AMD Down 4 the Count? Future Map I vs A

Donnie27 said:
Here's an example!

Two DC Operons vs. One C2D.
Click to expand...
did you actually look at the results? seemsw VERY sketch to me.... let's compare JUST the 2xDC opteron at 2.4ghz vs 2xDC opteron at 2.8ghz with higher ram bandwidth.....


1. after effects animation: the 2.4ghz system is 150% faster than the 2.8ghz system
2. after effects video composite: the 2.4ghz system is 2.5% slower
3. after effects data project: 2.4ghz is 8% faster
4. after effects gambler: 2.4ghz is 35% faster
5. after effects source shapes: 2.4ghz is 4% slower
6. after effects virtual set: 2.4ghz is 5% slower

there are plenty of other oddities too, like the p4ee system being almost 2x faster in the nightlife than the C2D system.


WTF
:rolleyes:
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
did you actually look at the results? seemsw VERY sketch to me.... let's compare JUST the 2xDC opteron at 2.4ghz vs 2xDC opteron at 2.8ghz with higher ram bandwidth.....


1. after effects animation: the 2.4ghz system is 150% faster than the 2.8ghz system
2. after effects video composite: the 2.4ghz system is 2.5% slower
3. after effects data project: 2.4ghz is 8% faster
4. after effects gambler: 2.4ghz is 35% faster
5. after effects source shapes: 2.4ghz is 4% slower
6. after effects virtual set: 2.4ghz is 5% slower

there are plenty of other oddities too, like the p4ee system being almost 2x faster in the nightlife than the C2D system.


WTF
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I did look and yes there some oddness there and they said they'd test Xeons when they get the chance. I NOT about to throw out the whole thing for a few screw ups. I NOT about to say it is great either.
 
quadnad said:
Hold up, most of the wins posted on there are for one program, AfterEffects. Something tells me that it just can't take advantage of four cores, so while C2D obviously has a better way of handling whatever operations AfterEffects uses (Floating point I'm guessing), lets not just jump to the conclusion that because it's better in AfterEffects that one C2D is superior to two Opterons....
Click to expand...

4 cores vs. should crush 2=P
 
to a point...yes it will...but what circumstances we talking here?

my TSi AWD Talon would kill naything out of the hole till 1/8th mile...very quick out of the gate...

after that, it fell right on it's face....

so really this processor thing is much of the same...

some good for one thing, others good for another...depends on what you're doing...

arguing over this AMD/Intel/K8L/C2D/Kentsfield/PCP/LSD/OMFG/WTFBBQ/whatever thing is about as stupid as putting bush back in charge for another 4 years...

i STILL can't believe we did that in 04...
 
fubar569 said:
to a point...yes it will...but what circumstances we talking here?

my TSi AWD Talon would kill naything out of the hole till 1/8th mile...very quick out of the gate...

after that, it fell right on it's face....

so really this processor thing is much of the same...

some good for one thing, others good for another...depends on what you're doing...
Click to expand...

thats the entire point of what i posted...
 
Donnie27 said:
I did look and yes there some oddness there and they said they'd test Xeons when they get the chance. I NOT about to throw out the whole thing for a few screw ups. I NOT about to say it is great either.
Click to expand...
just a FEW SCREUPS?! damn, i'm glad you don't do hardware reviews ;)
if someone wrote that for my site, i would tell them to double check their brain. no way in hell is a 2.4ghz dual-dual opteron system consistantly that much faster than a 2.8ghz dual-dual opteron system.. :eek:
 
quadnad said:
You're right..... AWD should always crush RWD. More drive wheels, it's all that matters.
Click to expand...

Look, I'm not the one talking about superior tech hehehe!
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
just a FEW SCREUPS?! damn, i'm glad you don't do hardware reviews ;)
if someone wrote that for my site, i would tell them to double check their brain. no way in hell is a 2.4ghz dual-dual opteron system consistantly that much faster than a 2.8ghz dual-dual opteron system.. :eek:
Click to expand...

No, I didn't write the review just linked to it! Go jump them for writing it:) I'm sure they'd love the feedback.

Unlike the speculation going on with Rev B, Kentsfield isn't just talk.
Kentsfield

Tested by at least two guys at Xtremesystems as some here already know. Two Woodcrest/Xeons is nothing to mess with either.
Woodies at work
 
Arcygenical said:
Wow, thanks for the heads up, that's really incredable, it seems that the program is offloading some of the workload to the GPU...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's even possible, atleast it's not mentioned on DivX:s website (or anywhere else for that matter). It was something about maximized performance for dual core systems. They weren't kidding.
 
Donnie27 said:
No, I didn't write the review just linked to it! Go jump them for writing it:) I'm sure they'd love the feedback.

