Thursday, March 01, 2007

K8 frags Woodcrest on SpecInt_rate

See this. It seems that the only thing Intel improved on Core 2 is SSE, Intel is still behind AMD on both integer and floating point performance.

K10 will frag Intel quad by 40% for sure.

23 Comments:

Blogger warisshah said...

This is such obvious FUD.

6:29 PM, March 01, 2007  
Blogger LeeCooper said...

That's what I'm talking about. People must realize that Intel is one big piece of shit. They are thiefs.
AMD!, take the crown once and for all.

Sharikou, Ph. D, you were right all the time.

LOL

P.S.

Start to buy AMDs stocks. Now is the time.

6:29 PM, March 01, 2007  
Blogger Giant said...

Poor AMD. They have no quad core processors to sell anyone, not even any benchmarks to show anyone. All they can do is show "simulated" and "estimated" data. Oh, I nearly forgot.. they can denounce Intel for not releasing a "native" quad core part! Poor AMD. Barcelona won't even match Clovertown. Penryn will flatten AMD and Nehalem will finish AMD once and for all.

7:09 PM, March 01, 2007  
Blogger lex said...

leecooper................

What are you a fluffer of Sharikou's
Go ahead sell the house, bet the farm buy AMD stock its a deal at 15 bucks and change. They got a great strategy.

Go compete against INTEL a company that has 4x the number of designers and multiple design teams. Got a chipset team with a long track record of delivering platforms.

Yup bet on the company that has never been in a more dire position financially or competitively. WHile INTEL has never looked stronger. Are you really that stupid to think there is easier money in AMD then there is in a host of other stocks and Markets.. then you are truely a retard.

Go read the Anandtech review and learn something that the Pretender can't..

AMD is finished

7:17 PM, March 01, 2007  
Blogger enumae said...

The average score for Intel in CINT was 47.3, while the average for AMD is 44.1. Intel on average is 7% faster.

Looking at CFP, AMD's average was 45.5, while Intel was 43. AMD on average is 6% faster.

7:20 PM, March 01, 2007  
Blogger LeeCooper said...

=) You are just to silly.

You can't even imagine who is behind the AMD. You think that they will surrender just like that.
Guys you are just spellbounded by Intel. We are living in Intels world. All you see is Intel. This is wrong, and you support Intel???

I just can't believe how much stupid people are there.

LOL

7:32 PM, March 01, 2007  
Blogger LeeCooper said...

=)
"lex said...
leecooper................
What are you a fluffer of Sharikou's".

Good humour.

Change the job, go on the stage like Seinfield. Maybe you will earn so many cars like he.

Sharikou, Ph. D is a good man. He needs help, to fight against Intel. He is loosing his nerves. I'm here to support him.

I know that you can't understand that.

3 things:

- or you are couple of kids that don't understand nothing

- or you are just to stupid to comprehend

- or you are Intels mercenary


"dlačica"

LOL

8:03 PM, March 01, 2007  
Blogger Scientia from AMDZone said...

AMD's latest estimate is that Opteron will beat Xeon in Integer by 10%. This is well short of 40%.

11:52 PM, March 01, 2007  
Blogger Core2Dude said...


AMD's latest estimate is that Opteron will beat Xeon in Integer by 10%. This is well short of 40%.


I will believe it when I see it. Enough of these estimates. Just show the silicon, already!! For God's sake, they are 3 months away from the launch, and still can't produce real benchmarks?

Also, is this 10% per clock, or is it in general? Penryn has a bigger cache, and that can give its IPC a small (3-5%?) boost. Also, it will be at a much higher clock. I simply don't think a 2.5 GHz processor will be able to generally outperform a 3GHz Penryn by 10%.

Note that, Core 2 improved on Core only by about 10% per clock. And then, Intel upped the clock quite a bit. If K8 to K10 transition is of the same magnitude, then K10 will outperform K8 by 10%, maybe 20%. So per clock, it will be either equivalent to, or about 10% better than Core 2. But then, Core 2 will have a clock advantage of 15 to 20%.

The bottom line is, I will kind of pay attention to AMD's claims when then post some benchmarks, and believe them when independent reviewers verify those benchmarks.

10:44 AM, March 02, 2007  
Blogger Jeach! said...

