Hardware Analysis Community Forums http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/71454/ 2008-11-22T19:09:26-05:00 http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/71454/ http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/halogo.gif text/html 2008-05-28T18:43:21-05:00 Super XP http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/71454/?o=40#536950 This is where it becomes interesting. <br /> <br /> <b>AMD's 2.5GHz Quad-Core Barcelona vs. Intel's 3.2GHz Quad-Core Xeon:</b><br /> <div class="quote"><br /> <b>Four Processor setups, AMD seems to have the lead with lower clock speeds. So its fair to say if AMD was benchmarking clock for clock against Intel's Xeon, AMD would have a guarantee win.</b><br /> On the two processor SPEC2006 CPU integer tests, AMD's 2.5GHz 2360 SE Barcelona CPUs came in almost 30 points behind Intel's 3.2GHz Xeon 5482 CPUs (92.4 vs 121).<br /> <br /> AMD's quad-core Opterons caught up with the Intel Xeons somewhat in the four processor SPEC2006 CPU integer tests, exhibiting better scaling performance there. AMD's 2.5Ghz 8360 SE Barcelona CPUs posted results only 10 points behind Intel's 2.93Ghz Xeon 7350 CPUs (167 vs 177).<br /> <br /> But AMD's 2.5GHz 2360 SE quad-core Barcelona CPUs just edged Intel's 3.2GHz Xeon 5482 CPUs in the two processor SPEC2006 CPU floating-point tests (82.1 vs 80.4).<br /> <br /> AMD's quad-core Opterons further extended their lead over Intel's Xeons in the four-processor SPEC2006 CPU floating point tests. AMD's 2.5GHz 8360 SE Barcelona CPUs simply outclassed Intel's 2.93GHz Xeon 7350 CPUs (152 vs 108).</div><br /> Dell reveals AMD Barcelona benchmarks<br /> Fast floating-point processors<br /> <a class="ext" href="/action/r/http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/05/28/dell-reveals-amd-barcelona" target="_blank">http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/05/28/dell-re...-barcelona</a><br /> text/html 2008-05-28T01:59:25-05:00 Gerritt http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/71454/?o=40#536914 <div class="quote">16 lag free instances of solitare here i come!</div><br /> Hmmm, I'm not sure, but is the XP/Vista desktop itself multithreaded?<br /> If not, I'm sorry but you may see some lag between your Solitare instances.<br /> <br /> Gerritt text/html 2008-05-27T20:08:47-05:00 MrBungle http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/71454/?o=40#536905 FordGT90Concept said: <div class="quote">Nehalem can have up to 8 cores all with virtual cores (Hyperthreading). If you are keeping tally, the OS will see and acknowledge 16 cores in a single processor... Intel claims the performance in those virtual cores is exceptional--that remains to be seen. If they are, AMD is going to have to pull a 16 core processor out of their hat on short notice to especially compete for server market-share. That many cores is rather useless to the average consumer.<br /> </div><br /> <br /> 16 lag free instances of solitare here i come! text/html 2008-05-26T06:04:53-05:00 Super XP http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/71454/?o=40#536854 I’m with you, $1000 CPU's LOL, no thank you. They are not worth the money with this fast growing PC business. Spend $1000 on a super fast CPU and less than 6 months something faster comes out for cheaper.<br /> Ford I did not know Intel was #60, they must be raking in loads of money. I guess AMD is not that far off being within the 1000. Not bad for a Big/Small company.<br /> <br /> My point is that AMD lacks manufacturing power and can't really afford mistakes which they’ve had and therefore had 6+ months in CPU delays where as if Intel had such a mistake, they would still have the manufacturing power to release something competitive to by them some time. <br /> text/html 2008-05-25T07:29:46-05:00 FordGT90Concept http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/71454/?o=40#536794 Intel is ranked 60, AMD is ranked 406 (both Fortune 1000, 2008, list).<br /> <a class="ext" href="/action/r/http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/full_list/401_500.html" target="_blank">http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/full_li...1_500.html</a> text/html 2008-05-25T05:47:07-05:00 Gerritt http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/71454/?o=40#536791 Super XP said: <div class="quote"><br /> IMO, AMD is quite innovative for a small company that lacks recourses. The Athon 64 design was a proven winner for them along with the successful Opteron processors. <br /> </div><br /> I personally find it difficult to call a company with 6.x billion dollars of revinue in a single year, SMALLL.