Barcelona faster than expected?

[Viditor]

Charlie D The Inquirer

Rumour so far, but it ties in with DT's charts...

So what do you end up with? A massive gain in frequency. How massive? Almost 500MHz. Instead of the much touted launch parts, look for five SKUs at launch, AM2 quads at 2.6GHz, 2.7GHz and 2.9GHz, a dual at 2.7GHz and a quad on socket F at 2.8GHz

 

[HannibalX]

Well thats good news. It will be a long time until I get rid of my FX60 but it's good to know that faster and faster AMD cpus are on the way.

 

[mamisano]

Also from reviewing the new programmers guide, looks like Barcelona will include SSE4a and a host of other instructions not previously announced. Ace's Hardware has a discussion about this here: http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/read_post.jsp?id=120080241&forumid=1

 

[nyker96]

I always take Inquirer with a grain of salt. But for AMD's sake I do hope it's at least as fast as Core Quad if not faster.

 

[Phynaz]

Who cares?

How fast will the desktop parts be?

 

[Pabster]

Viditor, you know better than to post rumor and speculation. Especially from The Inquirer!

Not that I'd expect anything else from the resident AMD promoter :laugh:

 

[BitByBit]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
Who cares?

How fast will the desktop parts be?

The AM2 chips are the desktop parts.

Originally posted by: Pabster
Viditor, you know better than to post rumor and speculation. Especially from The Inquirer!

Not that I'd expect anything else from the resident AMD promoter

There's nothing wrong with posting rumour if you don't claim or imply it to be otherwise.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
Who cares?

How fast will the desktop parts be?

According to Charlie, the deskto quads (socket AM2) will be 2.6, 2.7, and 2.9 GHz...the duals will be 2.7 GHz, and the quad server parts will max out on Socket F at 2.8 GHz at launch...

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: BitByBit

Originally posted by: Pabster
Viditor, you know better than to post rumor and speculation. Especially from The Inquirer!

Not that I'd expect anything else from the resident AMD promoter

There's nothing wrong with posting rumour if you don't claim or imply it to be otherwise.

Thanks Bit...I think Pabster was more focused on painting me as a Zealot rather than any real point there. Shoot the messenger as it were...

 

[SickBeast]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't the desktop 'Barcelona' parts coming out after the server ones? If so, then they had better be 500mhz faster!

 

[aigomorla]

i honestly hope barcelona and agenda FX pwns Intel.

I always have been a fan of the underdog. However *Sigh*

Yorkfield is just around the corner. And for me 8 > 4 at a near same clock speed. And yes i use all 4 cores on my current quad.

 

[imported_UncivilizedAMD]

Dailytech reports different news.

Link

Chart

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
i honestly hope barcelona and agenda FX pwns Intel.

I always have been a fan of the underdog. However *Sigh*

Yorkfield is just around the corner. And for me 8 > 4 at a near same clock speed. And yes i use all 4 cores on my current quad.

I'm confused...what does Yorkfield have to do with 8>4?
The cores will all be the same (AMD and Intel will both be quad core), and the 6MB of cache for Yorkfield is mainly there to reduce the latency (which AMD does more efficiently with the ODMC). There's also the question of the FSB bottleneck with the Intel platform...

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: UncivilizedAMD
Dailytech reports different news.

Link

Chart

Actually, the DT article came out a few days before Charlie's piece...and they say in the DT article:
"AMD has yet to confirm clock speeds for the three models; however, the latest roadmap reveals ballparks for the processors"
Again, it's all just rumour until the official announcement...but it ties in well to the "rumour mill" timeline.
AMD originally had target speeds up to 2.9 for Barcelona back in November. Then in January, the targets were lowered to the 2.4-2.6 range...if they did indeed have success with the new spin on Barcelona, this is quite a possible scenario.

Remember that rumours are rumours...I am as skeptical of these as I was of the Conroe rumours that came out before the official testing and release.

 

[AnotherGuy]

LOL i think he thinks yorkfield will have 8 cores or smthn... wake him up pls...

as far as availability... i think Q3 for desktop parts... if everything goes fine

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: aigomorla
i honestly hope barcelona and agenda FX pwns Intel.

I always have been a fan of the underdog. However *Sigh*

Yorkfield is just around the corner. And for me 8 > 4 at a near same clock speed. And yes i use all 4 cores on my current quad.

I'm confused...what does Yorkfield have to do with 8>4?
The cores will all be the same (AMD and Intel will both be quad core), and the 6MB of cache for Yorkfield is mainly there to reduce the latency (which AMD does more efficiently with the ODMC). There's also the question of the FSB bottleneck with the Intel platform...

People said that the C2D would be slower because of the "FSB limitation" too. Plus, a few months ago there were rumors floating around about Intel working on something that doesn't use an actual FSB anymore. Who knows? It's all up in the air until it's in the stores.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: aigomorla
i honestly hope barcelona and agenda FX pwns Intel.

