Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AMD Hardware

AMD Releases Image of Phenom/Barcelona Die 129

Posted by Zonk
from the can't-get-much-dorkier-than-that dept.
MojoKid writes "A few weeks ago, AMD released information on new branding for their desktop derivatives of the Barcelona core, now dubbed the Phenom FX, X4 and X2. If you're unfamiliar with Phenom, the processors will be based on AMD's K10 architecture. They've been tight lipped about specifics, but we know that it will feature a faster on-die memory controller, support 64-bit and 128-bit SSE operations, and they'll be outfitted with 2MB of on-chip L2 cache (512KB dedicated per core) in addition to 2MB of shared L3 cache. This week, instead of revealing some more of the juicy details regarding those enhancements, AMD just sent over a tasty photo of a Phenom die. At least it's something."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Releases Image of Phenom/Barcelona Die

Comments Filter:
  • wow a photo (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jonathan DS (1110515) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @05:14AM (#19361813)
    can you see how fast it is? How about some specs we understand?
    • by farkus888 (1103903) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @05:18AM (#19361829)
      well marketing now tells us the number of cores is the only important factor in performance. this has 4, most desktop pc processors are 2 right now, that makes it exactly twice as fast as current processors.
      • by DrYak (748999) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @06:46AM (#19362045) Homepage

        sed " s/number of GHz/number of cores/ " marketing.txt
        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by pakar (813627)
          So soon we will have 10^9 cores..

          Don't even wanna think about the overhead for checking locks :)
          • Featuring next year, an AMD sponsored article called the "The multi-core myth", AMD processor beging being branded with a N-code in their name (letter "N" + a number) which they pretend is only unit-less number to tell apart models of processors, but which incidentely is very close to the perfomance of an Intel with that number of cores.

            Then, as part of their Torenza initiative and GPU onboard of CPU, AMD introduces processors with a huge amount of vector stream-processing units. It is supported by Linux ev
      • Re:wow a photo (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Jacer (574383) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @07:46AM (#19362235) Homepage
        I understand your cynicism. Especially considering how a lot of processor intensive applications that most consumers use (games and other multimedia, and to a small margin running outlook, internet explorer, and MSN messenger together) get absolutely no benefit from SMP. However, as multi-core chips are rapidly becoming the defacto must have for everyone, I think developers are going to start coding to take advantage of this. We've already heard plenty of rumors about offloading most/all of the physics processing onto a chip that does it's computations in matrices rather than in any sort of linear fashion, streamlining the process both in method of computation and by freeing up your cpu cycles any number of other tasks (potentially an increase in game artificial intelligence, so it behaves less predictably, maybe do away with all of the nested tree structures and boolean choices) The only potential problem is increasing the complexity of development. Applications to take full advantage of all the new widgets will also take exceedingly more development time, support time, QA time, ect which will (alm0st) inevitably lead to a rise for consumers.
        • Especially considering how a lot of processor intensive applications that most consumers use (games and other multimedia, and to a small margin running outlook, internet explorer, and MSN messenger together) get absolutely no benefit from SMP.

          Don't underestimate how well supported SMP is already. It's true that there aren't that many single applications that get a linear speedup to 4 cores, but dual core processors have been common for a while now. All of the new games support multiple cores - they have to

          • by Jacer (574383)
            Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of the next gen system architecture at all, and as such wasn't aware that most (all?) new games are being developed with SMP in mind. I did mention that one of the best uses would be people who run multiple applications at once though. Additionally, sorry for my formatting I don't really care enough to add boldface and fancy line breaks everywhere, so it may have been annoying to read everything in my original post.
        • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Anybody who encodes audio and video will love quad core. Xvid 1.2+ supports parallel encoding, and sweet jesus does it do it quickly on the proper machine. I can encode a 90 minute film to 1400MB Xvid w/multi-pass encoding in about 45 minutes on a stock E6600. On my stock AMD64 3000+, the same operation takes about 150 minutes.
      • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by canuck57 (662392)

        well marketing now tells us the number of cores is the only important factor in performance. this has 4, most desktop pc processors are 2 right now, that makes it exactly twice as fast as current processors.

        But they might be right. I but I need 8 cores.

        • one for AV scanning
        • one for firewall
        • one for MS updates
        • one for tool bars
        • one for worms
        • one for bots
        • one for ripping while I use
        • one to do some of my work
      • They also told us that it has a fast memory controller and large I/O words. Those matter too.
    • by luder (923306) * <slashdot@lbras. n e t> on Saturday June 02, 2007 @06:10AM (#19361967)
      Well, if I understood correctly, it still has overheating issues, as they're only capable of delivering a photo of a dead processor. Also, on a side note, isn't it funny that there's a website specially dedicated to hot hardware?
      • by mgblst (80109)
        This is a common misunderstanding, due to the English languages having many meanings for one word. In this example, hot is not meant to mean warm to the touch, rather it is meant to convey the sexiness of the CPU. Clearly by the pictures, this is a very sexy beast (my favourite kind)
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ceeam (39911)
      Frankly - who cares? It will be fast enough, no doubt. Speed is not the #1 characteristic of CPU anymore.
    • by Lehk228 (705449)
      can't fap to specs (well you can, but it's not very fun)
    • These multi-core CPUs are a great direction for the industry. The real question is, when is the 10 CPU processor coming out?

