K8L demoed
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 11/30/2006 11:50:00 AM
Journal of Pervasive 64 bit Computing
Main Blog Page
Site Feed:
sharikou.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Blog Roll
Hot pages
sharikou.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Blog Roll
Hot pages
- Price War Strategic Analysis
- AMD and Intel Performance
- Intel's false performance claims
- AMD's Architecture Lead Persists
- AMD and Intel Performance
- AMD and Intel Architecture
- Bensley/Woodcrest and Athlon MP
- Bensley/Woodcrest is 2P only
- 64bit CORE Performance!
- Conroe Busted
- Capacity: AMD vs Intel
- Conroe's Impact
- AMD and Intel in China
- A Beautiful Picture!
- Temperature and System Reliability
- Google and AMD
- AMD's Grand Masters
- Intel's Predicament
- AMD and Dell
- NGMA Core and Colwell 6th Gen Arch
- AMD and Intel History
- The Tale of Intel and Anand
Analysis on IT trends and competitive strategies, with emphasis on micro processors, computer systems and networks. Based on latest news, backed up with real data, this site intends to provide a true and realtime picture of the fast changing IT landscape. This journal strives to be accurate on facts and sharp on criticisms. You may email your opinion to sharikou@yahoo.com or post comments here, be cool and intelligent.
About Me
- Name: Sharikou, Ph. D.
Freelance journalist on IT matters. Some of my writings have been published on online IT journals. Any original content on this journal is Copyrighted, but it's free for non-commercial use. Any Trademarks used on this site belong to their respective owners. Some of the pictures are links. If there is any issue with the content of this site, please email sharikou@yahoo.com .
Previous Posts
- Thailand decides their kids need no computers
- AMD eating Intel's notebook market share
- AMD should bump its single core CPU clock
- AMD the saviour
- How to analyse the Intel vs AMD competitive situation
- Intel Clovertown quad fragged by Opteron dual
- Hector and the one
- Turion 64 for high class people
- Constitutionality of $750 price tag for a song
- Intel graphics not good for kids games
45 Comments:
There's actual silion that was recently released. Called Quad FX. Tell us about that:)
Where are those 200%+ performance increases compared to C2?
Alsop why did they say "simulations"? Don't they have real HW to benchmark on?
Couple of interesting things:
Going from 2 core/old architecture to 4 core/new architecture gives only 70% Int performance (simulated) and 40% FP performance (simulated)?
Shouldn't dual core to quad core alone (throwing out architecture) changes yield a more substantial improvement? What happened to AMD's core scalability?
Are these parts underclocked to meet thermal/power requirements?
Also noone seems to take notice the mid-2007 is SERVER only. I wouldn't bet on seeing a desktop chip until 2007 best case. Looks like upper end AMD desktop is done until late 2007 (best case)
Sniff....sniff...I smelll Vapor...
Sharikou, on Nov 4th, you wrote the following:
"AMD 4x4 ready to frag Kentsfield with scalable architecture
Four 3GHZ cores+ four GPUs, AMD 4x4 will frag Kentsfield, which is just like two CPUs glued onto a slower bus. With Kentsfield, 4 cores share a 1033MHZ bus, each getting 266MHZ. We know this story ends in tears from 4P Xeon performance.
That's not all. By 2Q07, 4x4 owners will get an upgrade with the Rev H (aka, K8L) true quad. Then you have 8 Rev H cores, thermal managed independently. It will take Intel another 5 years to catch up, and AMD is a moving target.
Intel managed to squeeze the last bit of performance out of Bob Colwell's Pentium 3 microarchitecture, they simply ran out of brain juice in this game of innovation at the platform level. As I pointed out long time ago, communications is the key to high performance modern computing. AMD's core-core, core-memory, core-i/o, proc-proc communications are all Direct. Intel has only managed to establish core-core communication using shared cache at dual core level, it's about 5 years behind AMD.
...
Of course, there is another possibility with Torrenza, instead of running OCR in software, we can have a Torrenza OCR chip, which does the most time consuming algorithms in hardware..."
I am a multiple AMD PC owner since 1998 (K6-2 days), so don't consider me an Intel fanboy -- AMD's done the job since, and I still believe in them to this day. Intel's fine too, these are the PCs here at work.
At any rate, your journal entry above was/is quite off, really. Putting it lightly, you make all these extreme "frag" statements without really knowing the real conclusion.
4x4 performance is OK, but the drawbacks such as high noise & power consumption are certainly disappointing, to say the least.