Start to buy AMDs stocks. Now is the time

It may be cheaper now, but the right time was at $4 (if you remember).

If someone (and I'm sure there are), bought AMD stock at $4 and sold off at around $40 is laughing all the way to the bank :)

I know a guy who bought $1M of Nortel at like $0.60/share and sold off in the $6/share area.

WHile INTEL has never looked stronger.

Hey lex, didn't I see you in the Enron blog making the same exact comments?

AMD is finished

I've heard this back in 1995 when AMD was prevented from using Intel micro architecture and surprised Intel by buying NexGEN and coming up with a competitor in record time.

I've heard this when AMD was at 180nm - supposedly 1 year behind Intel in manufacturing technology.

I've heard this with the K5, K6 and K7!

I've heard it all those times and in between. But look what happened!

AMD cough up, from lagging. Became credible and respected from not. Became profitable from bleeding money. Put on much capacity from the day they were borrowing FABs.

But hey, you said it so it must be true?

11:29 AM, March 02, 2007  
Blogger Giant said...

Note that, Core 2 improved on Core only by about 10% per clock

More than that my friend. Core Duo was a little behind K8 on the desktop, per clock. Now Core 2 Duo is about 20% faster than K8 per clock. This is how a Core 2 Duo E6300 can compete with an AMD 4200+ and in some cases a 4600+ despite a significant clockspeed disadvantage.

P.S. AMD complained about Intel using false benchmarks, then went ahead and did it themselves: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=438

5:13 PM, March 02, 2007  
Blogger Azary Omega said...

Giant said...
Core Duo was a little behind K8 on the desktop, per clock. Now Core 2 Duo is about 20% faster than K8 per clock. This is how a Core 2 Duo E6300 can compete with an AMD 4200+ and in some cases a 4600+ despite a significant clockspeed disadvantage.


Actually you're wrong. Core2Duo E6300 can only compete with X2 3800+. You made wrong assumption about C2D capabilities probably basing your knowledge on benchmarks made on 32bit winXP. That OS is no longer a top standard, nor is it being sold with new computers made by major PC suppliers (DELL, HP, SONY). Windows Vista64 is what people buy with their PC's, and in 64 bit environment C2D can only keep its pipeline filled at 80% (in 32bit it can dispatch 4 instructions + 1 branch. in 64bit it can do just 4 instructions)

Here's article comparing E6700 at 2.66GHz with X2 6000+ at 3.0GHz under Vista64: LINK
Note: X2 6000+ has ~12% clock advantage over E6600, yet it can stand up to it just fine. Less expansive to btw.

5:45 PM, March 02, 2007  
Blogger Giant said...

Sorry. No one uses 64bit Windows. The total number would be far below 5% of Windows users. It's 32bit for the foreseeable future. Unless you can prove otherwise? No one wants to buy an OS that will not work popular gadgets like iPods, or new games like C&C 3. XP 32bit and Vista 32bit is all that will be used for the foreseeable future.

The 6000+ is slower than the E6700 despite having a 333mhz clockspeed advantage. It matches performance with the E6600 2.4Ghz part. The problem is that the E6600 uses about half the power and costs $300 vs. $450 for the 6000+!

6:41 PM, March 02, 2007  
Blogger lex said...

Where are the Barcelona benchmarks. I continue to hear claims and carefully crafted words like "speculate" Its clear the AMD executives are careful in their boast to avoid saying anythign that will be construed as miss representation. That is a far cry from what INTEL was saying about Core 2 months before it was annouched.

If Barcelona is ready for Q2 launch then production is in the fab. That means all bugs are fixed and engineering samples of final product in final form must be here, but why no benchmarks? I'll tell you why.. they aren't that great. 40% on a selective benchmark but say only 20% on overall above Core2 would be a disaster.

INTEL has 45nm Penrym that will have a few design tweeks and even more cache.. It'll offer at least 20% speed up then you add 45nm on top of that. INTEL will have 4 of them meg monster on line in 2008 all warmed up for Nehalem. Is that the Tick Tock I hear of AMDs life slowing withering away.

Sure AMD had a big one and shot their load. To bad they can't compete against INTEL. They simply don't have enough design resources, not enough money to invest in the required silicon R&D and manufacturing. They simply don't have some secret sauce making them superior to INTEL engineers. Now that 2/3 of the INTEL design team is aligned with the right architecture they will have doulbe the cadence of AMD. Coupled with the silicon monster AMD/IBM are simply overmatched...

