Without HKMG we see this
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/15927
http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=6455
http://forums.overclockers.com.au/ [...] ostcount=1
http://i4memory.com/f56/amd-austin [...] ide-11713/
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/836/1/
And last, and probably least ( Poor FUaD) http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php? [...] 4&Itemid=1

Now, all this is being done without HKMG. As its been previously hyped, adding this will add another 400Mhz to its speeds while reducing power consumption tremendously, as has been shown by various members here. Ill let them show us all again, if they so wish. This could really turn things around for AMD!!!!!

So it has high clocks... who cares! what about benchmarks? How well will it preform in x264? Core i7 blows everything away at the moment.

if a 4.4ghz phenom can out preform a 3.2ghz i7, thats great...

Not very impressive though :|

Now, that was a good title, jaydeen!

Why not? Speed kills right? Really, who knows, but theres potential coming from AMD we havnt seen in awhile, and theyre getting closer, and HKMG may close the gap completely

already seen it. Not talking server and BW by the way. DT only here, since obviously thats where AMD aimed this time around

^^ read above. Intels aimed at server this round, and by the looks of the ocing and clocks, DT for AMD

Like this? http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/vmmark/vmmark_ibm4.pdf

The server part isnt even out yet, and wont be for how long? Denebs right around the ciorner, and its where and what Im talking about

Of course, then again, I was a one of few that dared to possibly think a 4Ghz Phenom may be possible too. Then again, add the costs, lots of considerations, not just buy this, it has bigger numbers. Performance is king, and maybe i7 will beat Shanghai, I dont doubt it will. But in these times, at what price? And what continuing costs?

Good answer jimmy, and ty

As I've said before, I'll wait and see. This could be a return to something like the Athlon64 to P4 days. Or it could be a flop like the Phenom I with the TLB issues (amongst other issues). However I said it once, and I'll say it again I WANT REAL WORLD, not synthetic benchmarks! I could care less about 1-2% more FPS in a 30sec stretch of game set on a loop. What about encoding, or Decoding? Floating Point? And most importantly WHAT TOOK SO LONG!

I'm not sure about anyone else here but I already knew what it was going to do. I read a lot about it because it is a big change. The transistor has been the same for the longest time, this shook it up.

I knew it would allow for 20% better switching performance (not overall performance that could have been less or mroe) while also using 20% less power.

The clocks would have been hard to descern from that but they turned out pretty on the spot, about 20% higher than a equivalent 65nm no HK/MG CPU in OCing and power consumption.

Im trying to somewhat figure this all out for gpus as well as cpus. TSMC will eventually use it, at 28nm, which is about 35% of current space used at 65nm, minus the power consumption, meaning somewhat higher clocks, at those nodes, who knows?

Not sure with AMD. I ahven't seen much from IBM or what materials they plan to use, if its Hafnium it may be just as good as Intels. That and the quality of it may not be as good since they are rushing the design of HK/MG out while Intel has been working on this for quite a long time.

And yes its 20% less power draw. In fact if you look at a QZ9650 when its idle the CPU itself only uses less than 10w of power compared to a equivalent QX6850 that uses more closely to 20w of power idle.

Maybe for AMD we will see that. but we have to see what IBM gives us on the info of it. Intel released all this info back in about June of 07. So hopefully IBM will have the info.

Then again I still hear rumor that AMD is going to wait till 32nm to release HK/MG.

It doesn't matter. Intel will still slap them around like the second banana they are.

Unfortunately, we have been misinformed by those whore misinformed, and told us this could never happen in the first place. Now that its happened, whats the next tact? Insults, Acts of supposed superiority? This wasnt sposed to happen, remember? This couldnt happen at all. I remember, and I remember who was making those mistatements, are may still be doing so. Why cant you just let it go? I guess some people arent happy that their next Intel cpu will most likely be cheaper because of things like this.

