Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aleph0 who wrote (235558)	7/3/2007 4:56:04 AM
From: BUGGI-WO	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 275872

@Aleph - Barci " 2.60GHz can deliver 21% performance gain compared to quad-core Intel Xeon 5355 (2.66GHz) in SPECint_rate2006 and 50% speed improvement over Intel Xeon 5355 in SPECfp_rate2006 " Use the existing 3G Xeon and you end at +10% at Int-rate and 40% FP-rate. Thats really bad, because "rate" way overestimates the real benchnumbers for many many apps and 2,6G is nowhere insight, instead they will use 2G cores at the start. Stop please, the more news we get, the more bad it sounds for AMD. I do not want to know at this point, how good IPC for the Dual Core K10 versions seems to be. I'm thinking, that the higher end K10 DC versions will compete with 2,66-2,8G Intel C2D stuff at best. What did AMD all the past years? -> Reminder: 3G 1333MHz will go to 266$ this month. -> AMD: unbelievable disappointing edit: I think, we could also forget the first half of 2008 for AMD, the only hope now is the 45nm process which I expect to come online at the end of Q3 -> Q4/08 = volume output, if AMD is still in a company-mode, which I highly doubt. -> 1-1,5B loss in 2007 in front -> 1. half of 08 again 1B loss -> second half = 500Mio. loss at least -> too much when you ask me. BUGGI

To: aleph0 who wrote (235558)	7/3/2007 5:11:49 AM
From: dr_elis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"Unfortunately, Barcelona’s test results are “estimated performance” of the chip at 2.60GHz “based on internal AMD emulations”, whereas the first quad-core processors from AMD due to be available in September will only hit frequencies of up to 2.0GHz. Meanwhile, Intel Corp. plans to release its quad-core Intel Xeon X5365 (3.0GHz) chip towards September as well, whereas no quad-core AMD Opteron products with higher than 2.0GHz clock-speeds are projected until Q4 2007." Note that an Intel 3.0GHz Xeon quad-core CPU is already on the market. Availability is however momentarily limited to the Apple Mac Pro series.

To: aleph0 who wrote (235558)	7/3/2007 11:09:58 AM
From: dougSF30	Respond to of 275872

Nope. That claim "expired" a month or two back, when Intel provided better spec_int_rate 2006 submissions. It's now a 2% advantage in int_rate. :) 102 to 99.9

To: aleph0 who wrote (235558)	7/3/2007 11:35:41 AM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Aleph0: theinquirer.net AMD Barcelona performance promises revealed $800 CPU paper promises to slay the competition By Theo Valich: Tuesday 03 July 2007, 14:19 WHILE ENGINEERS ARE working full throttle at making the K10 (10h family) work, performance figures are becoming integral part of marketing presentations and so on. Recently, we managed to sse the short of performance figures that AMD is promising for Barcelona. These performance numbers were based on systems using tge Opteron 2356, or known to the world of us regular folk as AMD QuadCore at 2.3GHz. The Price of this processor is currently set at 796 USD in quantities of 1000, so we'll see what can Clovertown at 2.66 GHz (Xeon 5355) do about it… So, what will Barcelona deliver? For starters, SPECint_rate2006 and SPECfp_rate2006 speak the voice of doom for the 366 MHz faster clocked Xeon - and these are the reasons why Intel was downplaying performance of FP and praising the INT. The figures we saw were from a few months ago, so things may well have changed since then. But in the Integer test, a Barcelona 2.3GHz yields 21% higher score than Clovertown 2.66 GHz, but Floating Point test leaves a staggering 50% performance deficit for Clovertown, and this is not something 45 nanometre Penryn can solve overnight. Unless, of course the clock deficit for AMD is such that Intel speeds past. When it comes to comparing Barcelona to Santa Rosa, a 3.0GHz clocked Opteron 2222, Barcelona is in general, around 65-70% faster than the highest-clocked dual-core Opteron. SPECweb99 yields a hefty 67% performance increase, SPECweb99_SSL offers 66%, while SAP-SD offers 70% performance increase. The highest gain, of over 100% can be seen in SPECweb2005/Ecom benchmark, while smallest gain was in TPC-C SQL2000, where only 42% gain was marked. This was all based on 2P (dual-socket) systems, of course. In the four-socket arena, Opteron 8222 versus 8356 offers an average of over 60% performance boost, which is not a small thing - given that clock difference is 700MHz. SPECweb99 and SPECweb99_SSL give 68% performance increase, SPECweb2005/Ecom yields another scaling dream (91%), while most modest increase is again, TPC-C SQL2000. Nevertheless, TPC-C Oracle test will yield 75% performance increase while Terminal Services will offer 71%. Overall, these are very impressive score increase promises. All of the performance increases happened with a processor that has 30% smaller TDP. Opteron x222 is a 120W Max.TDP, while this Barcelona 2356 stays in the 95W range. The only real question that now remains is whther AMD can execute. Sadly, the company's recent track record does not bode well, with constant delays of products and events. And we'll also wait to see real tests of the Barcelonas rather than paper promises. Is this right? If 2.3GHz Opteron 2356 outruns 2.66GHz Clovertown X5355s by 21% in SPECint_rate2006 and 50% in SPECfp_rate2006 then even at 2GHz, 95W TDP Barcelona 2350s would take out a 168W TDP Clovertown X5365s in SPECint_rate2006. An outright disaster for Intel. If this is true then cache plays a far greater role in SPEC2006 than I thought. OTOH, Theo could have mistaken which Barcelona bin with these benchmark numbers being for a 2362 (2.6GHz) instead. Then a 95W TDP 2350 Barcelona beats a 168W TDP Clovertown X5355 in SPECint_rate2006. Pete