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.
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 .
Intel PC costs $860, AMD costs $780.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 6/23/2007 09:53:00 PM
132 Comments:
Sharikou
Still waiting...
Can you point me to an AMD dual-redundancy fault-tolerant server?
You should not put the temperature differences in percentages because the "0" level of temperature is either ill-defined (think °C against °F) or too far to give a significant number (think K).
It is well defined to give percentages of differences of increase above room temperature, though, but this increase is not given in the paper.
Nothing new then, since losing the performance crown AMD have always been good value at the low end.
While the intel PC used 61% more power at idle than AMD, the AMD still uses more power when the PC is under load. How efficient the AMD PC is, all comes down to usage, if the pc is idle for 2/3 of the time then the AMD PC is only 15% more efficient.
Not sure how you worked out that the AMD PC is 85% faster in Far Cry. The AMD PC managed 10FPS while the Intel PC managed 5.4 FPS. Considering that Far Cry was released 3 years ago neither system could be considered capable of been used for games.
Shouldn't the name of the article be "Nvidia IGPs are faster than Intel IGPs"?
That's all the article proves. Everyone knows that C2D frags AMD's junkyard processors. AMD losing market share, market cap and $$$ every day. Intel worth 140bn vs 7.5bn for AMD. Even Nvidia is worth nearly double what AMD is. Pathetic.
AMD BK Q2'08.
@Randy Allen: you must be a real retard !
My C2D E6300 oc. to 2.97 GHz draws at full load about 232W and my other system X2 6000+ (3 GHz) draws about 194W... On idle C2D draws about 120W and X2 draws about 67W. Intel sucks! Intel guys must be blind > drink more carrot drinks, use a blender to take full advantage of the vitamins !!!
Rathor
My C2D E6300 oc. to 2.97 GHz draws at full load about 232W...
What voltage is your CPU (stock)?
What voltage is your NB (stock)?
What voltage is your RAM (stock)?
Are both systems equal (RAM, Video, Hard drives)?
Better yet, please provide system specs.
Power consumption from a reliable source, covering a wide range of CPUs:
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/core2-qx6800/index.x?pg=13
AMD totally fragged.
AMD BK Q2'08.
This comment has been removed by the author.
c2d >
cpu: 1.375v
nb: 1.3v
ram: 2.1v
system1 (c2d) about the same with system2 (x2)...
AMD totally fragged? You must be kiddin', Tech Report is not a reliable source. What I'm telling you about is real fact not lab BS.
More Penryn benchmarks in:
http://www.winbeta.org/comments.php?shownews=7983
Wolfdale dual core 2.66Ghz vs. Conroe 2.66Ghz in SuperPi = 14.15 compared to 19.18.
In SuperPi the Wolfdale system was 27% faster at the same frequency.
Oh really now. So is Tech Report a paid Intel pumper now?
More results, this time from Anandtech:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%20athlon%2064%20x2%206000_02200730241/14072.png
You should not put the temperature differences in percentages because the "0" level of temperature is either ill-defined (think °C against °F) or too far to give a significant number (think K).
Actually, the proper measure is using ambient temperature as the base -- which will make AMD look even more superior. But Intelers are too dumb to understand...
Rathor
system1 (c2d) about the same with system2 (x2)...
Please post system specs.
-------------------------------
Sharikou
Still waiting...
Can you point me to an AMD dual-redundancy fault-tolerant server?
This comment has been removed by the author.
oneexpert
You should look at what you found a little closer...
Key Features
The NEC Express5800/340Hb utilizes blade server architecture by separating processing/memory and I/O onto separate modules and features hot-swappable functionality. The highly expandable mid-range server features a 10U rack- optimized form factor that comes standard with 4 Xeon MP 2.8GHz, 2GB memory, 2 x 18GB HDD and Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition.
Additional Features include:
* 99.999% uptime rating provides constant availability
* 4 Xeon MP 2.8GHz, 8 logical with Hyperthreading technology
* 2GB - 12GB max logical memory
* Fully hot swappable CPU and I/O modules
* Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition
* Remote Management Software to maximize IT management efficiency
-------------------------------
Still waiting...
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Clovertown 2P frags Barcelona 4P by 30%. Penryn extends that to 70% at the minimum. (27% IPC boost [more with SSE4] plus clockspeed gains)
AMD uses way more power than Intel:-
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/core2-qx6800/index.x?pg=13
AMD totally fragged. AMD down to below 20% market share. When this quarter is through AMD will be down to just 14%. They will lose another $600m or so in cash as well. 7.5bn of value to shareholders vs. 140bn for Intel.
AMD is finished.
AMD BK Q2'08.
oneexpert
If I find one will you buy it or are you just sightseeing... Avoid the question at all cost...