7:30 PM, March 02, 2007  
Blogger Azary Omega said...

Giant said...
Sorry. No one uses 64bit Windows. The total number would be far below 5% of Windows users. It's 32bit for the foreseeable future. Unless you can prove otherwise? No one wants to buy an OS that will not work popular gadgets like iPods, or new games like C&C 3. XP 32bit and Vista 32bit is all that will be used for the foreseeable future.


Last time I've been to local Best Buy they only had one PC with windows XP, all other had Vista. I've counted 3 with Vista32 and 14 with Vista64. Sorry sir but your perceptions are outdated. But thats ok, you go ahead and fight this fight, try to prove the world that 64 OS's are not the reality. People will just laugh at you, i mean what will you run with 2GB RAM? Do you think you can take advantage of mid-to-high range video cards when you got 2GB on your system? Even people who worship Core2Duo will send you far far away with that Vista32 - who would build top performing system using only 2GB of RAM?

I tell you this, the other day I've tried running Dark Messiah game on GeForce 8800GTS , E6600 system - it used ~ 1.9GB on winXP at 1600x1200 resolution, and thats 32bit XP, a fairly light on system memory OS.

Sir, please don't spread FUD about 64bit OS's being not as good as 32bit once - this is IT blog, people aren't IT-dumb here. Thank you.

8:05 PM, March 02, 2007  
Blogger Giant said...

What are you talking about? 2GB of ram is standard in all high-end systems now. 1GB is lower end systems. Dell, HP etc still sell systems with 512mb of ram.

Hardware sites still use 2GB ram with high end cards: http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1061&pageID=31

But I guess all these hardware site are wrong. After all, what do they know? They only test all this new stuff. If they thought more than 2GB of ram was needed then don't you think they would use more than 2GB?

The adoption of 64bit versions of XP and Vista is still very low. Higher in servers maybe, but certainly not in desktop and mobile.

AMD is fragged. Barcelona is too little too late. http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/competitive_guide.pdf

E6600 is Intel's fifth fastest desktop CPU and it still frags ALL of AMD's CPUs.

AMD won't even make until the end of the year. They will keep posting losses and run out of money. They will not be able to go to 45nm. They have no money to do that.

12:46 AM, March 03, 2007  
Blogger Jarrad said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:51 AM, March 03, 2007  
Blogger Randy Allen said...

This is excellent. http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/competitive_guide.pdf Clear proof that AMD is so far behind that it will never catch up. Clovertown is so advanced it has prefragged all AMD's upcoming processors.

12:55 AM, March 03, 2007  
Blogger Poke said...

AMD is finished... with the improvements from high-k dielectrics and Penryn's high clock speeds, Barcelona doesn't stand a chance.

AMD BK Q2'08

3:51 AM, March 03, 2007  
Blogger mork said...

"Azary Omega said...
Last time I've been to local Best Buy they only had one PC with windows XP, all other had Vista. I've counted 3 with Vista32 and 14 with Vista64. Sorry sir but your perceptions are outdated. But thats ok, you go ahead and fight this fight, try to prove the world that 64 OS's are not the reality. People will just laugh at you, i mean what will you run with 2GB RAM? Do you think you can take advantage of mid-to-high range video cards when you got 2GB on your system? Even people who worship Core2Duo will send you far far away with that Vista32 - who would build top performing system using only 2GB of RAM?"

As usual your are Fudding and spreading outright lies. Here is the only link needed to prove you wrong: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2

Vista Adoption is no more then 1% at the moment. Even Balldy Ballmer (CEO of MSShite) is complaining of the slow adoption rate.

"Azary Omega said...
I tell you this, the other day I've tried running Dark Messiah game on GeForce 8800GTS , E6600 system - it used ~ 1.9GB on winXP at 1600x1200 resolution, and thats 32bit XP, a fairly light on system memory OS."

I believe your Fudding again. NVnews tested the game with allmost the same hardware, cpu being the only diffrence. http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/evga_geforce_8800_gts_320mb/page_5.shtml

The game has several stabilty and hardware issues that requires several patches.