I believe "4x4+" will change things, but that's a while away:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36017
Assuming that the inq is correct, 4x4+ will really the only way to get REAL blazing performance of the 8 core future setup w/ HT 3.0. I guess I will hold out until then.
sorry sharikou,
This is a hearbreaker!
http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36050
rofl, graphs shows 40% to 70% performance increase from current AMD offerings.
Intel is currently doing that to AMD NOW!
oh..it just keeps getting worst...
Don't they have real HW to benchmark on?
Obviously not.
where the hell is the demo? This is just an AMD guy who is promising stuff.. Nothing more dude..
At least Intel showed actual demos for Conroe and woodcrest. Sorry man, you are just out of argument and out of luck..
BTW, Kentsfield mops up the floor with the 4x4.. Did you see the benchmarks referred to by your buddies a the INQ
Sharikou, you're definitely welcome to write anything and everything - but still, given that [disappointing] 4x4 benchmarks/reviews were out today, and instead you link the K8L demo, your AMD-biased side becomes highly apparent ... in an attempt to stay hush-hush about 4x4. You may not know it, but you're all about marketing, too.
The problem with your "64-bit pervasive computing" blog is that you will never accept/acknowledge the other side of the coin, and that is Intel. Again, by all means, write what you want, but if you expect to be respected, acknowledge the two horse race, and acknowledge that AMD can't win 100% across the board all the time. It's the nature of the industry - both Intel and AMD have talent, and they will swap #1 positions for the years to come. Engineering is never one-sided; competing companies will always find a way to innovate.
Me, I'm mainly AMD, but the work PCs are Intel - both do the job, and for the most part, I'm just interested on the software side of things; I'm a mechanical engineer.
In addition, MCM package or not, the average consumer doesn't really care. If I talk about "multi-core on a single die"
to non-geek relatives and friends, they really go to sleep and just say "uh-huh, yeahhh". Point being, the masses won't care what's inside the box, as long as it's quiet, fast and reasonably priced - and this time around, Intel is where it's at.
You can try to argue that 4x4 is the way to go for 8 core future proofing, but what happens when 4x4+ (w/ hyper tranport 3.0) comes around? Then you have a ~$300 board that won't fully utilize the upcoming native quads ... in addition to having "obsolete" FX70s by then. With the current version of 4x4, lose-lose situation for future proofing, if you ask me.
Finally, if indeed you feel like adding that phd credential all the time, do us all a favor and show us what happens inside the "black box" of these CPUs - whether it's calculus, differential equations, systems science and math, and all that other "higher education" jazz. Show us what a phd is all about. Because really, most of your blog content can be written with a bachelor's.
IT journalist? My ass. THis blog hasn't shown one shred of journalistic integrity so how can I take the claim that you're an IT Journalist seriously. Further evidence ... Sharikou links to AMD web pages to back up his arguments. Not exactly an unbiased source.
Uhhhgggg. Thanks for posting that SHarikou. I smell vapor launch. I think it might be time to sell my 500 AMD shares and pick up some INTC. This is NOT good news. AMD needs K8L NOW!!!
The 4x4 setup is very nice for megatasking, but oh god the power consumption. They need to cut about 200 watts off of that.
Onto the Bankruptcy. Is that during the 2nd quarter or the end?
Demo????
Demo???
It's a friggin' animation.
All we've seen so far is some animations and a wafer. WTF?
4x4 is a dog according to the latest benchmarks. It gets it's but whooped by a Core Duo let alone a QX chip.
And the power? Thru the roof.
KL8 (K-Late!) will be hit by the train that is the Xeon MP quad-core (Tigerton) that has already been demoed by Intel. Individual links to memory controller(s) should take care of that bottleneck.
Oh, and if you need memory that's attached to another processor? Oh, wait that's AMD's design where you need to go to another processor to get memory.
Quad Quad Cores. Now that's a real 4x4!
Anonymous said...
Sniff....sniff...I smelll Vapor...
This is worse that Vaporware. This is FARTWARE. It stinks....
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIzMywxMiwsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q=
Real World Quad FX Speed & Agility
Our real world testing today disproves my preconceptions entirely, and shows that in quite a few cases, the FX-74 is as fast, or even faster than the QX6700. We ran the numbers over and over again, and the FX-74 simply has the horsepower to compete with the QX6700 in the most CPU intensive applications. When the systems are completely maxed out and you’re running rendering, encoding, or multi-media applications, the difference between the two CPU’s is quite minimal, usually between 1 and 3 percent.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the benchmarks don't lie. QFX def kicks serious ass and holds its own agenst Intels best. And costs less then QX6700 right now by as much as $500. Newegg offers a QX6700 at $1500. The FX74's are only $999 a pair, besides why not get some FX70's for $599 and OC them to 3ghz eh?