The fact remains, I can not find an AMD fault tolerant server and you are avoiding the point.
If AMD is so reliable in the Server space, why is it so hard to find an AMD fault tolerant server?
------------------------
The post was a jab at Sharikou's ridiculous claims that Intel is crap.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
@enumae:
has redundancy-plus, and all the fault-tolerance you'll ever need.
Will that be cash, check or charge for you today, sir?
the dude
Sorry, but its not a "dual-redundancy fault-tolerant server".
---------------------------------
oneexpert
By the way, you only need a fault tolerant server if your equipment is prone to produce faults.
LMAO!!!
I know all you want to do is get the focus away from AMD's lack of product offerings in fault-tolerant servers, but have fun looking and I will be here when you find one...
Sharikou calling Intelers dumb, when he:
1.) Lies about his education.
2.) Claims Intel will be BK in 2008.
3.) Why did it take you OVER a month to find that review?
4.) Why don't you do an apples to apples comparison, last I checked both systems were using different video cards.
5.) AMD SENT THESE SYSTEMS TO THEM FOR REVIEW. AMD IS NOT A SOURCE FOR NON-BIASED REVIEWS. Why the FUCK is it OK for you to use AMD's supplied test situations, but totally wrong for Intel to do it???
So in otherwords, you didn't compare similar systems, you compared to totally dissimilar boxes to feed your own bruised ego.
And who is the idiot that posted Cray systems?
Cray are the same poor bastards that can't ship products because Barcelona has been delayed again and took a massive stock hit due to it.
Great job!
1. Barcelona at 1.6GZH is more than enough to kick the fastest Intel Xeon ass..
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1612&Itemid=1
2. Intel has thrown their hat in with a 3GHz 2S quad Xeon setup with 16GB of memory and they get 4933 PPS. AMD's Barcelona 16 core is just over 4000, and they are at over 4900 for Xeon 2S quads. So how is Intel getting so much performance out of 8 cores, and more than AMD's 16 core? Over twice the performance is what it looks like.
Tech Report show the quad core Intel QX6800 losing to a 4 total core FX74 setup here in Povray using the chess benchmark, and just beating the FX74 in the built in benchmark.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/core2-qx6800/index.x?pg=9
How that translates to the current Xeon doing twice as much performance either has to be tied to the amount of memory used, or the benchmark setup itself. Clearly the current Xeon should not perform more than twice as good as the current Opteron in Povray.
http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=7794
3. Why would AMD go fabless anyway when it has Dresden up-to-date and even has an investment in New York State?
By the way, you only need a fault tolerant server if your equipment is prone to produce faults
You sir, are a total fucking moron.
3. Why would AMD go fabless anyway when it has Dresden up-to-date and even has an investment in New York State?
Maybe because they are billions of dollars in the hole?
Hey Doctor, you forgot the other half of Desktop: GPU.
This where AMD is 50% less performace, at higher cost.
Pezal Said:
1. Barcelona at 1.6GZH is more than enough to kick the fastest Intel Xeon ass..
Um I don't see ANY benches for that system at that link...
But since you are quoting fudzilla: "Barcelona K10 comes in late Q3 in best case scenario while the real availability is expected in early Q4. "
Go figure an AMD fanboi spreading FUD.
Since Intel chips are so crappy, you'd think people would stop buying them and AMD would gain market share. I guess the entire world has gone crazy!
Interesting article
Enjoy...
Every day the same intel pumpers. Its like sharikou has you all queued up, chomping at the bit. Are you guys on the intel payroll?
Sharikou although alot of what you say is hilarious its great to see a) your unbridled spirit, b) how you have these rabid intel nuts completely addicted to your blog.
Every day the same AMD Sharikou pumpers. Its like sharikou has you all queued up, chomping at the bit. Are you guys on the AMD payroll?
Sharikou although alot of what you say is hilarious its great to see a) your fucking damaged brain b) idiotic Intel BK comments c) how you have these rabid AMD nuts completely addicted to your blog and your useless rambling
This review cannot be trusted. SilentPCReview are clearly paid AMD pumpers.
AMD BK Q2'08.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sun is stuck waiting for Barcelona:- http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,133403-c,systems/article.html
It's a good thing they added Xeon servers to their product lineup. Sun knows that Intel can deliver a consistent supply of however many quad core server CPUs they need.
AMD is unreliable as a business partner; Cray and Sun are learning this the hard way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
lol oneexpert, i have exectaly one word for you -> errata
lets see what you can do with this one word.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Erratum that were FIXED with microcode.
You know, the same FUCKING way AMD fixes erratum?
Nah, its perfectly fine for AMD to fix erratum with microcode updates, but not for Intel?
What a bunch of freaking whiney fanbois.
