SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)
AMD 217.53+1.5%Nov 28 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: eracer who wrote (218331)11/30/2006 9:47:03 PM
From: Joe NYCRead Replies (1) of 275872
 
eracer,

Anandtech did remove one CPU, but it was to compare a hypothetical 3GHz A64 X2 6000+ to dual-core X6800:

Thank God there is at least one thinking reviewer left.

Looking at the results where additional cores brought little to nothing to the table, the average performance drop of going from single socket to 2 sockets was 10%. That's all due to memory latency penalty (due to memory coherency).

So going from 2 socket Quad FX to Barcelona based single socket quad core, there will be an instant 10% boost in performance (on the same clock speed) on most apps. Most apps, because most apps don't take advantage of more than 2 cores. That's before any IPC improvements of Barcelona core.

One the other hand, Barcelona quad will have to fit within much lower thermal envelope than 2x FX. But if high end of the projected range of 2.9 GHz is achieved (roughly the same as 3.0 GHz FX), the following contributors to performance could be expected vs. Quad FX on most apps (1 to 2 threads):

- elimination of latency penalty for memory coherency (0 to 20%?)
- cache increase for single thread performance from 1 MB to 2.5 MB (some with higher latency though) (0 to 10%?)
- core improvements (cache bandwidth, floating point, out of order memory accesses etc.) (5 - 15%?)

Joe
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext