It's Official - Barcelona to Debut in August!

morfinx said:
Rest assured, higher freq parts are definitely in the pipelines :)
Click to expand...



But will they ever leave the 'pipeline' and see the light of day at speeds that matter ?? Doubtful at the moment...

Now this is hot ! :eek:

5257_large_amd_barcelona.jpg
 
Manny Calavera said:
But will they ever leave the 'pipeline' and see the light of day at speeds that matter ?? Doubtful at the moment...

Now this is hot ! :eek:
Click to expand...
We are working hard on it :) That's all I can say at the moment. Meanwhile, I will just sit back and amuse myself with all the the doom and gloom :p
 
morfinx said:
We are working hard on it :) That's all I can say at the moment. Meanwhile, I will just sit back and amuse myself with all the the doom and gloom :p
Click to expand...



We ? Do you then work at AMDati ? In what capacity if you dont mind asking ?
 
duby229 said:
And so is yours.You dont have any evidence that it is not true. As a matter of fact it is common knowledgs that AMD has already claimed 40% improvement. 25% is really, really, very, very conservative. You should thank him for being realistic. In the mean time he has evidence you do not.

All I hear from you is "I want!!!! I want!!!! I WANT!!!!!!!!!" In the real world that'll get you nothing real quick.
Click to expand...

Wow, imagine someone asking for an additional post with further information on a forum! You are absolutely correct, how dare I want more posts with meaningful information.
 
Caffeinated said:
Wow, imagine someone asking for an additional post with further information on a forum! You are absolutely correct, how dare I want more posts with meaningful information.
Click to expand...

except that is not what you did..... Shall I quote you? I can cut the pipe long or short. I can attach it to a drill or not... what an image....
 
does Barcelona currently experiencing Thermal/Power issues? The one who interviewed me in AMD Singapore was asking this.
 
morfinx said:
We are working hard on it :) That's all I can say at the moment. Meanwhile, I will just sit back and amuse myself with all the the doom and gloom :p
Click to expand...

Well according to an unnamed source Intel is going to release there next CPU based off of a Jelly Bellys. AMD is leaving the Semiconductor industry to focus on there soda pop.

I dont get it everyone has an opinion about something that there is little or no information on. The people who know are not talking and unless you name your source it isnt any better the reading Fudzilla. How long did it take Intel to move from the P4 to the C2D, all the time people where posting the exact same thing about Intel as the are now posting about AMD. The semiconductor industry moves on cycles, always has always will, up one min down the next.
 
Manny Calavera said:
We ? Do you then work at AMDati ? In what capacity if you dont mind asking ?
Click to expand...
Yes. On the engineering side is all I will say.

empoy said:
does Barcelona currently experiencing Thermal/Power issues? The one who interviewed me in AMD Singapore was asking this.
Click to expand...
You asking me? See below.


debello_64 said:
Well according to an unnamed source Intel is going to release there next CPU based off of a Jelly Bellys. AMD is leaving the Semiconductor industry to focus on there soda pop.
Click to expand...
Might as well be :p I can't talk about anything that is not already available publicly. The whole legality thing and all :)


ganstafm said:
Where did you get that picture from.
Click to expand...
It was publicly released by AMD.
 
AMD QuadCore at 2.3GHz bests Clovertown at 2.66 GHz (Xeon 5355) by 21% in integer (SPECint_rate2006) and a staggering 50% in fp (SPECfp_rate2006).
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40749

Someone with the time and a calculator handy care to estimate how a 2.0GHz K10 will fair against the 2.66GHz Xeon?

Edit:
Just a off the top of my head estimation: 2.0GHz is ~= 15% less than 2.3GHz. So, it seems as though, at least for the two spec_rate benchmarks, (and only if this actually ends up being true), a K10 @ 2.0GHz will beat, or at least match, the Xeon 5355, with a 660MHz clock delta; wow.
 
debello_64 said:
AMD is leaving the Semiconductor industry to focus on there soda pop.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. As if AMD could hope to even challenge Pepsi in that market, let alone Coke. What a stupid business decision! AMD is doomed!
 
visaris said:
AMD QuadCore at 2.3GHz bests Clovertown at 2.66 GHz (Xeon 5355) by 21% in integer (SPECint_rate2006) and a staggering 50% in fp (SPECfp_rate2006).
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40749

Someone with the time and a calculator handy care to estimate how a 2.0GHz K10 will fair against the 2.66GHz Xeon?

Edit:
Just a off the top of my head estimation: 2.0GHz is ~= 15% less than 2.3GHz. So, it seems as though, at least for the two spec_rate benchmarks, (and only if this actually ends up being true), a K10 @ 2.0GHz will beat, or at least match, the Xeon 5355, with a 660MHz clock delta; wow.
Click to expand...

hey visaris, AFAIK it was a simulated Barcelona @ 2.6GHz and not 2.3GHz: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20070702235635.html

"Unfortunately, Barcelona’s test results are “estimated performance” of the chip at 2.60GHz “based on internal AMD emulations”, whereas the first quad-core processors from AMD due to be available in September will only hit frequencies of up to 2.0GHz. Meanwhile, Intel Corp. plans to release its quad-core Intel Xeon X5365 (3.0GHz) chip towards September as well, whereas no quad-core AMD Opteron products with higher than 2.0GHz clock-speeds are projected until Q4 2007."​

In that case the 2.66 would probably be the better choice - not considering the costs etc., of course...
 
wizzackr,

Well, sure. If it isn't true, it isn't impressive. I do wonder why Theo would say 2.3GHz if it is well known that the actual speed is 2.6GHz, though. The two bottom graphs are @ 2.3GHz though.
 
visaris said:
Well, sure. If it isn't true, it isn't impressive. I do wonder why Theo would say 2.3GHz if it is well known that the actual speed is 2.6GHz, though.
Click to expand...

No clue who got it wrong. maybe it was xbits'. Let's just hope they ramp up the clock-speed quickly. To be honest - if the given emulated scores turn out to be true I'll be amazed no matter what, considering the fact that it's pitted against a core2 derivate, which was a massive leap ahead in itself. Now if you compare these estimated scores to opteron... :eek:
 
Theo got his "new" info from http://vd.verysell.ru/files/ie/252_10_DOCUMENT_Server_Section_PUBLIC.ppt around slide 70. He confused hisself.

How do you reckon that AMD says 2.6GHz http://multicore.amd.com/us-en/AMD-Multi-Core/Products/Barcelona/Performance.aspx with 21% advantage yet his 2.3GHz scores are also 21%?

52wg50p.png


And.. http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2007q2/cpu2006-20070612-01275.html http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2007q2/cpu2006-20070528-01175.html

And if anyone is impressed by the 2.3GHz scores from INQ, X-bit, you shouldn't be http://tweakers.net/reviews/661
 
defaultluser said:
Bleh. As much of an AMD fan as I am, I stopped caring about Barcelona after the schedule kept slipping on EVERYTHING.

AMD hasn't introduced anything on-time in the last year.

65nm Athlon 64s were late and disappointing: you get a small improvement in clock speed and power consumption, but in-turn you get a small reduction in performance due to high-latency cache.

R600 was REALLY late, and a relative failure when you consider just how much money went into it.

Barcelona has slipped several times, in the release date, clock speed AND performance categories. The best part is, AMD is pulling a fast one regarding availability at the release date, releasing to servers first and leaving enthusiasts waiting for months.

Now, to distract the press, AMD is talking bullshit about their panacea, a new mobile core that is simply a tweaked Turion X2. They somehow think they can compete purely on efficiency, when Intel already has a whole line of low-voltage Core 2 Duos with power consumption under 20w. Havn't they been paying attention the last five years, while Transmetta went out of the CPU business, and Via made only tiny CPU market gains? For most people, performance sells!

I've been waiting the whole year for AMD to do something RIGHT, and I'm still here waiting. Now, I'm just contemplating how long they will take before they IMPLODE due to their own incompetence.
Click to expand...

1. For the millionth time AMD didn't develop the R600 - ATi did. It's not AMD's fault that the R600 was a failure - actually, logically thinking, one would think they tired to improve its performance before releasing it (hence the obvious delays and late introduction to the market) but obviously you can only improve on an architecture so much before it's not worth it.

2. Officially AMD has been saying 2H07 for as long as I can remember...it's just barely 2H07now. In fact, I don't believe AMD has ever said these processors would be out before 2H07. So far they've kept their word. Other "sources" who guess, speculate, and post rumors as facts, have said otherwise - with the story flip-flopping back and forth multiple times - but again, it's not officially from AMD. You might as well believe that AMD's AM3 processor is coming out in Q1 '08 because "I heard it from my sources" (re: motherboard makers) like some sites are posting. Remember if it's not official don't accept it as fact.