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609,00.html?redir=CPPR01
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~114483,00.html
Anónimo dijo...
where the hell is the demo? This is just an AMD guy who is promising stuff.. Nothing more dude..
At least Intel showed actual demos for Conroe and woodcrest. Sorry man, you are just out of argument and out of luck..
BTW, Kentsfield mops up the floor with the 4x4.. Did you see the benchmarks referred to by your buddies a the INQ
2:46 PM, November 30, 2006
werent intel promising the same and you all called "REAL" to it?
so now AMD spits it, and now AMD is
demoing, its VAPORWARE NOW?
chezz..
Roborat, its nowhere near those numbers. Its maybe 20% maxed in some benchmarks, C2D wins, C2D is superior, but C2D is not the god chip, and doesnt do 50% more than a K8.
The 4X4 frags the intel chip by almost 2x. 510W vs 240W. Intel will surely go By 2008.
sorry sharikou,
This is a hearbreaker!
http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36050
How is that a heartbreaker? If anything that is good news for AMD. To quote from the article: "Test scores reveal that Quad FX manages to achieve equal performance to Core 2 Extreme QX6700 in SiSoft Sandra 2007 and PCMark05"
AMD dual core gets beat by Intel's dual core by 10% - 30% in those same tests according to this link. The fact that when you stack two of those same chips together you see the 2 AMD chips performing significantly better proportionally to the single quad core Intel is very good for AMD. The price point is also comparable: 1k for 2 top end AMD chips, the same as for the 1 top end Intel chip. That means a very competitive option from both companies.
But that also means that when K8L comes with the new architecture and 2xquad core (giving its own boost of 40-70% per core) AMD will flat out trounce Intel in performance by a very clean and decisive margin. We know whats in the the works for AMD, does Intel have anything in the works to deal with it? I gut feeling is no - if they try to make their own dual CPU device like 4x4 the FSB just won't hack it. We know another new architecture (possibly involving their high speed interconnect) is in the works but that isn't supposed to be until 2008 at the earliest.
where the hell is the demo? This is just an AMD guy who is promising stuff.. Nothing more dude..
Not only that, but the sad part is that he also just says the same stuff we already knew. Waste of 3:00 if I've ever seen one...
Techreport.com has a good review of QuadFX which shows it can be competitive depending on application used. However the main problem is the high power consumption, noise and overall price to get equal to Kentsfield in just some applications.
Xbitlabs also show an interesting graph where finally Kentsfield runs out of steam when running 5 applications, however enthusiasts tend not to run that many, they run one or two more quickly !
So in summary AMD will still be strong in the server market but for the high end desktop Intel is still gaining the benefit of it's new architecture and AMD will not until it arrives mid 2007. I wish it was sooner.
Bandwidth, 65nm and QuadFX are now shown to be just straws to grab hold of until the real deal turns up in K8L.
"Intel BK by 2Q08."
You had said 7 months 7 months ago.
Now you are again changing your prediction?
Now what will you say in 2Q08? 4Q 3010?
With 4x4, I think for the first time in a good few years, AMD has its backers doubting if they are backing the right horse.
AMD is back to playing catch up with Intel.
Bachelors?
I doubt Sharikou has ANY degree, let alone a PHD or bachelors.
However, posessing a degree is hardly any indication of intelligence. Most of the innovators in the world weren't bound by institutional thinking, which made them the sucesses they are. (Granted, many HAVE also, in spite of their academic background).
---
So we get back to the K8L - what a disappointment. AMD just can't work their mojo these days. They're investing too much into the K8L when, it's generally agreed, that K8L won't appeal to the consumer (unless it's price is so low that it can be afforded by most common people).
I wholeheartedly wanted K8L to blow Kentsfield out of the water, but it doesn't. All that R&D invested in making multicore processors better hasn't paid off. This just isn't AMD's year.
Most of you don't getQuadFX.It lost most of the simplistic benchmarks but it got decent reviews because it is the only enthusiast platform that:
-upgrades to 8 cores
-4 pcix graphic card slots with appropriate thermal spacing for SLI
-12 internal SATA ports
On the thermal side, yes, it requires an extra 125 watts, but given the baddest ass GPU cards can suck 250 watts and over 350 watts for a quad config, who cares? Maybe those who drive a Prius, I guess.