<br /> Yes they are smaller than Intel, and this will lead to a lag in uptake of 356-45nm processing plants.<br /> The two different approaches seem to indicate to me, that either/or of the manufacturers of CPUs can be on top of the food chain at any one time. Having said that, I don't forsee me purchacing a single CPU at the $1000 point now or in the future.<br /> <br /> Gerritt text/html 2008-05-25T05:42:08-05:00 FordGT90Concept http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/71454/?o=40#536790 Super XP said: <div class="quote">If they ever get this new Quick Patch going along with this Quad-Hyper threading...</div><br /> Nehalem can have up to 8 cores all with virtual cores (Hyperthreading). If you are keeping tally, the OS will see and acknowledge 16 cores in a single processor... Intel claims the performance in those virtual cores is exceptional--that remains to be seen. If they are, AMD is going to have to pull a 16 core processor out of their hat on short notice to especially compete for server market-share. That many cores is rather useless to the average consumer.<br /> <br /> <br /> Super XP said: <div class="quote">If AMD can pull off another Athlon 64/Opteron in the next 6 to 12 months, they may just give Intel some competition.</div><br /> That is extremely optimistic.<br /> <br /> <br /> Super XP said: <div class="quote">Right now the Phenom CPU’s are great and hold a very good price/performance but AMD needs to start jacking up the clock speeds and soon.</div><br /> Hmm, true but because they are price/performance competitive at such a low price ($235 USD), they really aren't competitive at all. text/html 2008-05-25T05:08:02-05:00 Super XP http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/71454/?o=40#536786 What is in a name? This so called “QuickPath” may just show off Intel’s aggressive ingenuity. One thing I learned about Intel is there CPU’s must be working at more than 100%. If they ever get this new Quick Patch going along with this Quad-Hyper threading (2 extra threads per CPU in a Quad-Core setup) I am hearing about, and to add IMC, all this will surely make the competition re-thing their current stance.<br /> <br /> IMO, AMD is quite innovative for a small company that lacks recourses. The Athon 64 design was a proven winner for them along with the successful Opteron processors. <br /> <br /> If AMD can pull off another Athlon 64/Opteron in the next 6 to 12 months, they may just give Intel some competition. Right now the Phenom CPU’s are great and hold a very good price/performance but AMD needs to start jacking up the clock speeds and soon.<br /> text/html 2008-05-23T06:44:20-05:00 FordGT90Concept http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/71454/?o=40#536671 Super XP said: <div class="quote">Due to different designs AMD required low clock speeds...</div><br /> Because they can't get any higher (leakage)...<br /> <br /> <br /> Super XP said: <div class="quote">...with little cache...</div><br /> Because of an exclusive memory cache scheme. Perhaps that is part of the reason why their clockspeeds aren't the best but that is also why their power consumption is generally better (requires less cache).<br /> <br /> <br /> Super XP said: <div class="quote"> <i>I heard Intel is having some problems with Nehalem. If and when they get that <b>Integrated Memory Controller</b> working right, I am sure this would give AMD more than a challenge.</i></div><br /> I like how Scalia put it: &quot;There is nothing I hate more than a unanimous decision.&quot; If they don't find any problems to fix, clearly, they aren't looking hard enough. We wouldn't want another table problem AMD just dealt with do we?<br /> <br /> <br /> Super XP said: <div class="quote">AMD has had the IMC and HTT for some time now, it can only get better for them IMO.</div><br /> Intel basically said &quot;I see your Hyper Transport and I raise you QuickPath.&quot; Intel did not want to do it the way AMD did. Hopefully they have something to show for it and I don't doubt that they do. Intel could have gone with Hyper Transport easily but they clearly saw a flaw in it (perhaps the integrated memory controller) that they did not like; hence, a different approach. text/html 2008-05-23T04:58:32-05:00 Super XP http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/71454/?o=40#536666 Due to different designs AMD required low clock speeds with little cache to stay in the game where as Intel required higher clock speeds and larger cache.<br /> <br /> <i>I heard Intel is having some problems with Nehalem. If and when they get that <b>Integrated Memory Controller</b> working right, I am sure this would give AMD more than a challenge.</i><br /> <br /> AMD has had the IMC and HTT for some time now, it can only get better for them IMO. I just hope this 45nm takes off the way it should. <br /> <br /> This should tie the knot about low vs. high clock speeds, both CPU designs by both AMD and Intel would be quite similar but at the same time different and unique to each company.<br /> text/html 2008-05-23T02:59:51-05:00 FordGT90Concept http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/71454/?o=40#536655 They are cheaper in general but price/performance, they are about equal to Intel. That's why AMD no longer offers a $1000 chip as they are not performance (and therefore price) competitive with Intel. text/html 2008-05-23T02:37:57-05:00 GS059 http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/71454/?o=40#536650 FordGT90Concept said: <div class="quote">Clock for clock, Intel are stronger at ALU calculations and AMD is stronger at FPU. If AMD can get quad cores up to 3.0 GHz on 45nm tech, AMD won't be the laughing stock anymore. However even at 3.0 GHz, Intel's 3.2+ GHz chips still take the performance title. At least AMD would cover the budget and mainstream markets which they are really incapable of doing at this point (very low end of the mainstream).<br /> <br /> Again, when AMD hits 45nm in late 2008, the game will change again with the first Nehalem chips out. If Nehalem doesn't punch AMD's head clean off, AMD's 45nm could allow them to weather the storm. Nehalem's performance is really up in the air so anything on that subject is pure speculation.</div><br /> <br /> <br /> I thought amd chips wear some of the cheapest now days, if I ever look for laptops that are less than $400, they all have amd in them.<br /> <br /> <br /> ::EDIT:: nvmd, I read it wrong... text/html 2008-05-23T02:32:37-05:00 FordGT90Concept http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/71454/?o=40#536649 Clock for clock, Intel are stronger at ALU calculations and AMD is stronger at FPU. If AMD can get quad cores up to 3.0 GHz on 45nm tech, AMD won't be the laughing stock anymore. However even at 3.0 GHz, Intel's 3.2+ GHz chips still take the performance title. At least AMD would cover the budget and mainstream markets which they are really incapable of doing at this point (very low end of the mainstream).<br /> <br /> Again, when AMD hits 45nm in late 2008, the game will change again with the first Nehalem chips out. If Nehalem doesn't punch AMD's head clean off, AMD's 45nm could allow them to weather the storm. Nehalem's performance is really up in the air so anything on that subject is pure speculation. text/html 2008-05-23T02:10:00-05:00 GS059 http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/71454/?o=40#536647 Super XP said: <div class="quote">Well this new 45nm K10.5 codenamed Deneb looks like it may be the answer AMD is looking for. But they better not release these new CPU's under 3GHz, that would be waisting peoples time. They need 3GHz + with 45nm.</div><br /> <br /> <br /> I really am no expert in any of this, but before core 2,wasn't amd always pretty much ahead of intel even with the lower clock speeds? I think I remember that amd had things that were around 1.8 ghz that were doing better than intel's 3.0's... text/html 2008-05-23T01:31:18-05:00 Super XP http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/71454/?o=40#536641 Clock for clock, AMD is not that far behind Intel. It all depends on which applications you test both CPU's with. <br /> <br /> Intel has more raw speed in there CPU's where as AMD has a more complex design so it will take them a little longer to reach those speeds.