FOLLOW UP: SPEC.org has published SPECint_2006 and SPECfp_2006 results of commercially available quad-core AMD Opteron 2.0GHz and it is now possible to compare performance of shipping quad-core chips from AMD and Intel obtained on the latest versions of compilers and other software. For details see “AMD’s Quad-Core Chips Dominate SPECfp, But Intel Holds SPECint Firmly” news-story.
Advanced Micro Devices recently demonstrated more test results of its quad-core code-named Barcelona processors for servers, which once again confirmed the potential of its new chips, but also rose questions whether the current implementation of the product can beat the competing Intel Xeon offerings hands down.
The new quad-core AMD Opteron “Barcelona” processors at 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 benchmarks.
The integer and floating point benchmarks results of AMD’s code-named Barcelona imply that the new product by AMD is considerably faster compared to Intel’s quad-core chip at the same clock-speed.
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.
Moreover, given that AMD does not have a lot of time left to increase clock-speeds of Barcelona while keeping its power consumption low, the company’s high-performance quad-core central processing units, the firm may not be able to boast with both higher performance and considerably lower power consumption of its solutions. Still, it should be kept in mind that estimated performance based on emulations may not reflect actual speed of a product.
Besides showing off estimated performance, the company has also demonstrated projections of server performance powered by quad-core AMD Opteron “Barcelona” chips at 2.30GHz. According to such expectations, quad-core AMD Opteron delivers from 40% to 90% performance improvement over dual-core AMD Opteron chip that works at 3.0GHz, 30% higher clock-speed.
Earlier this year AMD showcased a system running two quad-core AMD Opteron microprocessors at unknown frequency and disclosed its POV-Ray benchmark result, which turned out to be approximately 4000 pixels per second. According to test-results by X-bit labs, quad-core Intel Xeon processor model 5365 renders over 4500 pixels per second in that benchmark.
Comments currently:
11
Discussion started: 07/03/07 02:39:31 AM
Latest comment: 07/08/07 03:17:37 AM
[1-11]
1.
joke, right!
[
Posted by: Ole Joke
|
Date: 07/03/07 02:39:31 AM]
2.
probaly.
I think AMD should worry about what AMD does best, lower power conusption then Intel.
And since intel has recently gotten their game back (Core), I think Intel wants to stay ahead by performance (not clock speed), now that they relize how much money it can make them.
DAAMIT, go work on some low power HTPC cpu's or something.
[
Posted by: Joz
|
Date: 07/03/07 08:16:44 AM]
3.
Maybe AMD can use their " internal AMD emulations" to create some credibility. Time to stop releasing estimated numbers that turn out to be way off and release some products that do what they are claimed to do.
[
Posted by: J_M
|
Date: 07/03/07 11:21:41 PM]
4.
See ZDnet blogs on how deceptive AMD benchmarks have been... Comparing to Xeon5355 when higher performing Xeon 5365 needs to be used.... see the fine print below amd ublicity graphs in this article.. Xeon5355 bench marks are form April2007.. intel has updated bench marks after that..
[
Posted by: BN_SunValley
|
Date: 07/04/07 02:06:32 AM]
5.
The POV-Ray comparison is totally unfair and amatourish, as they both ran benchmarks not the standard way, so with the same settings! The rendering window was open (with differring sizes as well)! If you run the benchmark the standard way, there will be no rendering window! And size, as well as possible other diferring settings DOES AFFECT PIXEL/SECOND NUMBERS. Btw, from those results, the Barcelona is slower than an Athlon 64, per core, at the same clock, which is irrealistic, too.
[
Posted by: dess
|
Date: 07/04/07 04:06:18 AM]
6.
Let's face it, AMD made a huge mistake in buying ATI, it's only downhill from here. That's what happens when corporations make horrible decisions, they die out. I just hope that when they go bankrupt, ATI can spin off of them and be their own company again.
[
Posted by: FoolishFool
|
Date: 07/04/07 12:38:49 PM]
7.
I'd like to see how an "internal Intel emulation" of an old Netburst-based Xeon at 6.0 GHz would stack up against a Barcelona. I bet that would be some good emulated butt-kicing, too.
[
Posted by: Michael
|
Date: 07/04/07 01:33:34 PM]
8.
Another thing... there's a reason this bit of "news" didn't show up at other tech sites, like AnandTech.
[
Posted by: Michael
|
Date: 07/04/07 01:35:58 PM]
9.
Fuck!
This really stinks!
[
Posted by: 31415
|
Date: 07/05/07 02:20:22 AM]
10.
that's cool
[
Posted by: kheopz
|
Date: 07/07/07 02:52:44 PM]
11.
I love opteron ^^
[
Posted by: 713
|
Date: 07/08/07 03:17:37 AM]
[1-11]
Make Home Page
Add to Favorites
XbitLabs is using Twitter
Windows Live Alerts