Hey oneexpert here is a list of 169 bugs in AMD Opteron & Athlon64 processors (note that this is from AMD's own site, so you will lose your rabid foaming at the mouth fanboy credentials if you accuse AMD of being paid Intel pumpers): http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/25759.pdf
So if Intel should be prosecuted for 1 bug, should AMD be executed for 169? Or will you make up some excuse that an error in an AMD chip is somehow not 'real' while the same bug in an Intel chip is?
to be fair chuckula, intel also has 106 bugs in the C2D errata, and amd fixed a lot of the 169 bugs, in the Athlons, with the x2s
Anyways both sides have bugs in their silicon, and most of this bugs are very, very very unlikely to happen under normal usage patterns.
But as usually theing makes much ado about nothing...
I totally agree that Intel & AMD both have errata in their processors, with the complexity of a modern CPU design it is nearly impossible to make a design that will have no errata.
However, calling out one side and saying that having a simple errata is some kind of 'intentional' crime is unfortunately the level of intelligence that gets pushed around here. How much you want to bet Sharikou recycles oneexpert's post (and adds some extra non-factual invective) in the next 48 hours?
actually, i would be disappointed if sharikou doesnt recycles this fud. ;)
it would take out a lot of fun of this blog. :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/936357/en-us
well i dont see here anything mentioned that this update is critical, only theinq says it ist...
also most of the bigger mobo vendors allready had integrated this fix in their bios updates months ago...
as said the inq make a mountain out of a molehill... but belive what you want, better also sue amd cause they also have unfixed bugs that might crash your system...
oneexpert
Enumae now how fault tolerant is your intel server???????
Still can't find one huh?
Sun is stuck waiting for Barcelona:- http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,133403-c,systems/article.html
It's a good thing they added Xeon servers to their product lineup. Sun knows that Intel can deliver a consistent supply of however many quad core server CPUs they need.
AMD is unreliable as a business partner; Cray and Sun are learning this the hard way.
Amazing how you skipped over the quote that Sun feels Barcelona will be the fastest chip this year and that Sun has ONE customer that needs 131,000 chips.
They wanted to announce the Constellation at ISCC and ship to the customer quickly.
It doesn't say they are late, it says they hope they get them on time.
Get your facts straight.
It's coming boys....But maybe not for all.
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/
main/archives/2007/06/
amds_phenom_qua.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
oneexpert
Avoiding the issue will not change anything... :)
Hey oneexpert, thanks for those completely made-up power numbers, I'll trust real websites that use real watt meters measuring overall power consumption to give actual numbers though.
By the way.... I thought you just got done screaming about how all core2 CPUs have major errors and don't work... so how the hell were you even using one to browse this website, shouldn't you not even be able to boot up? And for that matter, it is well known that this site is hosted on an Intel box, so how is it physically possible for you to even post anything since the box must be going down every 30 seconds right?
There is a more likely scenario: You don't own a core 2 CPU, and you are just lying. In fact, if you don't think I'm serious you can prove it to me: We'll setup a deal where you can ship me your entire system with that nasty awful core 2 duo, and I'll ship you one of those nice super-efficient AMD systems you keep carping on about. Now, Anandtech just ran an article showing that the new "super efficient" AMD chips actually use more power than a (faster) low-end core 2 duo, but hey Anand must be a pumper who only runs 'unrealistic' benchmarks like ya know... office apps, videos, games, actual programs, etc.
So back to my offer: You ship me your entire core2 e6600 system (and no taking a hammer to it or sabotage, I'm not as stupid as Sharikou is) and I will personally buy you a new Athlon X2 BE-2350 system, that in your fantasy world must be at least 10x faster. Think about it, I'm saving you from the evil Intel monopoly! You should be on your knees thanking me for delivering you!
I don't think this deal will go down, not because I'm not prepared to do it, but because you are a dishonest fanboy who just makes things up and does not have the courage to stand by the ridiculous drivel you spout. Everyone else who reads this blog can be my witness.
Here are some power figures for a 4200+ when it runs...107 watts idle...125 watts to surf this blog....151 watts when both cores running but not a reliable system just a power sucking system.
Only Intel nakes energy saving cpus and platforms. LGA775 E6600 Conroe 33 watts to surf this blog ....93 watts both cores loaded....44 watts idle.
lol nice one giant. lmao.
This comment has been removed by the author.
At least there's good news for the Intel product.. they have fixed a bug "I knew there was something lurking that caused Core 2 pauses"
A opcode patch from MS
"Shouldn't the name of the article be "Nvidia IGPs are faster than Intel IGPs"? "
Yup...
Hey Onexepert, thanks for your non-informative FUD, but I will make sure to remember that the next time Tom's Hardware has anything positive to say about an Intel CPU that you just called them 'accurate' in this story, especially where the exact same Tom's article says Intel chips are faster. I also like how using an Nvidia chipset for an AMD CPU is now 'non-standard', most amusing.
