:
Its a fact that they used shady business practices to steal market share from AMD.

Its also a fact that AMD was capacity restrained. As a result, Intel's action had very little impact on AMD's market share. In fact, during the alledged "shady business practices", AMD was actually gaining market share.

Its a fact that more than 2 technical school, off the top of my head MIT is also suing Intel for patent infringement. Any questions kiddies? said:
Its a fact that more than 2 technical school, off the top of my head MIT is also suing Intel for patent infringement. Any questions kiddies?


Yeh, do you understand the difference between "patent infringement", and "stealing"?
a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 10, 2008 4:53:54 PM

keithlm said:
FACT: Anand does a review. Penryn has certain scores.

FACT: Awhile later he does a Nehalem preview. Magically the Penryn has scores that are 17%-20% lower than the previous benchmark. The results should have been identical for the same test on the same chip using the same environment.

No credible explanation.


Um you missed it again. Wow fanboyism does blind you.

Ok I will say it again slowly. The first Q9450 benchmarks were done in a 64Bit Vista enviroment.

Ok now the Nehalem tests were done in a 32Bit Vista enviroment.

Ok now 64Bit gives a 10%-20% boost in scores.

Hmm... lets see if you can get that around your head.

And Bytch.... pls stop. You are an AMD fanboi with an Intel chip that talks trash all the time with no true facts. You will only comment when somone else has made a fact or a statment that AMD is better or that Intel is bad and try to expand on that. Basically you leech off of others posts.

As for facts ok here we go: Fact the Anand tests were on a desktop variant Nehalem vs a Desktop chip, Q9450. Or did Intel decide to have the Q9450 all of the sudden be a server part? This was a preview of the desktop performance not server. It was don 32Bit not 64Bit like the original Penryn was on the Q9450 hence the scores were lower. If you can't get that then you are hopeless.
June 10, 2008 4:54:57 PM

royalcrown said:
Whether or not they are cheating, fact is that Nehalem will probably be faster unless AMD's new chips coming out have their crap together, if it's another barcelona/phenom...they are not gonna beat anyrthing out at the same time.


I have to be careful about fanboy accusations here, as I used AMD chips for seven years before switching back to using an Intel one. In my opinion, Nehalem seems to be the best future chip for the moment, but the question more is, how far in the future are we taking about? As for AMD getting everything together and producing a really great chip again, that's something out of fantasy land. It might happen, but I might strike it rich on the stock market and become a billionaire. Neither seems likely to me. More likely is that AMD will produce a chip that does a fairly good job, but it won't be any world beater. If AMD produces another disaster like the Barcelona/Phenom of last fall, it will be like a bucket of nails for AMD's coffin.
June 10, 2008 4:56:48 PM

yomamafor1 said:
Yeh, do you understand the difference between "patent infringement", and "stealing"?



It's like taking away candy from a baby because it's bad for them... then eating yourself.

VERSUS

Stealing it from them because you want it.
a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 10, 2008 4:58:56 PM

Oh and yomama, they don't realize the difference.

Ok kiddies time for a lesson. Patent stealing is when someone take a product and makes an exact copy of it without a license or permission from the patent holder. Patent Infringement is where two people make similar products or have a product that use similar technologies but one holds a patent. So therefore the other person is infringing on a patent.

Also Intel sued Transmeta for infringing on its patents to. So as you can see Patent infringement happens a lot and its not just Intel that has it happen.
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2008 4:58:58 PM

All of this Nehalem frenzy reminds me of the expectations of the 2900XTX and Barcelona pre-release hype.

There will be tears in the end if it doesn't go well.

In the meantime it looks like the new 45nm Intel chips will have some MBBTF / temperature issues and aren't ramping in volume well.

Probably we will find that these don't last as long as the Conroe cpu's on the 65nm process which seem a lot more voltage tolerant.

I imagine electromigration will be a significant issue in the long run with many of the Penryn's that are overclocked.

Sorry ... I was just joking ... did your blood pressure rise??



June 10, 2008 5:01:58 PM

Reynod said:
All of this Nehalem frenzy reminds me of the expectations of the 2900XTX and Barcelona pre-release hype.

There will be tears in the end if it doesn't go well.

In the meantime it looks like the new 45nm Intel chips will have some MBBTF / temperature issues and aren't ramping in volume well.

Probably we will find that these don't last as long as the Conroe cpu's on the 65nm process which seem a lot more voltage tolerant.

I imagine electromigration will be a significant issue in the long run with many of the Penryn's that are overclocked.

Sorry ... I was just joking ... did your blood pressure rise??


May I also add, the hype of AM2 launch and Conroe were also overwhelming...

However, in Intel's case, there were benchmarks to prove it. In AMD's case, most of them were just.... fanboy hypes.
June 10, 2008 5:02:18 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Um you missed it again. Wow fanboyism does blind you.

Ok I will say it again slowly. The first Q9450 benchmarks were done in a 64Bit Vista enviroment.

Ok now the Nehalem tests were done in a 32Bit Vista enviroment.

Ok now 64Bit gives a 10%-20% boost in scores.

Hmm... lets see if you can get that around your head.



Oh... is that the current excuse?

It's hard to keep up with the excuses... it has changed like 3 or 4 times already.


EDIT: And personally I'll get my news from somewhere that is not as "fair and balanced" as that site has shown itself to be. (or NOT be... that was MORE SARCASM people.)
June 10, 2008 5:03:12 PM

FACT: Anand admitted he copied the wrong numbers from the Penryn test for one benchmark.

FACT: He corrected the information the next day.

FACT: AMD is in the red and better produce something that competes with Intel's lineup outside of the 4+ CPU market soon.

