Barcelona Launch Speeds Announced

[Phynaz]

Max 2Ghz.

 

[Regs]

At least it's coming out. It's for server too so I don't mind to wait for a desk top version at 2.4-2.6 GHz,

 

[rmed64]

boo hoo cry me a river.

Let me know when Quad cores are needed and ~$100

 

[covert24]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: rmed64
boo hoo cry me a river.

Let me know when Quad cores are needed and ~$100</end quote></div>

QFT

Some of the applications and games out today don't even support Dual core architecture, let alone quad core. Theres really no need for the quad cores right now if your looking at how much its actually going to be utilized. And by the time applications have caught up with the technology, penryn will be like the AMD Athlon XP is now in terms of price.

 

[ayabe]

Crysis will use quadcore.

Supreme Commander uses quadcore now.

A lot of the games on the horizon will be using it.

With prices coming down and AMD entering the fray in their own lame way, I think most enthusiasts building rigs will be looking at quadcore very seriously when building in the next 6 months.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: covert24
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: rmed64
boo hoo cry me a river.

Let me know when Quad cores are needed and ~$100</end quote></div>

QFT

Some of the applications and games out today don't even support Dual core architecture, let alone quad core. Theres really no need for the quad cores right now if your looking at how much its actually going to be utilized. And by the time applications have caught up with the technology, penryn will be like the AMD Athlon XP is now in terms of price.

Frankly, my typical usage patterns already max out a dual-core pretty easily. Another core or two will come in handy.

 

[bryanW1995]

yes, well, now that I know that I can get a 2 ghz barcelona, why would I buy that stupid Q6600 for $266 ? Thank god amd has rescued me from switching to intel.

 

[HopJokey]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
yes, well, now that I know that I can get a 2 ghz barcelona, why would I buy that stupid Q6600 for $266 ? Thank god amd has rescued me from switching to intel.

I hope you are being sarcastic

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
yes, well, now that I know that I can get a 2 ghz barcelona, why would I buy that stupid Q6600 for $266 ? Thank god amd has rescued me from switching to intel.

oh boy........

 

[firewolfsm]

I can easily max out a quad core now, and a lot of games coming out this year will, Crysis, SupCom, the Source Engine, and Alan Wake.

If you plan on keeping your processor for more than a year you should get a quad core, it's that simple.

 

[Toadster]

Windows 2003 uses Quad Core
Linux uses Quad Core
XP uses Quad Core
VISTA uses Quad Core


I can't believe that SO many people are this naive about multi-cpu processing in 2007...

BTW - what is the pricing model???

 

[JAG87]

Toadster, people are referring to actual applications, not platforms.

Obviously these people dont do any video encoding or 3d rendering, otherwise they would not talk smack about quad cores. they are time savers. if all you do is play games then no $hit a quad core is useless.

 

[Toadster]

Originally posted by: JAG87
Toadster, people are referring to actual applications, not platforms.

Obviously these people dont do any video encoding or 3d rendering, otherwise they would not talk smack about quad cores. they are time savers. if all you do is play games then no $hit a quad core is useless.

that's not entirely true...

Since I've used a Quad core - I can certainly attest to the flexibility and headroom it gives you while gaming, burning DVD's, downloading, filesharing, IM'ing, indexing, virus-scannning, and websurfing (just to name a few)...

Even if your game supports 1 (or even 2) core(s) - the other cores can take care of all the other processes on your system - i.e. background virus scanning, or pick one of your other 50+ processes running in the background...

anyone use IM? virus scanners? P2P filesharing?

all those 'things' can be running WITHOUT impacting your gaming performance

 

[nyker96]

that is not too good.

 

[bryanW1995]

I almost wrote (yes that was sarcastic) but it seemed pretty obvious. Don't get me wrong, I would buy the amd if the price and performance were similar because of the oft-discussed "competition leads to better prices" theory, but I think that it would be a poor choice to purchase a barcelona/phenom in the near future unless you're upgrading an existing am2 system.

 

[Regs]

I wouldn't mind a faster clocked dual core cpu for desk top. If worst comes to worse AMD will just have to make a desk top cpu without the seperate power planes and such so they could clock higher. What desk top user actually cares about an extra 35w when they run 250-400 watt video card set ups?

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: Toadster
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Toadster
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JAG87
Toadster, people are referring to actual applications, not platforms.

