Hardware Analysis Community Forums http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/67660/ 2008-08-29T15:31:57-05:00 http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/67660/ http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/halogo.gif text/html 2007-08-15T19:04:06-05:00 Mike L http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/67660/?l=1#505587 Not just that, but it'll probably be able to only inch it's way up to 3.2GHz at the most. That's an increase of a mere 200MHz; and knowing AMD, they'll sell that as their FX processor lol. text/html 2007-08-14T21:19:10-05:00 DublinGunner http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/67660/?l=1#505423 I'm sure it would scale to at least 3Ghz, it will have to.<br /> <br /> text/html 2007-08-14T20:52:48-05:00 Mike L http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/67660/?l=1#505415 Because nobody cares. On top of that, there's nothing to speculate whether all of that is true, other than rumors. text/html 2007-08-08T00:05:44-05:00 Super XP http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/67660/?l=1#504491 Nobody seen my links above? 3.0 GHz Barcelona's &amp; 3.4 GHz Phenom Dual &amp; Quad-Cores coming <img src="http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/smilies/smile5.gif" width="14" height="14" border="0" alt=":P" title=":P"> text/html 2007-08-07T08:38:19-05:00 Blood Brother http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/67660/?l=1#504454 Mark Allen said: <div class="quote">Sander Sassen said: <div class="quote">Mark?<br /> <br /> You not had your morning coffee yet? Let me repeat what I just wrote: a 2.6GHz quad-core Barcelona just about keeps pace with a 2.66GHz quad-core Intel Xeon. Hence when AMD launches in September at 2GHz, this is a 600MHz reduction in clockspeed (!), that will result in a significant reduction in performance.<br /> <br /> Best regards,</div><br /> For one, I dont drink coffee. Two, I did indeed just basically wake up when I read/made that post. Third, even if that is the case, if 600Mhz is the only deciding factor of it being slower than the 2.66Ghz Intel Xeon, whats not stopping us from just overclocking it 700Mhz or so? Fourth, if I recall correctly, the Barcelona is just a server processor meaning not for desktop use. It is an Opteron processor. So that means its going to be highly expensive. More than what the average desktop user can afford. By the time they release the Phenom core the for us desktop people (our Barcelona equivalent), the clock speed should be faster and bugs worked out</div><br /> <br /> <br /> OMG.. came back after months to see an AMD fanboy/MOderator... LOL <img src="http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/smilies/smile7.gif" width="14" height="14" border="0" alt=":O" title=":O"> text/html 2007-08-07T06:58:16-05:00 dark41 http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/67660/?l=1#504452 Well just to put those links into perspective, they claim an &quot;inside source&quot; told them that:<br /> <br /> &quot;Clock per clock, the 3 GHz Barcelona / Phenom X4 should beat a Core 2 Quad at 3 GHZ, so this would mean that 3.24 GHz from AMD should be enough to fight Penryn at 3.33 GHz, at least in theory.&quot;<br /> <br /> Too bad that current Intel core 2 quad overclocks to 3.6GHz pretty easily on stock cooling, and closer to 3.9GHz with a good air cooler. Also, they're speculating that Penryn won't be any faster than than the current core 2 quads, and I'm not sure how anyone could know just what Penryn can do at this point (unless they have some &quot;inside source&quot; at both camps). Anyway, at best they're claiming AMD will hold its own. Not a thing there about it being faster as I read it.<br /> <br /> &quot;According to some internal information Barcelona / Phenom X4 Quad core can hit 3.24 GHz. This is the top speed of the B2 revision of the core.&quot;<br /> <br /> &quot;Phenom X2 would be initially shipping at faster speeds than 3 GHz and the real quantity comes in Q1 2008. Still there is a light as this CPU can hit 3.4 GHz.&quot;<br /> <br /> So which is it? Shipping initially with B1 stepping at 3.0GHz, or B2 stepping at 3.24GHz, or some other stepping that they haven't explained at 3.4GHz? (Same date for both of those claims by the way.)<br /> <br /> And just in time to compete with Nehalem? Seems to me this source is contradicting itself and still painting a picture of AMD being behind. If Intel posted such contradictions, they'd be torn apart by AMD fanboys. Funny how each side seems to read into these things what they want to see? :s<br /> <br /> But the good news is that I now see where Super_XP gets his terrible english grammar from. <img src="http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/smilies/smile1.gif" width="14" height="14" border="0" alt=":)" title=":)"> text/html 2007-08-07T00:08:41-05:00 Super XP http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/67660/?l=1#504428 I also don't think AMD is cheating either. More info:<br /> <br /> K10 Quad B2 needs <b>1.08V </b>for <b>1.6 GHz </b><br /> <a class="ext" href="/action/r/http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=2279&amp;Itemid=35" target="_blank">http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=...;Itemid=35</a><br /> <br /> Phenom X4 can hit <b>3.24 GHz </b><br /> <a class="ext" href="/action/r/http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=2251&amp;Itemid=35" target="_blank">http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=...;Itemid=35</a><br /> <br /> Phenom X2 Dual core can hit <b>3.4 GHz </b><br /> <a class="ext" href="/action/r/http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=2253&amp;Itemid=35" target="_blank">http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=...;Itemid=35</a><br /> <br /> Shanghai 45 nm K10.5 has improved IPC <br /> <a class="ext" href="/action/r/http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=2213&amp;Itemid=35" target="_blank">http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=...;Itemid=35</a><br /> text/html 2007-08-06T19:19:06-05:00 md md http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/67660/?l=1#504410 Hello Mr Sander<br /> <br /> If AMD were cheating you would not be able to find it. You looked into several sites and concluded on this.