Now back to my offer you worthless liar, send my your 'evil' core 2 system! I want to save you from the Intel Monopoly! Since the evil Intel system uses so much power you'll save all the shipping costs in 5 minutes of electric usage from your power bill!
Or are you just a liar? I have a feeling the answer is the latter.
P.S. --> If you really are so good, I want to see you put up your own blog with full photographic evidence of your e6600 running 'hot & slow'. I want photos of the actual wall-power meter running with the ACTUAL e6600 machine in the same photo. I want to see full photos of the interior of both the e6600 system and your magical 4800 that uses 0 power. I want what we like to call 'evidence', or do only pumper fansites like Anand post actual evidence? Since your evil e6600 system is obviously incapable of uploading photos to a website, you can use your Athlon to do it. I'll use your 4th grade retard logic to assume that if you don't have them posted today, that all Athlon's are completely incapable of handling digital photos. That should be the type of reasoning you can understand.
I hate to break-in between the WATT pissing contest, however, didn’t anyone read the article posted by tech4life “interesting article”. As I recall all four of the server experts make mention of the AMD power savings.
If you don’t have a watt meter. Watts = amps x volts
http://www.cio.com/article/115401/What_the_Chip_War_Means_for_Your_Data_Center/1
Note: Most ups give you watt measurement in software that I use to measure what is plugged into it. At home I use the APC 1000 that works well.
Toshiba just switched from Intel to AMD for many reasons. I suspect battery life and graphics were major reasons for the switch.
Intel’s next generation architecture will be more watts competitive and will compete handily with cool & quit.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Standard? Nvidia has the largest market share for chipsets on AMD motherboards. That makes it the standard. Intel's own chipsets have the largest market share for Intel based motherboards and are thefore the standard for Intel systems.
The Anandtech results are completely fair and correct in every respect.
r
"Toshiba just switched from Intel to AMD for many reasons"
Wrong. It didn't switch.
oneexpert
"Everybody but the fanboys know that nvidia mother board chip sets consume more power than AMD/ATI chipsets."
True. 680 series chipset itself can consume around 50W, much much more than the standard Intel chipsets. What chipsets do your PCs use?
"High performance is nice but protecting the future of this world is better."
One way to do it is not to change CPUs often. Get one and use it until it breaks. Changing to a CPU that takes half the power is rather pointless as manufacturing that die took way more power that change is ever going to save.
actually, oneexpert, when you plug in your wattmeter your a measuring only the apparent power...
Alright oneexpert, before you say that Nvidia chipsets should never be used for AMD systems in reviews, go to the very top of this page, and read the article that 'dear leader' Sharikou posted for you. Here's the interesting part:
nVidia GeForce 6150 LE
That's the chipset that AMD CHOSE FOR ITS OWN TEST SYSTEMS!!. So you are not only a liar, you are also one arrogant SOB to think that you know more about AMD chips than AMD itself does. Furthermore, you are now stuck in a logical paradox: You just said that Nvidia chips are terrible for AMD platforms, but using an Nvidia chipset the AMD system looks better.... This is the part on the cheesy '60's version of Star Trek where the monotone computer starts saying 'Does Not Compute' and spews out smoke before it dies.
As for saving power, I think saving power is great (although it'd be a hell of a lot better to have a 500w machine powered by a nuclear power plant than a 100w machine powered by coal or imported oil, but that is a rant for another blog). That AMD system that I'm still prepared to buy you in exchange for your mythical e6600 is definitely faster and more power efficient than my old P4 I'm stuck with, but when it comes to laptop sales where power really matters, Intel is still dominant (Toshiba is getting a great deal on AMD chips, but it has not abandoned Intel).
At the high(er) end, that e6600 you trash on is usually in the neighborhood of a 6000+ in terms of performance, sometimes it's faster, sometimes the 6000+ is faster. However, even you can't fabricate numbers showing that the 6000+ uses less power than a 6600 does (or you can but even most AMD fanboys won't believe you). There's a reason you don't hear about air-overclocked AMD's at 3.8 Ghz, it's because the 6000+ is already overclocked by AMD at the factory and there ain't anymore room left, and the power consumption is on par with the POS Prescott that Intel was pushing just 2 years ago.
If these benchmarks are to be believed this could be a big deal for AMD\ATI. Notice they are using the new Catalyst 7.6 drivers. Capturing the graphics card mainstream would certainly help their financial situation.
Interesting numbers there tech4life. Why didn't they include an 8600 GTS in the tests though? The GTS is, after all, Nvidia's flagship mid-range video card.
Why is there no 8600GTS? Remember Slide 23. AMD spins and BS. Those results could be based on perf/mm squared for all we know.
This comment has been removed by the author.
oneexpert said...
I guess you cant scale those intel c2ds.
I fully agree. Abinstein has already demonstrated that the Intel FSB is a huge limiting factor in the scaling performance of Intel processors. It is widely acknowledged that the real world performance of Intel processors does not live up to the benchmarks. Industry leaders all choose AMD.
Hey oneexpert, nice comment that has nothing to do with your sorry post history. So I really don't care about supercomputers (and BTW AMD can cleanup there all it wants, there is practically 0 profit in doing so).
What I care about is desktops. When the hell are you going to start saving the environment by shipping out your e6600 to me so I can buy you that AMD you're pining for? If you really did like AMD you'd take me up on my offer. Or is it that you are secretly an Intel fanboy since you spend most of your time playing those 'worthless' video games and AMD just doesn't compete? Ship me the e6600 and we can prove that a 2.1Ghz Athlon is 10x faster than an evil 3.4 Ghz Penryn!!
oneexpert more like notexpert
http://news.com.com/Which+supercomputers+rule/2100-1010_3-6193475.html
Just over half--52 percent--of the systems use Intel's x86 chips, up from 45.6 percent, while AMD's share shrunk from a 22.6 percent share to 21.2 percent.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tick Tock Tick Tock
What's love got to do with it????
Ah oneexpert... thank you for quoting Tom's Hardware, now I can get you to call them a paid Intel pumper in the exact same thread where you earlier complimented them. From the conclusion to the (very AMD friendly) review of the x2 6000+ which in your delusional state think uses less power than an e6600:
From a technology standpoint, the new model clearly is an improvement, although it reminds us of Intel, trying to squeeze as much clock speed as possible out of an aging architecture. It seems to me as if both AMD and Intel eventually follow similar strategies: build a micro architecture first and squeeze its clock speed potential until the next generation is ready.
Apparently AMD is copying Intel, I though Sharikou said that was unpossible!
From a performance standpoint, the new Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is no match for Intel Core 2 Duo processors from the E6700 up. However, it is still worth consideration, because AMD is very well aware of its performance handicap and adjusted the stepping as well as its processor pricing accordingly. At $459, the 6000+ is the most affordable Athlon 64 top model we've seen yet, and it is capable of playing in the league with a Core 2 Duo E6600.
In other words, Tom's Hardware agrees with my (non-fanboy) estimate that a 6000+ is roughly equivalent to an e6600, while still costing more than an e6600. (You see oneexpert, this is called 'consistency' where I don't have to lobotomize myself between each post in order to ignore the glaring contradictions and logical traps in previous inane rants)
If this is your version of 'fragging' a high-end Intel chip, then why don't we change the deal. I guess 'fragging' must mean the Athlon is slower and uses more power... now I understand your argument!
You send me that e6600 which you claim to know so much about (apparently without ever having owned one or ever having used one, but still magically knowing exactly how much power it uses). I'll send buy you a 'classic' Athlon XP instead. I mean, the Athlon X2's are so powerful that they might fall into the wrong hands right? Why take that risk, when an old Athlon XP (we'll underclock it to 1 Ghz) will obviously pre-frag a quad-core Intel chip in your world.
Industry leaders all choose AMD.
Someone disagrees with you:-
Just over half--52 percent--of the systems use Intel's x86 chips, up from 45.6 percent, while AMD's share shrunk from a 22.6 percent share to 21.2 percent.
I love the AMD results from the linked powerpoint presentation. They compare to an 8800 GTS without specifying whether it's a 320MB or 640MB. It was probably a 320MB model. Everyone knows that the 320MB model just does not have enough ram to play at 1920x1200 or anything higher with acceptable framerates with all the details at maximum. When it runs out of ram the performance just plummets. For 1680x1050 and below it's a great solution, but for higher the 640MB is much better.
There's also the fact that none of those tests were run with Anti Aliasing or Anisotropic Filtering. Who buys a high end video card and doesn't enable this 'eyencandy'?
We can't blame AMD for not including an 8600 GTS in those results, since they are from a 3rd party.