"Azary Omega said...
Sir, please don't spread FUD about 64bit OS's being not as good as 32bit once - this is IT blog, people aren't IT-dumb here. Thank you."

He´s not Fudding sire, you are. Please provide a valid link to bolster your claim of 64bit superiority in sales? Windows Xp 32bit is still the dominant OS and will remain so for atleast 1,5 year, or until MSShite actually validets more applications.
Ive provided a solid link above on Vista adaption, please prove me and gaint wrong.

5:08 AM, March 03, 2007  
Blogger Poke said...

"Azary Omega said...
Last time I've been to local Best Buy they only had one PC with windows XP, all other had Vista. I've counted 3 with Vista32 and 14 with Vista64. Sorry sir but your perceptions are outdated. But thats ok, you go ahead and fight this fight, try to prove the world that 64 OS's are not the reality. People will just laugh at you, i mean what will you run with 2GB RAM? Do you think you can take advantage of mid-to-high range video cards when you got 2GB on your system? Even people who worship Core2Duo will send you far far away with that Vista32 - who would build top performing system using only 2GB of RAM?"

As usual your are Fudding and spreading outright lies. Here is the only link needed to prove you wrong: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2

Vista Adoption is no more then 1% at the moment. Even Balldy Ballmer (CEO of MSShite) is complaining of the slow adoption rate.

"Azary Omega said...
I tell you this, the other day I've tried running Dark Messiah game on GeForce 8800GTS , E6600 system - it used ~ 1.9GB on winXP at 1600x1200 resolution, and thats 32bit XP, a fairly light on system memory OS."

I believe your Fudding again. NVnews tested the game with allmost the same hardware, cpu being the only diffrence. http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/evga_geforce_8800_gts_320mb/page_5.shtml

The game has several stabilty and hardware issues that requires several patches.

"Azary Omega said...
Sir, please don't spread FUD about 64bit OS's being not as good as 32bit once - this is IT blog, people aren't IT-dumb here. Thank you."

He´s not Fudding sire, you are. Please provide a valid link to bolster your claim of 64bit superiority in sales? Windows Xp 32bit is still the dominant OS and will remain so for atleast 1,5 year, or until MSShite actually validets more applications.
Ive provided a solid link above on Vista adaption, please prove me and gaint wrong.


I agree, Azary Omega is full of ****.

12:44 PM, March 03, 2007  
Blogger _ nj said...

To all those who believe the Vista adoption rate is "1%."

Pure and simple thought experiment:
What do you think Tier 1's are shipping new machines with:
- XP?
- Vista?
- Linux?

By sheer weight of unit ship, Vista, as DRM cursed and feature deprived as it may be, will become the defacto standard.

So how will AMD and Intel perform in this market reality?

Don't hand me this 32 bit Vista stuff.. anyone who buys a new machine with 32 bit Vista on it will be making a mistake. People like that will prolly buy a single core too.

I can remember the same outcry when the 486 came out - "Who needs it?", "386 is fine!", "386 has plenty of juice for whatever you need to do, 486 is ovekill!" etc, etc.
As usual, all the naysayers went the way of the horse and buggy*.
Unit ship overwhelmance is and will continue to be, inevitable.

As the AMD architecture is in its element in 64 bit computing, as more and more Vista 64 inevitably ships, should it not get better and better for AMD?

*'Cept they were right about the Itanic. :-)
_nj_

9:01 PM, March 03, 2007  
Blogger Jeach! said...

If they thought more than 2GB of ram was needed then don't you think they would use more than 2GB?

Are you THAT naive? They sell PC's to grand-ma and grand-pa with 512MB of RAM, knowingly well that isn't even remotely enough. The reason they do it is to have that low price tag attached to it.

If they are lucky, they will make another sale... this time a RAM upgrade!

PC vendors shouldn't even be shipping with less than 1 GB for low-end (Sempron) and no less than 2GB for any other type of PC's.

I can't believe you said a comment like that!

mork, you are purposely ignoring his point. He didn't say Vista is dominant NOW! And everyone pretty much understand that (but you). Besides, your little site is bogus because in the OS adoption department, Windows VISTA wasn't even listed.

He is completely right when he says that Vista is the only OS being shipped. What distribution is 32-bit vs. 64-bit, I don't know.

10:44 PM, March 03, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home