2.0GHZ Barcelona benchmarks released

[Trotter]

Penryn have the ability to reach higher clocks easily because of 45nm die shrink.

Higher clocks won't help when the FSB is still the limiting factor. A smaller die is great, but until Intel integrates an on-die memory controller (that they will be copying from whom?) they will have this problem. It is a shame when the motherboard's chipset sets the limit of processor speed.

I lean toward AMD, but I am not blind enough to go with blatant fanboyism. Once the blinders go on, ignorance takes the throne. AMD and Intel's see-saw routine is good for us who are computer enthusists because it drives innovation and keeps down prices (on the last gen stuff).

I look for Phenom to put in a great performance that will only improve as they go along. I also look for Intel to continue to improive on their lines.

 

[Apokalipse]

I did same calculation, the average is only 2.25GHz

This means than Barcelona 2.0GHz is on par with Xeon 2.25GHz (according to anandtech benchmark)

This means that K10 is just slightly faster than Core 2 Duo

but still faster, nontheless.

Based on those benchmarks, Q6600 would be faster and it just half the price of Barcelona 2.0GHz

Which is not a server processor, and can't be used in multi-socket systems. Plus, it runs at higher than 2.0GHZ.

Besides, 2.0GHZ is only the initial release. Clock speeds will be ramped up quickly in the coming months.

 

[gurusan]

I think people shouldn't make a bunch of claims and assumptions until a good deal of engineering samples go out and are reviewed by a bunch of people.

 

[maroon1]

Here are some more benchmarks
AMD's quad-core Opteron 2300 processors - The Tech Report - Page 8

Xeon L5335 runs only at 2GHz and it beats the 2GHz Opteron 2350 at media encoding

2.0GHz Xeon L5335 beats 2.5GHz Opteron 2360 HE (It is not out yet)

2.0GHz Xeon L5335 beats 2.0GHz Opteron 2350 here

Again, 2.0GHz Xeon L5335 beats 2.0GHz Opteron 2350


It seems that Barcelona is not always better than the current 65nm Xeon, clock for clock. In some cases a lower clocked Xeon outperforms a higher clocked Barcelona. Don't forget that Barcelona is supposed to compete with the upcoming 45nm Xeon, not the current Xeon

 

[maroon1]

AMD are going to make SSE5.

LOL

It will make it on 2009

On the second half of 2008 Intel is going to release Nehalem, A new CPU architecture

In 2009, intel will release Westmere which is 32nm shrink of Nehalem

And who told you that Intel will not make SSE5 ?

but still faster, nontheless.

Depending on which application

In econding, Intel seems to be faster

In gaming, we still don't know

Which is not a server processor, and can't be used in multi-socket systems. Plus, it runs at higher than 2.0GHZ.

Besides, 2.0GHZ is only the initial release. Clock speeds will be ramped up quickly in the coming months.

What if someone want to buy a processor for home, not for server use. The Barcelona are more expensive and they don't perform as good as the higher clocked Q6600

 

[Apokalipse]

LOL

It will make it on 2009

On the second half of 2008 Intel is going to release Nehalem, A new CPU architecture

In 2009, intel will release Westmere which is 32nm shrink of Nehalem

And you're conveniently ignoring what AMD's has in its roadmap.

Depending on which application

exactly.
Applications oriented around memory bandwith, and floating point performance, K10 is generally faster.
Integer performance, and things that require a boatload of cache, the Core 2/Xeon's are stronger.

Though I'm pretty sure you'll find more applications that use floating point instructions.

In encoding, Intel seems to be faster

Big surprise. Integer performance has always been a strength of Intel.

However, AMD's CPU's are better at floating point performance than integer. A lot of that is because integer calculations rely more on cache.

In gaming, we still don't know

I'd expect gaming to be one of AMD's stronger points. It always has been a strength of the K7 and K8.

What if someone want to buy a processor for home, not for server use. The Barcelona are more expensive and they don't perform as good as the higher clocked Q6600

The Barcelona is a server processor used for multi-socket systems. Of course it'd be stupid to put Barcelona in a desktop PC.
I don't know how many desktop PC's use Xeon's, which are also much more expensive than desktop equivalents.

That's why the desktop is specifically getting Agena and Kuma.

 

[gurusan]

However, AMD's CPU's are better at floating point performance than integer. A lot of that is because integer calculations rely more on cache

? According to Everest the Core architecture dominates in FPU performance...a stock e6300 at 1.86ghz gets a 36% higher score compared to the 4200+ @ 2.2ghz on average in all 3 fpu tests.

 

[Apokalipse]

? According to Everest the Core architecture dominates in FPU performance...a stock e6300 at 1.86ghz gets a 36% higher score compared to the 4200+ @ 2.2ghz on average in all 3 fpu tests.

That's because it's a K8 CPU, with a pipeline that does 3 IPC. Plus, it's FPU's are 64-bit, compared to 128-bit on K10 and Core 2

 

[Vaanish]

maroon go home u fanboy...

 

[gurusan]

That's because it's a K8 CPU, with a pipeline that does 3 IPC. Plus, it's FPU's are 64-bit, compared to 128-bit on K10 and Core 2

Ah, thought you meant AMD cpu's as in the current architecture.