According to Nvidia, the differences between the 8600 GT and GTS are all in the clockspeed:
GT: Core clock: 540Mhz, Shader Clock: 1190Mhz, Memory Clock: 700Mhz
GTS: Core clock: 675Mhz, Shader Clock: 1450Mhz, Memory Clock: 1000Mhz
Barcelona comes in September or October:- http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1659&Itemid=1
HD2400XT review:- http://www.hartware.de/review_720_1.html
The review is in German but it's easy enough to understand. Here's the conclusion, translated by Babelfish:
For playing the ATI Radeon hp 2400 XT is only conditionally suitable. In the case of a dissolution of 1280x1024 it offers only rarely playable picture repeating rates and drops back often even behind the GeForce 6600 GT Mainstream Grafikkarte betagte in the meantime. Principal reason for it is only the 64bit broad memory interface. To positively emphasize the price quite low with 60 to 70 euro, the small current consumption is inclusive of structure width only 65nm as well as the High definition due to the chip manufacturing with video abilities the expenditure for sound over DVI and/or HDMI adapter. Together with the Low profiles building method the ATI Radeon hp 2400 XT thereby is well suitable for (compact) home cinema PCS, at which only little is to be played and if for it the integrated Main board diagram is not sufficient. However one should consider oneself to equip the ATI Radeon hp 2400 XT with a passive radiator since the exhaust used with our test model of PowerColor is not the quietest.
Overall it seems to perform ok for an entry level card. Certainly not designed for high end gaming though.
tech4life
"If these benchmarks are to be believed this could be a big deal for AMD\ATI"
I wonder why didn't they compare against 8800GTS. After all it has over 50% more shader performance and over 40% more memory bandwidth than 8800GT.
I'd say if those benchmarks are to be believed then NVidia doesn't have to worry about having faster performing products.
oneexpert
"a quote from toms review."
Can I quote other things from tom too? You know, all that stuff that was supposed to be biased.
In exact numbers the GTS has a 25% higher clockspeed over the GT, 21% faster stream processors and has 42% more memory bandwidth.
Whoops, I made a mistake in the shader power calculation. Giant has the right numbers.
Anyway, even though 2600XT has more memory bandwidth than 8600GTS it still looses to it
The main problem with the 2600 is that it has only 4 ROPS: A clear bottleneck (The 8600 has 8). The Inquirer reports that the 2600 XT will be priced below $150.
The cheapest 8600 GTS on Newegg is $165 with a $15 mail in rebate. I'd expect Nvidia to cut prices to match those set by Ati.
ATI really has a big hole in their sortiment between the 150$-300$ price range.
hope they release something to fill this spots, maybe a 2700.
The problem is that they have nothing to fill it with. Unless they release a cut down 2900.
Nvidia did exactly that: took the 8800gts, cut half the ram off and dropped the price to $300.
Randy Allen said...
"Barcelona comes in September or October:- "
AMD claims it’s taken longer because of extra features they are turning on. Supposedly K10 will be extreme green with advancements in virtualization. AMD also claims it will not be a paper launch like Cloverton, could be all hype. AMD is so desperate for a success they will say anything to get the world to wait. I would too.
Hopefully this will shut the AMD fanboi's up.
Linus had this to say: http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=80552&threadid=80534&roomid=2
This comment has been removed by the author.
If the intelbois can read this with understanding to maybe meditate a little on what is taking place in the background w/the other fabs in Tawain starting to prep for the launch of a release not a paper release. My opinion is it will be a great product. If it wasn't for AMD you would be paying huge prices for below par cpus.Like before the K6-2 from AMD. Here's the scoop for all non believers...
The latest!!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/
20070628/tc_pcworld/133551;_ylt
=Ar0ut7KhCD6vCRyS4BTHQ_oE1vAI
I suspect there is more to this article then is being said & more to the CPU too.
Better link!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20070628/
tc_pcworld/133551
only amd
Why on earth did you make me go through this utterly un-informative interview. What does it say that AMD has not ranted before?
Some things that we know for sure: Clovertown at 3GHz is more than 2x faster than Barcelona at 1.6 GHz (per AMD's own demo). AMD won't be releasing more than 2.2GHz Barcelona this year. And last, but not least, Penryn at 3.2GHz is 10% to 45% faster than Clovertown at 3 GHz. To sum it all up, AMD will be slaughtered like there is no tomorrw!!
To core2dude
I say again if not for AMD you couldn't afford to buy a cpu or have the advanced technology you have now with both companies vying for the top spot. Great article huh? Their going to get better. 3Q is looking goooood!!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Core 2 - Where's the bug spray?
http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/07/06/26/2152246.shtml?tid=118
http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/07/06/28/1124256.shtml
Heck, intel cant produce a 45 watt cpu
Intel has had 5W Pentium M CPUs for years now. Even the highest end Core 2 Duo for laptops (2.4Ghz) has a TDP of just 35W. Pure FUD from oneexpert as always.
Look at these 2400 and 2600 results:
http://www.hothardware.com/articles/ATI_Radeon_HD_2600_and_2400_Performance/?page=4
100% Fragged by Nvidia.
Clovertown vs Opteron:
Fragged in Integer performance:
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q4/xeon-vs-opteron/sandra-mm-int.gif
Fragged in floating point performance:-
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q4/xeon-vs-opteron/sandra-mm-fp.gif
Look at this list of the top five semiconductor companies. Companies like Intel, Samsung and TSMC make the list but of course AMD doesn't. Pathetic.
AMD BK Q2'08.
Link to top five:-
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40654
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey Onexpert... in tests, my 4.5 year old P4 at 2.4Ghz super-fragged a Quad-Core Barcelona that was clocked at 5 Ghz!!!!! I don't actually need proof, I can just say so and it's magically true!!!!
ANY objective review (including your God Sharikou in the post he himself wrote on this lame excuse for a blog on April 23rd of this very year) says that current Intel designs are superior to currently available AMD designs, and when Barcelona finally comes out, you won't even have that fig leaf to hide behind anymore.
And as for 'full desktop featured' chips... I got bad news for you, but ever since the Core 2 came out, the exact same architecture has been in use for everything from laptops all the way up to high-end Tigerton servers. AMD cannot make that claim, Barcelona is never going into laptops (especially when a 1.9Ghz chip has a 95 watt TDP). Every laptop chip Intel makes is a full desktop chip too, runnign on the same architecture.
Now, if you actually thought that 2350 fragged any current Intel CPU, you'd take me up on my offer to ship out that nasty e6600 that's the root cause of your mental illness. However, the fact that you actively refuse to take me up on my offer just goes to show that you don't mind talking about magical AMD chips, just as long as you don't have to actually use one. Actions speak louder than words fanboy.
Heck, a AMD geode is just 14 watts and has been for years.
Does anyone want to run a benchmark between a 5W Pentium M or a 10W LV Core Duo and a 14W Geode?
Now, if you actually thought that 2350 fragged any current Intel CPU
It does indeed! It frags a Celeron D! That's all AMD's junkyard CPUs are good for; competing with Intel Celerons that Intel is piratically giving away free in cereal boxes!
Randy Allen said...
Intel worth 140bn vs 7.5bn for AMD.
And what's your point? Even if Intel was worth 1.4 trillion and AMD only 750 million that don't change their processor's architecture (or the point of Sharikou blog for that matter).
This comment has been removed by the author.
Little hiccup for cpu makers..This could slow down the juggernauts.
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=
118296441702631
WSJ: Barcelona slower than expected.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118310081919852862.html
One moron:
You're a little late to the party. Linus has already said the erratum is totaly insignificant.
But your source did mention about the greatly increasing number of serious errors in AMD cpu's that they are not fixing.
Please, could you make refuting your posts a little harder? At least read what you post, okay?
to MORON bubba:
i don't usually sling mud at others personally, but since you insist on being a complete asshole...back to you creep.
Little late to news also.
2 days old your post...
Shipped but not SOLD...DOH!!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/
20070629/tc_pcworld/133585
This comment has been removed by the author.
So, you're saying Intel is meeting their dates and goals!
Good for them!
Maybe AMD will copy them and ship a product on time someday.
Here is a comparison between projected performance of a 2GHz Barcelona vs Intel's top 4 quad-cores (2.0GHz-3.0GHz), it also includes a price comparison.
It should be somewhat representative of AMD's 20% Integer and 50% Floating Point claims, here is a link.
There will be an AM2 quad at 2.9GHZ at launch
The following is a pricing list after K10 launch:
K10 quad (AM2) 2.9GHZ: $995
K10 quad 2.7GHZ: $795
K10 quad 2.5 GHZ: $595
K10 quad 2.3 GHZ: $395
K10 dual 2.9 GHZ: $695
K10 dual 2.7GHZ: $495
K10 dual 2.5 GHZ: $295
K10 dual 2.4GHZ: $195
Guess not, eh Doc?
So it's 2Ghz Barcelona vs. 3Ghz Clovertown and 2.93GHz Tigerton? Pathetic.
Intel is readying the Penryn superfrags for AMD. AMD will need a K10 at 3GHz to compete with Penryn. Too bad for AMD they can't get that until 45nm. By the time that happens Intel will have Nehalem to finish AMD off.
AMD also claims it will not be a paper launch like Cloverton
Clovertown was not a paper launch. Kentsfield (QX6700) and Clovertown were both available in limited quantities on launch.
While AMD mucks around Intel is selling product:- http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40687
Intel has sold over one million quad core server CPUs. AMD's will lose a great deal more server market share
AMD = Another Month Delay.
FASN8 platform delayed to 2008.
http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/12779
Late, late, late - same old story.
This is what happens when you put an engineer in charge.
They need to throw Hector's ass out and put an operations guy in charge
Limited Quantities....With a paper launch...WOW! (1) to each top tier distributor.
Recent news of IBM, other suppliers are collaborating on a 32nm process will test & have ready for production smile>>>(in AMDS new 32nm fab.Link below) What was intels date for 32nm release? Seems competition will be more intense then intel expected, simply because of their arrogant attitude. Now the intelbois will say we are ganging up on intel..What a shame. This is good sound business decision for IBM, AMD & others to collaborate on 32nm.