"Money that would be better spent on processor development, process technology, and capacity expansion."
You should say this to Intel, whose legal & marketing money percentage is way higher than AMD.
"+ AMD does not have K8L/Barcelona silicon working well enough that they are comfortable showing it or generating performance data with it."
AMD actually demoed the box to a bunch of Industry Analysts. Unfortuantely and apparently you aren't one of them.
You call 70% performance improvement lack of scalability? Do you know what benchmarks they used to make such comment? Do you know anything about integer performance at all? I'm sure your doctorship, if any, has nothing to do with computer science (or you're just humiliating your school & advisor).
"+AMD has effectively ceded leadership of the desktop space for at least 1 year."
Oh I don't know C2D has been out for at least 1 year... ??Which planet did you exactly inhabit? Doesn't seem like earth to me....
"+AMD needs to grow its mobile business and hang onto high-end servers, because their desktop business has been commodotized and will not generate margins."
AMD's desktop has always been commoditized and generate much fewer margin than Intel. They only did better in 2005, 2.5 years into K8, after they filed the lawsuit against Intel, something you deemed a waste. Apparently you have very wrong/contradicted ideas about business, too.
Why do you spend make such a long bullshit analysis to embarass your own phd-ship? Your higher education looks little to me just because of this. All those critics against Sharikou suddenly seem proper on you...
"They're investing too much into the K8L when, it's generally agreed, that K8L won't appeal to the consumer (unless it's price is so low that it can be afforded by most common people)."
When does AMD market K8L to "consumers"? It's always been marketed as a server chip. Now, how good a consumer process it will make, when AMD cuts it down to dual-core, is another question.
Got this link from AMDZone...
AMD Demos Native Quad-Core Processor
It amazes me to see so much ignorance coming out here from Intel fanbois minds. Vapor launch?
"Most of you don't getQuadFX.It lost most of the simplistic benchmarks but it got decent reviews because it is the only enthusiast platform that:
-upgrades to 8 cores
-4 pcix graphic card slots with appropriate thermal spacing for SLI
-12 internal SATA ports "
If you are enthusiast:
- You do not need 12 SATA ports (you would build a NAS box to have that much HD capacity). Unless of course you need >6Terabytes instantly available?
- You will not upgrade to 8 cores while losing some of the capability on those future quad core chips... it is pin compatible but the MOBO/chipset will not be fully compatible with all of the chip features in the future - AMD themselves have stated that.
Enjoy your 4x4 by all means, but it is not "future prrof" and not any better/cheaper than an Intel Kenstfield system when you factor in cooling needs, bigger power supply, bugger power bill.
And if you do like to OC, then the Kenstfield is a much better chip.
I found a good use for this 4x4: use it for winter.. It can also be used to cook!
"If you are enthusiast:
- You do not need 12 SATA ports (you would build a NAS box to have that much HD capacity). Unless of course you need >6Terabytes instantly available?"
He WILL need this many SATA ports if he is a megatasking user. You haven't heard of RAID, have you?
"- it is pin compatible but the MOBO/chipset will not be fully compatible with all of the chip features in the future - AMD themselves have stated that."
AMD stated nothing like that, which is another FUD from Intel believers. The mobo and chipset are fully compatible. You don't have the ability to use DDR3, that's it.
But honestly, say he invested on 4GB DDR2 memory today; will he trash them for DDR3 just because quadcores are available?
I see you have a very silly type of "enthusiast" in mind.
Yo PhD pretender.. you have been quiet for a while.
What no commentary about AMD's new product 4x4. Tell us about the power numbers, tell us about the performance of that great 4x4 competing with Kentfield please! Please use your higher intellect!
K8L demo'd how come it was demoed as a x16? how come not as a native 4 core ? I find that very very curious. How come now benchmarks. Pss.. I know why.. any guess from you AMD fanboys?
The PHD pretender please tell us! Why as a 16 way and not as a native 4 way and why no benchmarks please???
Lots of FUD no Meat!!
Where is the count down to our trip to BK for some burgers and fries?
They demonstrated it.... running task manager! Nothing else! Wowee, isn't that awesome? Intel showed off Tigerton, which is also due next year, back in October. However, Intel actually Showed Tigerton running some stuff, not just task manager: http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/11099
This would suggest to me that K8L is not as ready as AMD hoped for. If it were capable of running some applications to show how well it runs... then why wouldn't they have done so?
"You call 70% performance improvement lack of scalability? Do you know what benchmarks they used to make such comment? Do you know anything about integer performance at all?"
Edward - you do realize that all of this was SIMULATED and there was no actual performance demonstration other than showing task manager with 16 CPU util shots, right? They didn't even show CPU speed!
And no I'm not impressed 70% scaling (and only 40% in FP) with 2 core --> 4 core AND old architecture to new architecture both happening. Haven't folks on this board said they expect >80% scaling going from 1 socket -> 2 socket (or 2 to 4).
I find it interesting that within the processor going 2 core to 4 core (AND again "revolutionary" new architecture) only nets 70 (or 40% FP)%...
If this data holds are you better off going dual core 2P to dual core 4P server instead of going dual to quad core within a 2P server? And then just eating it on the power consumption and extra memory, just like the 4x4 solution?
I also find it interesting that certain people screamed BS! when Intel did their own demo (with actual applications running) of Core 2 and now those folks are more then happy to believe SIMULATED numbers with no actual demonstration behind it (biased or unbiased)...As said with previous product demos - we may actually want to wait for some real demos.
THE REAL STORY ABOUT KL8
Due to the fact that the Opteron team left AMD, the KL8 has gone through several redesigns.
AMD is struggling to make a chip that works as well as the Opteron, whose design is now 10 years old.
Rumor has it that KL8 will not work in existing motherboards due to incompatibilities in how HT is implemented. But without the newer HT in KL8, the quad-core processor does not work well with another quad-core.
Meanwhile, Intel is shipping quad-core Xeons that work just fine and have been shown to work in existing systems for the past 6 months.
Maybe the FSB is old and ancient. But it is reliable and mature, something that cannot be said about AMD's HyperTransport.
Overall, AMD is now 1 year behind Intel in quad-core and falling further behind every day. Once Intel gets their Churchill embedded microcore designs going, then AMD will be in big trouble. Imagine 4 main cores surrounded by 32 microcores. This microcore architecture is going to make mincemeat of AMD.
"They demonstrated it.... running task manager!"
Hey task manager is a heavy megatasking applictaion (doesn't it show all CPU's running?!?!) - much better than all those "fake" benchmarks people use. They really should put 4x4 on it and see how it does as well!
I prefer my data SIMULATED! (much easier for me to remain in my state of denial) And while I'm in that state; I'm also going to assume that Intel will make absolutely 0 improvements to the Core2 architecture - it's clear from the OC'ing reports that the architecture has 0 headroom for incremental speed improvements. In fact as the 65nm process further matures and 45nm starts coming online the speed may actually get worse as we all know Intel's manufacturing capabilities are complete crap! I mean it's not lilke they're already sampling 45nm chips as AMD's 65nm is just starting to ship.
And now it's time for me to get back to planet earth....
There's just so much BS here.
Here's the real deal with the new sockets/processors.
A new socket was originally planned to cater for HT3 (will support PCI-E v2 properly) and DDR3. That was AM3.
DDR3 official specs have been delayed, so there is an interim solution supporting PCI-E v2 with HT3 and running DDR2.
With this hybrid socket design, you can use new quadcores on current Socket AM2 and Socket 1207 with PCI-E v1, maintaining your current equipment, and having investment protection. The new QuadCore's HT3 will run in HT1 mode.
This is like when you bought an AGP8x graphics card and slotted it into an AGP4x slot. Was there a compromise? Yes vs running in full AGP8x mode, but it was a comfortable compromise without losing too much performance.
Or you can get the new quadcores into newer Socket AM2+/1207+ socket motherboards which will support HT3 and PCI-E v2.
This is like if you changed your motherboard and graphics card at the same time to support AGP8x.
What's the Intel approach? The same. You also need to get a new motherboard for PCI-E v2.
So why all this outcry?
"Oh yeah, I read the reports of the demo too."
No, you didn't read the report, or you wouldn't have said the demo is "powerpoint marketing presentation."
You were simply wrong. You just don't have the gut to admit it.
"Comapred to scaling of X2 to 2P X2 servers, it's not as impressive as I expected. But you're right- they could be underhyping performance."
So you really think 70% int performance improvement is underhyping? Then you really know nothing about the current art of computer science and architecture.
"I'll ignore the personal jabs- it's the sign you don't have much useful to input. Computer science no- but as you've demonstrated previously here, I've forgotten more about process and device technology than you've demonstrated proficiency in..."
Apparently you can't ignore it - then don't pretend you will. And, I don't know/care how much you've forgotten on any topic else; just wanna tell you that your "analyses" on 4x4 were wrong and rediculous. That's the point here.
edward said:
You should say this to Intel, whose legal & marketing money percentage is way higher than AMD.