You mean? You cant possibly mean THAT? NO, not THAT. Ohhhh noeeeesssss, just like we NEED HKMG on 45nm, not THAT too? All is lost.... cmon, get off it

Didnt I mention a certain degree of superiority? Youre trying to show it now. Id suggest you read my links first. See whats changed here. And then, somehow be happy about it, as the vast majority of poeple hearing and seeing this is. Cause its here, may as well enjoy it

So youre thoughts are more tailored to lower power than higher clocks. have you read this? http://www.eetimes.eu/semi/showArt [...] table=true

And say, after the HKMG implementation, youre still saying theyd stay at present clocks, and just reap the power savings?

Ummm this post is a response to my other previous post, where it would seem eithe HKMG is a great thing, or its dog meat, it just depends on whos using it I guess heheh

Will HKMG make AMD superior to what? Everyone knows your chips beat the competition's 2-year-old offering, which is good if you just want to sell everything at bargain-basement. I'm asking what you think will be the relative timing of 45nm-HKMG for AMD and 32nm (HKMG) for Intel, especially as AMD just tweaked 45nm heavily for non-HKMG. Everyone seems to forget timing. It's the basis of premiums that let you secure your next round of R&D.

I, too, saw a lot of naysaying about 45nm for AMD, but the naysayers probably did not see the implications of not making any changes to the core. Holding the architecture very steady means that you can put maximum effort into improving your process. Combined with the general opinion that 65nm was AMD's flop, the substantial gains seen at 45nm should be expected, and are necessary to stay in the running. That 15-20% overall performance improvement (7-10% cache, 7-10% clocks) some were predicting over Barcelona would have seen them exiting the race.

You mentioned that i7 was aimed at servers, not desktops. That is only by circumstance. By catching up to AMD on the uncore (IMC, QPI, caching), the whole socket had to be changed, which makes recent upgrades expensive. Were the rest of the platform cost excluded - e.g., for long-term upgrades - the i7 would be extremely competitive on DT. It is visibly faster than Penryn or K10, more power efficient, and safer to overclock. As a downside, it is much more complex and appears to overclock a bit lower than the Penryns, but not by enough to drag overall performance down.

So, and someone who REALLY knows correct me here, that this may or may not directly translate over to the chip of a healthy 12% gain at same power usage in speeds, or if not total gain, a nice portion of those speeds without more power.

So, in essense, we may see a 3.4Ghz Deneb using HKMG at 125 TDP

And possibly this round, their ocing will win out as well. So far, its looking like it, as from what Im hearing a i7 did 5.7, but didnt actually get into windows, while a Deneb hit 6.3 . And this is all on pre release chips, and the AM3s are said to go a lil faster yet, then of course, theres the matter of HKMG, and what thatll bring. I understand the physical limitations, but others claimed they knew them as well, and without HKMG, at these lower nodes, clocks like these would be unattainable.

What I find most compelling here is, AMDs channels are already stouter, if you will, than Intels, adding gate first HKMG is going to create some very nice power savings while adding to overall speeds

Huh? No, just exciting times ahead, when all I thought was coming was i7, and its so so performance in gaming and from what it looks like now, oceeing may not be as good as we thought it was, or Denebs looking alot better for it

jdj, but like core i7 is already out, and the performance for gaming, well I'm, not 100% how much better it is then the yorkfield's at comparative clockspeeds are [i'd assume not much, but I haven't really paid attention]. But the I7 already look pretty solid and if you don't mind spending ~$200 for some DDR3 6GB kits[ about ~$110 for DDR3 3GB kit's], or even the $220 for the MSi platinum x58 motherboard [up to $400 for the most "extreme"], I don't really see any point in which AMD can catch up. I'm not saying it can't happen, b/c I would like nothing better than to build an AMD high powered rig, but it just doesn't seem likely.

As much as Thunderman seems crazy to us all, I think his motives are understandable...

AMD should be about innovation and not stagnating the market w/ slightly higher clocked phenoms, like Intel was doing w/ the old net burst's. God where is the old AMD that was every enthusiasts friend, w/ their beautiful K8's... I really do miss the old AMD.

But anyways if I were to build a new system today that core i7 920 w/ the asus P6T x58 seems like a real nice combination.