Obviously these people dont do any video encoding or 3d rendering, otherwise they would not talk smack about quad cores. they are time savers. if all you do is play games then no $hit a quad core is useless.</end quote></div>

that's not entirely true...

Since I've used a Quad core - I can certainly attest to the flexibility and headroom it gives you while gaming, burning DVD's, downloading, filesharing, IM'ing, indexing, virus-scannning, and websurfing (just to name a few)...

Even if your game supports 1 (or even 2) core(s) - the other cores can take care of all the other processes on your system - i.e. background virus scanning, or pick one of your other 50+ processes running in the background...

anyone use IM? virus scanners? P2P filesharing?

all those 'things' can be running WITHOUT impacting your gaming performance </end quote></div>
</end quote></div>
</end quote></div>

thats untrue, and you know it.
before the quad core comes the hard drive, and if you think you can run a virus scan or encode a video while you are playing, you are dreaming my friend. the first bottleneck is the IDE/sata bus, and this will impact you whole computer when its being use intensively.
so yes, quad core is useful for speeding up multi threaded applications, but dont think that it allows such flexibility with multitasking. your tasks cannot be hard drive intensive, otherwise your performance will be hurt. and frankly, I cant think of anything that I would be doing while playing a game that is not hard drive intensive


edit
you can always do your work on a secondary hard drive without impacting the OS/gaming drive. in that case, although the sata bus is still quite saturated, performance should be near 100% while multitasking.

 

[jhtrico1850]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...-quad-fx_12.html#sect0
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images...toshop+3dsmax+xvid.png

Not everything is HD bound.

 

[Toadster]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: jhtrico1850
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...-quad-fx_12.html#sect0
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images...toshop+3dsmax+xvid.png

Not everything is HD bound.</end quote></div>

agreed - not everything is HD bound

and I do agree JAG87 - the HD can become a bottleneck depending on what you're doing, that's why my HD's are split logical devices - but I can fully attest that having more CPU's to throw at computations DOES make a difference...

I can run BOINC on 3 CPU's 100%, and game just fine... but as future games come out that take "more" of an advantage of multi-core technology, I'll have to 're-tune' my cores

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
and Alan Wake.

It's coming out this year (2007), huh? Interesting...

That's the one game I'd consider upgrading my computer for. Otherwise I'm more than happy with my E6300/2GB/P965/256MB 7600GT machine.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Although the clock speed is rather low, I'm still excited to see the technology released. And will be very interested to see some through reviews, the native quad core design should provide some power and heat savings versus the Intel chips which may be more competative in the server market than some think

And as Regs said the desktop parts should scale higher easier. And it's quite possible tha AMD's 65nm process will overclock well, as did C2D's.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Toadster
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: jhtrico1850
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...-quad-fx_12.html#sect0
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images...toshop+3dsmax+xvid.png

Not everything is HD bound.</end quote></div>

agreed - not everything is HD bound

and I do agree JAG87 - the HD can become a bottleneck depending on what you're doing, that's why my HD's are split logical devices - but I can fully attest that having more CPU's to throw at computations DOES make a difference...

I can run BOINC on 3 CPU's 100%, and game just fine... but as future games come out that take "more" of an advantage of multi-core technology, I'll have to 're-tune' my cores

That's where artful combinations of Raptors and RAID 0 come in handy.

I'm pretty sure a quad-core isn't going to saturate my disk sub-system.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Although the clock speed is rather low, I'm still excited to see the technology released. And will be very interested to see some through reviews, the native quad core design should provide some power and heat savings versus the Intel chips which may be more competative in the server market than some think

And as Regs said the desktop parts should scale higher easier. And it's quite possible tha AMD's 65nm process will overclock well, as did C2D's.

At least we know the initial batch won't be hotshot overclockers. Otherwise AMD wouldn't release them at only 2GHz.

 

[Matt2]

The fact that they are releasing a different retail version for every 100mhz increase doesnt seem like a good sign either.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Although the clock speed is rather low, I'm still excited to see the technology released. And will be very interested to see some through reviews, the native quad core design should provide some power and heat savings versus the Intel chips which may be more competative in the server market than some think

And as Regs said the desktop parts should scale higher easier. And it's quite possible tha AMD's 65nm process will overclock well, as did C2D's.

Why would you assume that it will OC any better than their curent 65nm chips? They have had plenty of time to perfect the process with the socket AM2 K8 chips and clockspeeds have not gone up all that much.