THe major difference being that Intel HAS the money to spend on legal and marketing and still develop some kick ass processors. AMD on the other hand can do only one thing at a time because of lack of funds and low profitability (on the razors edge of losses).
edward wrote incoherently:
Why do you spend make such a long bullshit analysis to embarass your own phd-ship? Your higher education looks little to me just because of this. All those critics against Sharikou suddenly seem proper on you...
I think you might want to take a weekend and bone-up on English. You grammar and spelling are atrocious.
"just wanna tell you that your "analyses" on 4x4 were wrong and rediculous. That's the point here."
Oops... I meant to say K8L...
AMD's quad core should see performance increases of about 70% INT and 40% FP over current 2220SE as published in Spec.org (zoom in on the presentation).
I found the best SPECint_rate2000 score, then used the same system for SPECfp_rate2000.
Before you say anything about the selections keep in mind AMD is far behind Intel on integer performance and that is why I focus on integer, floating point is in AMD's hands already, they will only stretch the lead there, and as I am sure the Dr will point out, the Sun Microsystems is faster but is running Solaris 10 (and does not show a SPECint_rate2000 score), not Windows Server 32bit.
Hewlett-Packard Company ProLiant DL385 G2 (AMD Opteron (TM) 2220SE)
Hewlett-Packard Company ProLiant DL385 G2 (AMD Opteron (TM) 2220SE)
------------------------------
SPECint_rate2000
------------------------------
SPECint_rate2000 = 90.4
90.4 * 1.70 = 153.68 is the projected score for SPECint_rate2000 in 2P with 8 cores.
Now compare this to...
IBM System X 3500 (2.67 GHz Xeon X5355, 8MB L2 Cache)
SPECint_rate2000 = 197
153.68 * 100 / 197
AMD has about 78% of the performance of Intels 2P quad core in SPECint_rate2000.
------------------------------
SPECfp_rate2000
------------------------------
SPECfp_rate2000 = 80.1
80.1 * 1.4 = 112.14 is the projected score for SPECfp_rate2000 in 2P with 8 cores.
Now compare this to...
IBM System X 3500 (2.67 GHz Xeon X5355, 8MB L2 Cache)
SPECint_rate2000 = 101
101 * 100 / 112.14
Intel has about 90% of the performance of AMD's 2P quad core in SPECfp_rate2000.
What this tells me is it doesn't matter who you are for, Intel or AMD, they will both have advantages over the other, but as it looks now the performance of AMD's quad core is a little dissapointing.
The main thing to keep in mind is that AMD's presentation is talking about 2P, not 4P or above, also we do not have any idea about clockspeed, these may be quite low as to be able to fit in the same power envelope, but at the same time the 2220SE 2.8GHz part has a TDP of 119W.
AMD will likely still have the scalabilty advantage over Tigerton (4P and up), but in 2P it will be going against the 45nm shrink of Woodcrest a few months after launch (supposedly). As many of you have read the clockspeed increases for 45nm will be significant, and most likely give Intel the ability to surpass AMD's future advantage in floating point.
As it stands it would seem AMD is in trouble, and that sucks for consumers, Intel will be able to raise prices and if you want the best performance you are going to have to pay for it.
Question for Edward:
If AMD solely went from 2 cores to 4 cores on the K8 architecture, what performance would you expect from just this change?
Now throw in the architecture change, and yes a 40% FP is nice bu tthis underwhelming considering both the increased core count and the hype on K8L.
I'm not saying the quad core K8l will not be a good product, but between the doubling of the # of cores and the architecture change I was expecting at least 2X (100% better than)the old generation (and 1/2 the core count)
If we were talking about a dual core K8l, than yes these #'s would be VERY good.
"This is like if you changed your motherboard and graphics card at the same time to support AGP8x."
I think the "outcry" (if you can call it that) - is AMD fans are/were purporting to buy this future-proof / upgradeable 4x4 system and just drop in two quads for 8x4. Not too long ago there was this theory of buying chips one at a time, mixing processor speeds until the 1207 news came out.
If you are truly planning to go 8x4, why would you not wait until that launch and buy a socket which took advantage of the new chips' capabilities?
I think the point is 4x4 is a temporary band-aid and folks are better off waiting until the inevitable bugs get ironed out and get a board that takes advantage of all of the new chip's capabilities - after all this is targeted at "megataskers" anyway and aren't those the folks that want to take advantage of all the new features?
Post a Comment
<< Home