<br /> <br /> Did anybody buy a Barcelona that AMD claims is running at 3.00GHz but actually is 2.00GHz? Did anybody loose money?<br /> <br /> No. Nobody lost money.<br /> <br /> It is Intel who is cheating AMD with nasty marketing and stealing customers' money. Since 1996 it has stolen $60B as you know was investigated by US Trade Commission. It has taken 6 yrs to find this. A real cheating takes time to be uncovered. So, did anybody loose money?<br /> <br /> Yes. Customers lost $60B.<br /> <br /> Be practical in thinking. Worry on things that have happened, not on fictions. AMD have some implementation issues which have forced them to work underclock. <br /> <br /> Lets be reasonable. Ameen.<br /> <br /> - Huq text/html 2007-08-06T01:39:20-05:00 Super XP http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/67660/?l=1#504319 Sounds good to me. text/html 2007-08-06T00:26:39-05:00 Gerritt http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/67660/?l=1#504310 GACK!<br /> Which one of these can I put into production or even beta?<br /> Niether!<br /> My point is that until they release, there is no way of telling which implementation is better!<br /> I've just bought a Core 2 Duo laptop because it had the features and throughput necessary; NOW. In another 8-12 months, when I replace my desktop, it may be an Intel or an AMD.<br /> <br /> Get a grip folks! They (AMD, Intel), play off of each other, and it's up to you to figure out who's on first (old A&amp;C reference). WHEN it's actually on the market is when we can discuss WHO'S faster, but even then FASTER than WHAT?<br /> <br /> I BELIEVE that AMD will be better. A belief is a unsupported predisposition towards a certain conclusion, without supporting logical criteria. So Intel could be better. I'm not going to modify my convictions, but am ready to modify my beliefs.<br /> <br /> Gerritt<br /> text/html 2007-08-04T03:38:42-05:00 Super XP http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/67660/?l=1#504087 I would also like to add AMD's Torrenza to that list. <br /> Read this article:<br /> Intel Geneseo vs. AMD Torrenza - Open architectures from industry's giants<br /> <a class="ext" href="/action/r/http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-Geneseo-vs-AMD-Torrenza-36730.shtml" target="_blank">http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-Geneseo-vs-AMD-Torrenza-36730.shtml</a><br /> <br /> Intel makes me laugh LOL,<br /> text/html 2007-08-04T03:28:52-05:00 Shadow_Ops_Airman1 http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/67660/?l=1#504086 P4 Northwood, and Cedarmill were the best P4s Intel released. text/html 2007-08-04T03:21:08-05:00 Super XP http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/67660/?l=1#504085 For x86 microprocessor innovations, AMD has shown the way as well. <br /> <br /> First superscalar RISC - K5 <br /> First to use &quot;Flip-Chip&quot; technology - K6 <br /> First on-chip L2 cache - K6-3 <br /> First use of copper interconnects - K7 <br /> First fully pipelined, superscalar floating point unit - K7 <br /> First to extend x86 to 64-bits (AMD64) - K8 <br /> <br /> Not to mention first to sample a Native Dual-Core Athlon 64.<br /> For a smaller company, AMD has done great IMO. Integrated Memory Controller, Hyper Transport Technology etc. AMD proved that an IMC was needed for improved overall performance which resulted in the AMD Opteron big time success.<br /> <br /> I had no problem with Intel’s Pentium 3 &amp; Pentium M processors, but the Pentium 4’s where not the greatest by far and a step back for Intel in terms of technology &amp; innovation IMO.<br /> text/html 2007-08-03T21:26:15-05:00 dark41 http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/67660/?l=1#504059 I agree and was impressed with Intel pretty much all along too. I've always thought Intel was superior for multi-tasking and most things that I do with a computer, but then I'm not a big FPS gamer. I guess we'll see just how much heat the CPUs put out, but I'm more confident in Intel's ability than some are. I still hope AMD comes out with something competitive though too. <img src="http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/smilies/smile1.gif" width="14" height="14" border="0" alt=":)" title=":)"> text/html 2007-08-03T18:13:09-05:00 Mike L http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/67660/?l=1#504048 The on-die memory controller was a must for Intel - they couldn't have avoided it for much longer. But what I'm pleased with is how Intel showed the industry that you don't <i>need</i> an IMC. The only reason AMD went with that idea was because they needed to make a name for themselves; i.e. crafting something of their own for a change. Even though Intel already had plans for IMC back in the late 90s, lol.