3. Where are you getting this information for clock speed and performance categories slipping? You have to distinguish here between "estimates" and "official numbers" AMD has been giving out a "general idea" for clock speeds, but nothing official until now - Why? Because even they don't know what they can attain until the processor is finalized! So what makes you think anyone else - who is a second, third, or fouth hand source - knows what they are talking about?. All of the other "supposed" release schedules, clock speeds, and performance categories have been either speculation, rumors, or "estimates" - again nothing official, and nothing to believe in until the final product is in your hands.
 
jhtrico1850 said:
Theo got his "new" info from http://vd.verysell.ru/files/ie/252_10_DOCUMENT_Server_Section_PUBLIC.ppt around slide 70. He confused hisself.

How do you reckon that AMD says 2.6GHz http://multicore.amd.com/us-en/AMD-Multi-Core/Products/Barcelona/Performance.aspx with 21% advantage yet his 2.3GHz scores are also 21%?

52wg50p.png


And.. http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2007q2/cpu2006-20070612-01275.html http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2007q2/cpu2006-20070528-01175.html

And if anyone is impressed by the 2.3GHz scores from INQ, X-bit, you shouldn't be http://tweakers.net/reviews/661
Click to expand...

Seen it.

It's based off 2 outdated benchmarking scores which really doesn't prove how good or bad Barcelona will do in overall performance. I'd take these "benchmarks" with a grain of salt until a final product is released.
 
And now we have more people weighing in. Not looking too rosy for AMD at the moment.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=567

AMD’s claim that they have a 20% clock-for-clock advantage with Barcelona is simply wrong. Based on the latest certified SPEC.org results, AMD has a little more than a 1% clock-for-clock performance advantage in a dual-socket 8-core Server configuration but they have 50% clock speed deficit when the Barcelona finally launches in September. That means Barcelona will not be the Intel quad-core killer that AMD has been promising for most of this year and it won’t even be close.

The deception doesn’t end with the quad-cores; AMD is also claiming to have an advantage on dual-core processors when in fact they have a major performance deficit. AMD claims to have a 2.5% advantage when Intel actually has a 14.7% advantage when you’re looking at the certified SPEC.org scores.

I’ve seen benchmarks get cherry picked and twisted before but this is just outrageous. AMD is deliberately leaving out Intel’s best scores, leaving out Intel’s best products that shipped months ago, and putting in theoretical Barcelona scores for products that don’t even have a ship date. After Henri Richard (AMD executive) came in front of our ZDNet cameras to slam Intel for “un-ethical behavior” and promising not to do the same, we have caught them on four separate occasions behaving unethically. After this latest incident, it’s clear that AMD has no intention of behaving honestly or ethically.
Click to expand...
 
I know it's the policy of Brent and company to not talk about un released products, but I would kill to hear his feelings on AMD right now.
 
And now we have more people weighing in. Not looking too rosy for AMD at the moment.
Click to expand...

Hans De Vries has a conversation about the above. IMHO, Ou seems biased, unfair and inflammatory. Hans seems fair, even handed, and reasonable. Why don't you decide?

--------

Ou: AMD has a 50% clock speed deficit.

De Vries: OK, but they'll do better in the low power sector (HE) where the 1.9 GHz HE Barcelona faces the 1.86 GHz Clovertown and probably a 2.0 GHz Clovertown at launch.

Ou: Intel’s XEON X5365 3.0 GHz quad-core CPU which shipped back in April was deliberately omitted from these results . . . The numbers AMD posted for Intel’s XEON X5355 and X5160 have been outdated since April 2007

De Vries: These are OLD and CORRECT benchmarks !! They went over the whole world a long time ago. See for instance page 70 of this: AMD presentation from February 2007 (in Russian).

It was not until late April 2007 that better SPECint_rate2006 numbers for the Xeon 5355 occurred. Last month the new Intel v.10 C compiler improved Xeon's integer score significantly with better compiled code.

Ou: It's July right now . . . They're still on AMD's website and they were shown on the WSJ.

De Vries: The WSJ adds were in April with the introduction of the SE2222. They were correct at that time. You can not blame them for not
advertising June Xeon results from a new compiler, let alone call them criminals for not doing so.

Intel's marketing answer to AMD's April WSJ campaign was this: Talking Architecturep

Look especially at page 9 related to this particular story.

Intel wins all benchmarks throughout this document by a significant margin mostly because it always compares FOUR Xeon cores with TWO Opteron cores, while failing to make this explicitly clear to the non-specialized reader.

Some of the long list of embarrassing Marketing spin was exposed here: Realworld Tech

Ou: The fact that Intel is comparing twice the number of cores to AMD is ABSOLUTELY fair because AMD doesn't have a quad-core and that's AMD's problem. I don't know why you're crying foul here.

De Vries: It's a journalist task to keep marketing honest. I would only want to encourage you with that.