Credible explanation.

Quote:
by Anand Lal Shimpi
Fixed.

That was entirely an error on my part, it wasn't a SP1 or a configuration issue. It was an Excel spreadsheet malfunction :)  I used data from the wrong column (first run data vs. average run data) for Cinebench. Everything else looks to be exactly where it should be but I'll make another run through the spreadsheet to make sure.

I just reran the numbers to confirm and now things make much more sense. Not only are our XCPU scores virtually identical to what they were for the Phenom article, but the single threaded tests make a lot more sense. Furthermore, the scaling from 1 to n-threads makes a lot more sense now too. Penryn gets a 3.56x speedup from multithreading while Nehalem gets a 4.18x speedup - the difference in scaling partially being due to HT.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention and sorry for the mixup.

Take care,
Anand
June 10, 2008 5:04:33 PM

keithlm said:
It's like taking away candy from a baby because it's bad for them... then eating yourself.

VERSUS

Stealing it from them because you want it.


And this comes from a guy who proclaimed to be familiar with the industry... :sarcastic: 

Patent infringement: a product that allegedly used a technology or parts described by a patent. However, this happens often, as patents are often not clearly defined from one another.

Stealing: Go to someone's blog, and copy and paste the idea under your name, without chewing through it.
June 10, 2008 5:08:19 PM

yomamafor1 said:
And this comes from a guy who proclaimed to be familiar with the industry... :sarcastic: 

Patent infringement: a product that allegedly used a technology or parts described by a patent. However, this happens often, as patents are often not clearly defined from one another.

Stealing: Go to someone's blog, and copy and paste the idea under your name, without chewing through it.



Here's another definition for you:

Sarcasm: Not caring about a subject that somebody is trumpeting around on a forum and making complete fun of it.

(And It's even better if they don't actually understand that you're making complete fun of the subject.)
June 10, 2008 5:15:32 PM

How about,

Troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
June 10, 2008 5:20:54 PM

yomamafor1 said:
How about,

Troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument


Luckily your topic of patent infringement wasn't very important to the actual thread or I might have fallen into that category.
June 10, 2008 5:21:16 PM

yomamafor1 said:
How about,

Troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument


I call it the "Attention Whore"

AMD has seriously pissed me off! I know unless a miracle happen's with 45nm phenom's im going Intel next build! Hell all i need is a mobo and cpu.

Ive tried to convince myself that my 6000+ Oced to 3.3-3.4 is not really that much slower than E8400 or equavilant Intel processor but my pipe dream's are running out fast! I need more performance and i need it now!

Heck just a 100mhz Oc on my cpu rasied my 3dmark 06 score almost 500 point's! That tell's me my card is raping my cpu for more more more!!!

Beat and defeated!! I go to rest.
a c 94 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 10, 2008 5:21:45 PM

I'll try to bring this back but I don't have much hope :pt1cable: 

With an 8-way server, 3rd Gen 65nm Opty's and NUMA architecture available today this is a major shot to Intel's server business - 45nm Xeons, socket 771 and FBDIMMs.

Intel's server side is now officially a dead end. I see major price cuts coming from Intel. That's a good thing but you have no upgrade path (that's a bad thing).

An Opty 2360 SE at $1,165 is a direct shot at the Xeon X5482 at $1,370 if we are to believe Anand's benchies.

Until the MP Bloomies roll out Intel is effectively locked out of the server side high-end. A single-socket enterprise motherboard ain't gonna make Intel any money and that looks to be the only possible option through 2008.

And as noted by yomamafor1 a 45nm Shanghai will "pre-frag" Nehalem. I feel certain that Intel will 'returneth the smacketh' but it may well be 12 or more months from now. 8p 4-core Opty's versus 4p 4-core Xeons (with hyperthreading), anyone ???

The Bloomies (from what I've seen) offer 130w TDP. We don't know yet about the Barcys - the only comparison given has been with that of the 125w TDP Phenoms which is not really an accurate gauge (it could go either way).

Competition in the high-end is a good thing. As a long-time MP guy, I think it's great :bounce: 

June 10, 2008 5:25:16 PM

Reynod said:
I imagine electromigration will be a significant issue in the long run with many of the Penryn's that are overclocked.

Sorry ... I was just joking ... did your blood pressure rise??



Unfortunately, and sadly, Penryn has had a few problems when overclocking to high numbers. Intel is trying to address this, but no answers yet that I know of. Anandtech had a short post on it a few weeks ago after they burned out their QX9650 and their Q9300 was on "life support". The exact cause was not clear, but it was enough that I'm keeping my QX9650 substantially lower than the 4.1ghz that I started at.

My doctor already gets after me about high blood pressure. I don't need any more bad news to raise it further.
June 10, 2008 5:28:37 PM

Penryn is more sensitive to higher voltage than Conroe. This is mostly due to people using stupidly high vcores to get their 4GHz+ clock speeds.
a c 172 à CPUs
June 10, 2008 5:29:50 PM

Reynod said:
In the meantime it looks like the new 45nm Intel chips will have some MBBTF / temperature issues and aren't ramping in volume well.


Here in Saudi Arabia, I can find 45 nm parts in all the larger stores. (White boxing is big here. No one but businesses buy branded boxes.) Prices are pretty competitive - about 10% over U.S. prices which is typical for newly introduced parts.
June 10, 2008 5:35:41 PM

I had my Vcore within spec, not stupidly high, but I backed it down to 1.35v for the time being. For the price of the chip, I expected better, but that's not always what you get. I do wish the Q9550 had been out. Would have bought that instead. Oh well, can't change the past.
!