wouldnt a 12mb cache perform alot better? having a bigger cache means that itll store more and more instructions for the cpu and being able to access them at the internal clock rate of the cpu. which means getting less instructions from the ram and accessing them at the slower fsb speed.
Firstly, the cache still has to get its data from somewhere. (FSB)
Secondly, not all that many applications benefit more than maybe a percent or two from having more cache.
But how can you know that it is better than Intel in gaming if you haven't saw any gaming benchmark as you claim ?
Because of the architecture. K10 is just an upgrade of K8, which is an upgrade of K7. They share much of the same base architecture.
The pipeline, and instruction decoders on AMD's K7 and up work better with gaming.
Similarly, the Core 2 shares a lot of its architecture with the Pentium 3.
I have searched in newegg and google, I haven't found any place that sells them
I haven't seen any place that sells Intel boards with PCI-E 2.0.
So ?
Do you admit that the current Xeon can beat Barcelona in Windows media Encoding at the same clock speed. If the current Xeon beats it in that thing then what will happen when 45nm comes out ?
It'll be a little bit faster, of course.
But I don't have a problem admitting that Core 2's are better in some areas.
K8 is better in some areas than others. In some benchmarks the difference to Core 2's is less (specifically, GAMES, Cinebench, 3dmark, and some memory-dependent applications), and sometimes K8 even comes out on top.
K10 is just an upgrade of K8, and so should have similar strengths and weaknesses.
But you seem to simply ignore any and all advantages AMD has.
Barcelona still has a better
average IPC, in applications where the Core architecture is usually better.
Just because Barcelona wins in one thing, it doesn't mean it can win in all things
Yes, but you seem to just ignore any and all advantage AMD has.
What about the improved Wide Dynamic Execution and Virtualization technology ?
Do you even know what that does?
Furthermore, does it even state what these improvements actually are, and how they specifically affect performance?
Also, Virtualisation is only helpful if you're using multiple OS's, or multiple computers on a single operating system. K10 has a vastly improved virtualisation over the previous generation.
What about the reduced cache latency ?
it's a minor difference.
What about 24-way associative cache?
Will only make a difference in cache-dependent applications. Which is not many, except for programs like superpi.
What about the
almost double bandwith of HTT 3.0 over HTT 2.0?
and the DDR2-1066 RAM Agena will use, instead of the DDR2-667 used on Barcelona test rigs?
and the lack of ECC memory used
Memory speed plays a much bigger role in performance on K8 and K10 than on Core 2's, due to the much faster Hypertransport bus.
the high amounts of cache is probably just a way to compensate for the much slower FSB. And it doesn't always work.
Can you use AM2 processors on Socket 939 ?
Can you use socket 775 processors on socket 478?
As far as I know, all the 1066FSB motherboards don't support 45nm processors anyway. So, we won't see any people having penryn with decreased clock speed. but we are going to see people having phenom with lower HTT speed
well that's something in AMD's advantage.
At least people on AM2 don't have to buy a new motherboard.
But they
still can buy a new motherboard. People are not forced to stay on regular AM2.
By the way, Intel planing to release X48 motherboards on early 2008 and these motherboards have 1600MHz FSB support.
verses a 3600MHZ, or possibly 4000MHZ HyperTransport bus, and an onboard memory controller.
X38 motherboards are supposed to come out this month
That's nice.