I always have been a fan of the underdog. However *Sigh*

Yorkfield is just around the corner. And for me 8 > 4 at a near same clock speed. And yes i use all 4 cores on my current quad.

I'm confused...what does Yorkfield have to do with 8>4?
The cores will all be the same (AMD and Intel will both be quad core), and the 6MB of cache for Yorkfield is mainly there to reduce the latency (which AMD does more efficiently with the ODMC). There's also the question of the FSB bottleneck with the Intel platform...

People said that the C2D would be slower because of the "FSB limitation" too. Plus, a few months ago there were rumors floating around about Intel working on something that doesn't use an actual FSB anymore. Who knows? It's all up in the air until it's in the stores.

Exactly correct...that's what I meant about the pre-release rumours. There were wild claims to the upside as well...
It is actually slower, but only when you get to the 4 cores or greater level (for example even the K8 is faster than Woodcrest when you are using 8 cores for each).

Intel's Nehalem chips (end of 2008) will make the move away from the FSB...

 

[AnotherGuy]

Well this might not exactly be linked with the topic and dont intend to steal thread but...
Intel P35 boards are already selling in the wild Here
sorry couldnt resist ( im just so happy right now )

I wish Amd actually pulls it off with these nice speeds.... coz deep inside i honestly love them more than Intel... whoever brings forward SPEED... i will love em

 

[DrMrLordX]

if anything, AMD will bring octal-core systems to the desktop first with dual-AgenaFX systems (QuadFX). It'll probably cost a pretty penny.

 

[qliveur]

I too am hoping that AMD succeeds, so that the competition keeps prices down. I'm not loyal to either brand; I'll buy from whomever is making the fastest CPU ATM.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Viditor
Charlie D The Inquirer

Rumour so far, but it ties in with DT's charts...

So what do you end up with? A massive gain in frequency. How massive? Almost 500MHz. Instead of the much touted launch parts, look for five SKUs at launch, AM2 quads at 2.6GHz, 2.7GHz and 2.9GHz, a dual at 2.7GHz and a quad on socket F at 2.8GHz

Now, was that 500 desperately needed MHz? Or does it further it's lead (If it has any) over Intel's current retail best?

 

[mamisano]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
if anything, AMD will bring octal-core systems to the desktop first with dual-AgenaFX systems (QuadFX). It'll probably cost a pretty penny.

Intel's already has dual Quad-Core parts available.

With AMD, they will be able to move beyond dual socket systems with their Quad-Core processors because of their HT interconnects not limiting bandwidth... could you imagine quad socket Quad-Core AMD system? Basically 16 (C2D equivalent or faster) cores on a single board.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: mamisano

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
if anything, AMD will bring octal-core systems to the desktop first with dual-AgenaFX systems (QuadFX). It'll probably cost a pretty penny.

Intel's already has dual Quad-Core parts available.

With AMD, they will be able to move beyond dual socket systems with their Quad-Core processors because of their HT interconnects not limiting bandwidth... could you imagine quad socket Quad-Core AMD system? Basically 16 (C2D equivalent or faster) cores on a single board.

Yeah, and I can also imagine the price tag if this type of setup was offered from either company. OUCH....

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: mamisano

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
if anything, AMD will bring octal-core systems to the desktop first with dual-AgenaFX systems (QuadFX). It'll probably cost a pretty penny.

Intel's already has dual Quad-Core parts available.

With AMD, they will be able to move beyond dual socket systems with their Quad-Core processors because of their HT interconnects not limiting bandwidth... could you imagine quad socket Quad-Core AMD system? Basically 16 (C2D equivalent or faster) cores on a single board.

Yeah, and I can also imagine the price tag if this type of setup was offered from either company. OUCH....

I have used a 16 core system before (SGI Onyx2), but only with very specific software. The truth is that 4 cores is more than 99% of consumers will use at all for a few years...
That said, the plans for the K10 include 32-64 cores on one motherboard (or 2 HTX connected motherboards) over this next year.
Of course as Keys says, the price will be huge...but nowhere NEAR the cost of that SGI I used to work on! Most people don't realize that it isn't AMD or Intel getting squeezed on server chips at all, it's companies like HP, Sun, etc...the large RISC manufacturers are getting their legs cut out from under them (and to an extent, so is Itanium).

 

[Keysplayr]

Yes, I remember some SGI "desktop" systems with only 2 processors about 5 or six years ago where I used to work. Those small systems were close to $16,000 each. I was baffled at the price tags on those things. I couldn't imagine a 16 proc system, or whatever they have to offer these days. These were specialized systems of course. Proprietary software for very specific tasks, and they did them well.

You're right about quad core being the standard for a while though. I can't see any average to enthusiast gamer needing any more than that for a bit.

If you want a killer Folding rig however, the sky is the limit (actually the individual's wallet is) on the number of cores. Then again, simply use a few rigs with G80's and R600's to get the folding power they need. Would be cheaper. Funny that.