Unlike the speculation going on with Rev B, Kentsfield isn't just talk.
Kentsfield

Tested by at least two guys at Xtremesystems as some here already know. Two Woodcrest/Xeons is nothing to mess with either.
Woodies at work
Click to expand...
which is why i was jumping on your back for linking it, it's so obviously not correct :p

and of course kentsfield isn't just talk. i'm sure amd could have slapped two K8's together to make an MCM quad chip as well and have it out already, but what's the point in that, performance increase will be negligable unless running a few multithreaded apps
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
which is why i was jumping on your back for linking it, it's so obviously not correct :p

and of course kentsfield isn't just talk. i'm sure amd could have slapped two K8's together to make an MCM quad chip as well and have it out already, but what's the point in that, performance increase will be negligable unless running a few multithreaded apps
Click to expand...

I'm sure they couldn't:) IMHO, If AMD could, they sure as hell would have. They're no different than Intel IMO. I'm NOT buying this crap about AMD not rushing as if they care LOL!

Just like AMD, Intel said "We built Core to scale to multiple cores".

The point I tried to make was that Quad core is 4 cores on the same package. It doesn't matter if that 4 complete Processors with L1 and L2 tied together by a Crossbar with an L3 or Two Dual Core Processors glued together! It all still equals 4 cores so that talk of "Native QC" is BS at best! :D
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
and of course kentsfield isn't just talk. i'm sure amd could have slapped two K8's together to make an MCM quad chip as well and have it out already, but what's the point in that, performance increase will be negligable unless running a few multithreaded apps
Click to expand...

AMD definately CANT do a quad core chip, no way in hell.....

You know they'd do it.... they have even said that they want to build platforms for the "mega tasker" or w/ BS term they used to describe ppl that do tons of stuff + gaming at the same time.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
AMD definately CANT do a quad core chip, no way in hell.....
Click to expand...
At least not Quad K8. The power consumption on current 90nm chips would make it have close to 200W TDP.
 
InorganicMatter said:
At least not Quad K8. The power consumption on current 90nm chips would make it have close to 200W TDP.
Click to expand...

Exactly and even at 65nm the max (worse case) is estimated to be 125W:(
 
InorganicMatter said:
At least not Quad K8. The power consumption on current 90nm chips would make it have close to 200W TDP.
Click to expand...

4x4 will still give u 200W+ to cool.... just in seperate CPUs......

am I the only one that thinks that AMD will barely sell these things?
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
4x4 will still give u 200W+ to cool.... just in seperate CPUs......

am I the only one that thinks that AMD will barely sell these things?
Click to expand...

I think their followers with money will be out in droves to buy it! They'll see it as their sworn duty to support it and AMD.

I'm sure nVIdia, feeling the sting of ATI/AMD has something for Intel well underway by now. All they have to do is add 2 X 16X slots to Bensley. This has already shown that it is faster than two Opterons.

Either way, both are too expensive for my budget!
 
Why is their Q3 2007 performance offering named after this old beast?:

altair-8800.jpg
 
Donnie27 said:
All they have to do is add 2 X 16X slots to Bensley.
Click to expand...

Can't add 2 x16 slots to Bensley... there aren't enough PCIe lanes for it.
 
You guys seem to have forgotten about AMD & ATi.

Won't AMD also have graphics and whatever else they got ATi for to fall back on should things get tough? Won't we be supporting AMD when be buy a Radeon branded video card? What about AMD/ATi chipsets?

AMD has more than just CPU offerings.

Why is it hard to believe that people would still buy AMD CPU's when they're not as fast as Intel's newest when people still bought Intel CPU's when AMD's were faster?

I'm an AMD fan. I love AMD to bits and pieces, but I got a Core 2 for the performance. Someday I'll have another AMD too.
 
Unknown-One said:
Why is their Q3 2007 performance offering named after this old beast?:

altair-8800.jpg
Click to expand...

lol

In time we'll c what AMD has to offer. K8L looks promising but until that come out we won't know for sure.

65nm? We'll see how much of a "benefit" that will bring.
 
Donnie27 said:
Stranger things have happened:)
Click to expand...

Um...no. :D The boards with 2 PCIe x16 slots are x8 and x4 BTW in case that was your next comment. LOL ;)
 
yeah I think AMD has no more chance. After all, on paper their new releases are already beaten by Intel. And we all know that roadmaps never lie...
If you are really thinking that AMD is a sunk ship, sell you stocks and go buy Intel.

I will believe it when I see it.
 
hardc0re said:
I'll love to see how AMD's quads will stack up against Intel's.
Click to expand...

me too.

I also want to see AMD drop the card (if any) they have up their sleeve and
give Intel a good old bashing. But in the name of competition.




Note: I will jump ship at anytime and go to Intel if AMD can't keep up for a few years.

Damn it...
 
IMHO the company that is the first to integrate video/sound/physics/everything else into a single chip (and do it WELL) wins. I know this stuff was attempted before, but the manufacturing just wasn't ready for it back then.