New 32nm Fab>
http://www.geek.com/amd-to-
construct-32-nm-fab-in-ny/
WRONG...WRONG...WRONG
Giant said...
While AMD mucks around Intel is selling product:- http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40687
Intel has sold over one million quad core server CPUs. AMD's will lose a great deal more server market share
SHIPPED NOT SOLD..I read the same article.
How many quads has AMD shipped?
I often wondered what was the ratio of intel vs AMD in the laptop battery fiasco. Seems everywhere i read it was only intel cpus involved..Any info out there for a comparison???
Considering AMD's miniscule market share in the laptop space, it would be pretty easy to figure out how many of the systems that had defective Sony batteries also had Intel cpu's in them.
But, I'm assuming you already knew this in your failed attempt at building a straw man argument.
Time for the weekend, have a good one everybody.
Just for AMD dudes...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/
20070629/tc_pcworld/133592
On schedule. Yeah, right.
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2007/0214/kaigai_07l.gif
Nice find bubba!
Also, at 2.0 GHz, it can hardly be called on-schedule...
I think, Intel might be able to launch Nehalem in August at 250 MHz. It is on schedule, only if it is on time, AND it does what it is supposed to do.
Barcelona was supposed to compete with Penryn. At 2 GHz, it will have tough time competing with Celeron!
Another way to look at it is, you can hard lauch non-working chips on the commitment date. And hey, it can't be called a paper lauch, because you would be able to supply all 0 of your customers from day 1.
AMDers are looking more and more like clowns....
Barcelona to compete with celeron just as i predicted six months back.....i was joking around didnt actually know that is what AMD was targeting........
haha, I love it. All the AMD fannies are in a panic.
Intel SHIPPED 1 Million quads...well guess what you douchebag, Intel charges upfront before it ships out anything. Intel got paid, Intel "SOLD" them.
You think distributors and integrators will keep ordering if they couldn't sell?
HAHA the jokes on you. AMD has yet to ship even ONE!
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7894
At last year’s Intel Developer Forum, Intel pledged to ship 1 million quad-core processors before AMD ships a single Barcelona processor. Intel reached this milestone today, approximately two months ahead of schedule.
Quad core processors sold by Intel= 1,000,000
Quad core processors sold by AMD= 0 ..........but they have shown 1,000,000 slides that fanbois love to believe in...........
This comment has been removed by the author.
SHIPPED NOT SOLD..
SHIPPED FROM Singapore
WHO'S THE DOUCEBAG NOW???
Awwww...
Barcelona delayed.
AMD's marketshare in PC's and Servers dropping by double digits.
Intel ships 1 MILLION quad core CPU's before AMD ships one.
New bin of quad cores shipping with even further reduction in wattage, its now down to 95.
Poor little AMD ONLY... you must feel like... well a fanboi!
Yes, please tell us. How many quad core CPUs has AMD has shipped or sold? Lets see here, checking all these records... the answer is ... ZERO!
By the time AMD paper launches Barcelona Intel will have had quad core CPUs in the market for ten months. AMD is so far behind it's pathetic.
Where is AMD going to get the money to construct this fab? We all know that AMD is in a very weak financial position. A ton of debt and shrinking market share, and 600m+ losses each quarter.
If they want to take on more debt they are restricted by the Morgan and Stanley loan.
AMD is finished. They should have fired Ruiz at the first sign of troubles. Barcelona at 2Ghz? Pathetic. Clovertown clocks 50% higher with more room for improvement if it's needed. 45nm Penryn coming for servers this year, upto 45% faster.
AMD BK Q2'08.
You can buy a 2GHz Barcelona in August, or a 2Ghz Clovertown with a TDP of just 50W.
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/06/29/intel_2ghz_clovertownlv/
AMD is totally fragged.
Only AMD said...
SHIPPED NOT SOLD..
SHIPPED FROM Singapore
WHO'S THE DOUCEBAG NOW???
Did you even read what I wrote?
Every chip that leaves Intel's warehouse is as good as sold. When distributors order 1000 chips, they PAY Intel. When Dell orders thousands, they pay Intel. Do you get it now?
Intel sells the chips to Distributors, System builders and so on and gets paid. If it shipped out a million quads to distributors, systembuilders, it got PAID. IT SOLD THEM!!!!
Do you know how PATHETIC this looks for AMD. You're just pissing your pants because Intel is meeting goals, meeting launch dates...all while AMD is doing just the opposite.
You AMD Fannies can only dream about a million barcelonas, That's IT! lol.
AMD BK 2Q'08
Post a Comment
<< Home