Information

Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!



Discussion

Discussion on Article:
AMD K10 Micro-Architecture

Started by: Mr. BonBon | Date 08/17/07 01:21:05 PM
Comments: 47 | Last Comment:  11/23/07 07:24:13 AM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-5]

1. 
This article only shows that the real processors are done by AMD.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/17/07 02:55:23 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Really? Why?
Because Core architecture is based on PIII? Or because in reality their quad core is just two dual cores slapped together?
What I'm trying to say is... WHO CARES?
I don't care if its based on Pentium 1 or slapped together with duck tape, as long as it has excellent performance, price, and power consumption and destroys anything AMD comes up with, we're good.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/18/07 07:32:59 AM]
Reply
 
You removed all the words from my mouth without me saying anything, very GOOD!!!

You like technology that only needs one or two engineers to duct tape one thing and sell one for the price of two and say its really cheap… fine with me.

I prefer innovation, technologies advance, complex designs and state-of-the-art architecture.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/18/07 07:57:24 AM]
Reply
 
Well it's better to have a "duct taped" chip that can actually be purchased cheap and works fine instead of your "I prefer innovation, technologies advance, complex designs and state-of-the-art architecture" that can only be seen on paper or in internet techsite editorials.

Until AMD releases the actual product and the benchmarks are published, these are all just a bunch of mumbo jumbo that only looks good on paper.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/18/07 07:57:58 PM]
Reply
 
Benchmarks?!
Is it all about speed?
Did you read the article?
Did you see any benchmark in the article?
Did you see any performance test in the article?
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/19/07 06:22:25 AM]
Reply

2. 
That green tint is darker then I imagined fastpunk, maybe it won't overtake Penryn and or it will be blown away by Penryn.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/18/07 10:04:43 AM]
Reply

3. 
Joz says:

this thing looks like its gona suck for overclockers ane other hardcore people. imo ,

1. the way it looks like k10 clocks each core up/down is gona make overclocking a bitch, unless it can be disabled.

2. it looks like the branch prediction is gona be low...not a good thing. I think they should work on that more then dynamic core clocking.

3. I have concluded, that the K10, may be able to hold out IPC wise agianst the current Conore...but I doubt its gona be the killer that AMD hopes for. if im wrong, im wrong, but AMD, either get it into the market and 3rd party testers, or I suggest you work on improving the K8 like Intel improved the on the Pentium III to make Core.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/18/07 11:46:42 PM]
Reply

4. 
Brendan, mate. Read my post again, but slowly this time so you can think about what you are reading. I said: "Maybe it will NOT overtake Penryn, maybe it will blow it away, lets wait and see." So that means that K10 could be better than Penryn, or it could be worst. Saying that makes me a fanboy? Maybe your glasses are a bit too dark...
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/19/07 10:09:10 AM]
Reply

5. 
Why does it strangely feels like R600 launch all over again?

Late to the party and no benchmark leaks, problems with ramping up chips with high enough clock to beat the competition, and resorting to launch a product that cannot beat the competitiions top performer instantly

Yea I have seen that picture of that rig AMD showed off with what they claim was a barcelona quad core but unless they have those kinda chips in volumes its not gonna help them keeping people away from buying intel quads that are alreary running at high clocks/can be overclocked over 3GHZ.

Remember back when Conroe was about to launch? Intel leaked benchies of their new design all over the net. Yes that is right when you are about to have a winner on the market you do that kind of thing to win over enthusiasts and keep them from buying your comptetion's product, specially when you have been beaten down by the competition for a good while and need to win the customers'/enthusiaists' trust back. Kinda like what Intel had to put their P4's end of life bad reputation behind them and like how now AMD needs to do the same to win over potential custs.

Dont you find it strange that AMD is not leaking barcelona's great performance numbers even when they are awfully close to the release date? At least for the equally clocked Barcelona vs Core 2 Qs?

To me seems like dejavu. Exactly like R600. So much hope and high expectations but in the end it couldnt score "a sound and clear win" although much was promised and much trust everyone had because of the architectural achievments its design had.

But I am not certainly hoping for something like that to happen. Last chance AMD dont waste it. Though I guess not much can be changed at this stage before the initial launch.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/19/07 02:20:08 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
You must have been sleeping under a rock. AMD released benchmarks of a 2.33ghz Barcy against a 2.66ghz Clovertown. And it beat clovertown solidly as well. Google is your friend.

PS: I'm sorry that you had to write a 300 word long pile of crap.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/19/07 03:40:37 PM]
Reply
 
Yes...->AMD
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/19/07 07:19:14 PM]
Reply
 
I know about that benchmark, but that was retracted by AMD themselves cuz it was inaccurate and misleading that is why I didnt mention it. Guess youre the one living under a rock and talking crap now. lol

Yes you heard it right AMD themselves accepted that the benchmark was misleading and innacurate and took it down. So there is still no real benchies around.

"AMD gave us some simulated benchmarks that showed the 2.6 GHz Quad-Core AMD Opteron smashing the Intel Xeon 5355 to bits in both SPECint and SPECfp.

Unfortunately (for AMD), that was quickly debunked by George Ou of ZDNet as misleading and deceptive. You can read more about it here and here. The issue drew a lot of outrage in the online tech community that saw it as an attempt by AMD to hoodwink the press in less-developed countries. After all, AMD had already retracted the results 10 days prior to the press briefing. If that was their intent, then the borderless Internet sure put paid to those aspirations."

"AMD has requested that we remove the benchmark results as they are outdated and inaccurate. They have promised us updated results soon, so keep an eye out for these results. With the launch looming so close, we think they will be doing everything they can to have the results out ASAP." (no benchmark results after that)

http://techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=429&pgno=0
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=424&pgno=6
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=567

Good Day!


0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/20/07 01:29:10 AM]
Reply

[1-5]

Back to the Article

Add your Comment