In the future it will be, and the company that can integrate faster and more efficiently will "win". I say "win" because when we *do* get to the point where we can have a system on chip (which is basically what this is), these systems will be very, very low power compared to what we have today and will be used in *EVERYHING*, not just computers.... and I honestly think that a 2 company race will be inevitable for such a large market.

AMD seems to have a head start right now, with the better interconnect and integrated memory (and soon video), but Intel will catch up quickly and introduce some features of their own (they DO have the best engineers in the world... and more of them too!)
 
i donno man, IMHO, windsor 6000+, that puts em on par w/ the E6600. if they price it right, the Core2 Duo will only be left with the extreme enthusiast market. which is a tiny market btw.

Conroe/allendale didnt have the guns to really put AMD in its place. an X2 4200+ vs E6300. thats close, thats close!

PS: i really think, that K8L will be a contender for Conroe! i mean on all the numbers i can compare its equal to or greater then! on all the numbers i cant im told Conroe is equal to or greater than K8L!

edit: hey MC FLMJIG, whats your OC on that thing? can you hit 2Hz?
 
MrWizard6600 said:
i donno man, IMHO, windsor 6000+, that puts em on par w/ the E6600. if they price it right, the Core2 Duo will only be left with the extreme enthusiast market. which is a tiny market btw.
Click to expand...
I don't see how the windsor 6000+ could compete with the E6600 seeing how the X2 5200+ already is considerably more expensive than the E6600.
Conroe/allendale didnt have the guns to really put AMD in its place. an X2 4200+ vs E6300. thats close, thats close!
Click to expand...
Depends on if you use the processors to their fullest potential (i.e overclock). And that's really what should be compared, isn't it? What the processors can perform, rather than how well any given processor is performing at any given moment.
 
drizzt81 said:
yeah I think AMD has no more chance. After all, on paper their new releases are already beaten by Intel. And we all know that roadmaps never lie...
If you are really thinking that AMD is a sunk ship, sell you stocks and go buy Intel.

I will believe it when I see it.
Click to expand...

http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=intc&p=W&yr=2&mn=3&dy=0&id=p52342310458
I don't know if you know who Cramer is, can't stand him, but he's been gung ho on AMD since over 40 and I've been the opposite. Look at the charts, I follow technicals more than fundamentals, and you see Intel looking very good in the short term and possible with room for some VERY nice upside exposure. It will probably hit 23 soon pullback and if it can close above it then the highs should be tested.

http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=amd&p=W&yr=2&mn=3&dy=0&id=p52342310458
AMD doesn't look so bad either but it's still in a down trend. If it can close above 28 then 35 is almost a give me. AMD is finally starting to look good but not out of the woods yet.

Mr. Wiz I just quoted. Took me a while to figure out what you said! lol
 
Poncho said:
Um...no. :D The boards with 2 PCIe x16 slots are x8 and x4 BTW in case that was your next comment. LOL ;)
Click to expand...

Umm yes! i875 with two Xeon sockets say you're wrong on this one LOL. PCI-E Bridges can be expanded I was told by another Intel employee:) I only speculated that nVidia could add something. My nVidia (not Intel chip set) has two 8X slots. I in no way see any of this as being impossible.
 
InorganicMatter said:
At least not Quad K8. The power consumption on current 90nm chips would make it have close to 200W TDP.
Click to expand...
orly? then how come amd can make 35w (31w for turions) dual core chips. would that not make a quad core 70w..? ;)

space is the issue, not heat
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
orly? then how come amd can make 25w dual core chips. would that not make a quad core 50w..? ;)

space is the issue, not heat
Click to expand...
Now, I'm not one to question you, but I'm going to have to ask you to show me a dual-core K8 with a 25w usage. I've never even heard of such a thing from the craziest of rumor mills.
 
edited before you posted, i looked and saw the lowest was 31w for turion and 35w for the desktop, sorry :p
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
orly? then how come amd can make 35w (31w for turions) dual core chips. would that not make a quad core 70w..? ;)

space is the issue, not heat
Click to expand...


The problem is nobody really makes a LV CPU... not even intel. They basically get lucky with them. They'll bin the parts out to see which ones are capable of it... and market those as such. But for them to ONLY offer those LV and ULV parts it would cost them a fortune in wasted parts. Could they have a sku of LV quad.... sure, but they would also have the 150+ Watt ones. Thats not even mentioning the supply issues that AMD already have..... so those parts would be EXTREAMLY difficult to obtain on the market.
 
Can you even imagine a dual core ULV AMD processor based on 65nm! Sub 30 watts perhaps! Passive cooling anyone...:D

Thats not even mentioning the supply issues that AMD already have..
Click to expand...

AMD really needs new FABS and fast. They're currently selling every chip they make, including the ones out of Chartered. This Wednesday will be an interesting earnings call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top