Ou: Their "20% clock-for-clock advantage" is now a 1% clock-for-clock advantage

De Vries: OK, but the hardware didn't change, The compiler just got a lot
better. A real comparison would use equal compilers. Many of the improvements in v.10 seem to be related to optimizing multi-core throughput performance. For instance: Quad core Xeon throughput benchmarks have all the hardware prefetching turned off, even the simple constant stride pre-fetching which we are used to from the Pentium III era. One of the compiler improvements seem to be to replace this with more intelligent software pre fetching.

Ou: It doesn’t matter that there is a compiler advantage for Intel because that is a real compiler used by real customers.

De Vries: Wouldn't you think that Barcelona would also profit from better compiled code? The Barcelona graphs come from old simulations with old compilers.

--------

As usual, these claims of doom and gloom need to be taken with a grain of salt, just like all the claims of AMD's success need to be.
 
Intel wins all benchmarks throughout this document by a significant margin mostly because it always compares FOUR Xeon cores with TWO Opteron cores, while failing to make this explicitly clear to the non-specialized reader.
Click to expand...

While I would agree with most of his points, I don't agree with this one. How special do you have to be in order to read the document in question?

The title on page 8 says "Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor X5355 based platforms"

While the note regarding AMD is in clear view on the graph...

Data Source : Published/submitted results as of 5/28/07. Best available Dual-Core AMD Opteron* results used as baseline.

All in all he brings up some good points.
 
My impression of Ou was eerily similar to NetBurst era Tom's Hardware. Lot of FUD thrown around, while ignoring any of Intel's shortcomings. That interview, thank you visaris, only confirms my initial impression to be correct.
 
visaris said:
You guys never add anything to the discussion. All you know how to do is thread crap, flame and bash. Why is this so clear? You didn't even read my post. If you had, you would see a "~" in front of 25%. Guess what that means? It means, "about" 25%. Go back to school, or better yet, don't bash people if you can't even be troubled to read their posts.

Further, if you bothered to read my only post in this thread, you would see me say, "IF this is true". Followed by a call for actuall benchmarks. Again, WTF? Why is it that all the members on this forum can't do anything but thread crap and flame? My post was filled with the correct qualifiers, and also filled with calls for actual benchmarks upon product release. If calling for actual data is being a fanb0i, then I don't think words can adequately describe your horrible behavior.
Click to expand...

... Wait. One. Minute.

You were looking for logic? 90% of the people I speak with just want to runneth off at the mouth without having the slightest clue. I understand your frustration.

In other news, I expect that AMD may have ever-so-slight an advantage when Barcelona truly launches. This victory will be short lived, as clearly Intel won't be standing still either. For us, the consumers, this will bode well as both AMD and Intel will enhance our buying options by making their CPUs cheaper in order to compete with each other.

At least that's what I hope will happen, although I say this with a fair amount of certainty. ;)
 
Sensationalism in journalism would be how I would describe Ou. Higher frequency parts are on target for Q4, I see nothing to worry about right now.
 
The interesting take-aways from all this - AMD will release 2.0Ghz quad core server parts that I expect to at least be competitive with similarly clocked and priced intel parts and in some cases (fp intensive apps) be faster.

The real question is whether they really will be priced the same. This would leave a gap in AMDs product range positioning and allow Intel to crush the competition by lowering prices in the 2.0Ghz and below space while keeping prices more level in 2.2 and up parts. How do you price things when your highest end part is 33% behind in clock speed / performance?

I think AMD is wise to keep Phenom out of the desktop market until they can at least hit a broad launch with ~1.8 to at least 2.33-2.4ghz parts widely available. Anything less and the gaming benchmark results will look bad and they'll take a beating in the enthusiast press. In the dual core space, hopefully clocks will be better because by next year Intel will probably be pushing 2.6 or 2.8 dual core as the mainstream CPUs whereas now its arguably the 2-2.4 Ghz dual core parts that are more mainstream. Hopefully by then games that visibly benefit from quad core will be more available.
 
what socket is the barcelona going to be in ? I currently have a dual 1207 (socket f) motherboard and would love to rock one of theses . I have two 2222's on my current maching and would love to replace them with two barcelonas.
 
Leo` said:
what socket is the barcelona going to be in ? I currently have a dual 1207 (socket f) motherboard and would love to rock one of theses . I have two 2222's on my current maching and would love to replace them with two barcelonas.
Click to expand...

AM2 and 1207.
 
Leo` said:
I have dual f sockets all I need is a couple of thousand and I will probably run the best damn AMD machine :p
Click to expand...
Which motherboard? You don't need thousands. The first Barcelona Opterons won't be that expensive. The quad-socket capable Barcelonas is another matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top