      I think this will be a great option for people who get in early at the office. The original Pentium is able to cook an egg on top of the CPU. With 4 cores comes complete breakfast for one person: 2 eggs and 2 toast. I suppose the real key is a workgroup CPU with 10 cores would be useful each is used to cook in total 4 eggs, 4 toast and 2 cups of coffee (you do have to feed your co-work
      • The Sun Niagara, which has 80 cores, has been on the market for several years now.
        • by Mr Z (6791)

          Err... I think you mean 8, with four threads per core. To the OS it looks like a 32-way machine on one chip. It's Intel that has been in the news again recently about its 80-core research chip. And then there's those GPUs with 128 cores on them that you can program in C. [nvidia.com]

    • ... item ever, after the big reset button which was posted this very day aswell.

      Maybe it's time to shut down Slashdot?
  • Hype it up (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jhfry (829244) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @05:24AM (#19361849)
    I know that this is just a ploy to build up hype for the new processors... I just hope that the processor performs up to expectations.

    AMD really needs to respond to the Core 2 Duo's with something that tells the world that they are still in the race. I really don't want to see Intel become the unchallenged winner of the silicon wars... it would hurt us users in the long run.

    I fear that it is a real possibility however. The cost of fabs, R&D, and marketing have grown so much in the last few years that it would be VERY difficult for any newcomer to compete with Intel unless they managed to develop a completely different and low cost way to manufacture their chips... or they are very heavily backed.
    • "I fear that it is a real possibility however. The cost of fabs, R&D, and marketing have grown so much in the last few years that it would be VERY difficult for any newcomer to compete with Intel unless they managed to develop a completely different and low cost way to manufacture their chips... or they are very heavily backed."

      AMD is not a newcomer. And the speed "crown" has passed between AMD and Intel a couple of times since the K6 and probably will again.

      Maybe I'm missing something, but it appears t
      • Re:Hype it up (Score:5, Informative)

        by ChrisMaple (607946) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @03:17PM (#19365021)
        The only reason that AMD is still alive is that Intel made a series of blunders. Intel went exclusively with the expensive RAMBUS technology, kept the northbridge off-chip, chose clock speed over processing power. During the same period AMD integrated the memory controller, developed hypertransport, and emphasized processing power over clock speed. As a result, for several years AMD maintained a small performance advantage and slowly gained market share. Because Intel maintains a superior process technology, AMD's advantage was only a small one. Intel is much larger and can afford the huge expenses invloved in keeping the process advantage.

        Now that Intel is mostly past its blunders, it still has the advantage of superior process and is likely to maintain that advantage. Unless AMD can pull more rabbits out of its hat, its goose is cooked. I want AMD to regain the performance lead, but I don't think it's going to happen.

        • Unless AMD can pull more rabbits out of its hat, its goose is cooked.

          INTEL [twirling evil black mustache, laughing]: Another! Another!

          AMD [producing rabbit after rabbit]: I'm going as fast as I can!

          INTEL: You'll pull more, or I'll cook... THIS GOOSE!

          [Shot of lone GOOSE in a cage, legs in handcuffs.]

          GOOSE [dejected]: Honk.

          AMD: No-o-o-o-o-o-o!

          (I had to. Your metaphors made me do it.)
    • by billcopc (196330)
      Actually, this would be AMD's late response to the Core 2 Quad. Given that Intel is going to be slashing those prices again in July [hkepc.com], AMD needs to be ready with something faster and/or cheaper to stay in the race.

      Seriously, a super-clockable Q6600 for $266 bucks ? Hello!

      AMD is playing catch-up right now, but Intel is doing what little it can to block the opposition by eliminating the price gap. AMD really needs to pull a rabbit out of a hat this time, or they will be left sitting on the bench until their
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tomstdenis (446163)
        Where is it $266? The Q6600 at the local shop here in Ottawa is $670 CAD [currently on sale for $639]. I'll wait until I can actually find one for around $266 USD.

        Also keep in mind that the AMD design is a true quad-core. They didn't just hack two dual-cores together over an FSB. This is a true quad-core (e.g. the L3 is shared between all four cores) over a higher speed internal bus, attached with it's own memory controller, etc....

        Will the average OpenOffice or Firefox user notice the difference betwee
    • by fitten (521191)
      There have been four references to the performance of Barcelona lately. Three are pretty much in agreement that single threaded performance will be from 0%-12% faster than the equivalent clock speed K8. These can be found in the form of SPEC published by AMD, the 16 core 1.8GHz K10 demonstration using POVRay (where it wasn't 2x as fast as an 8 core K8 machine at the same clock frequency and the 8 core Intel Woodcrest, which you can already buy, was faster than it, as shown in an Intel response specificall
      • by fitten (521191)
        Clarification to the above... 0%-12% faster than an equivalently clocked K8 in integer and x87 loads. There hasn't been anything really out yet for SSE that we've seen and a lot of work and resources were put into K10 to make SSE faster.
  • I wish there was an application - sort of like Google Earth - where you could zoom in on the die and do a 3D fly-over.
  • by Eukariote (881204) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @05:44AM (#19361901)

    On-chip connectivity can be much broader and lower-latency than off-chip connectivity. The two-dual-core in one package "quad cores" of Intel have to talk via the off-package north bridge. As you can see from the AMD Barcelona/K10/10h snapshot, the cores live together on a single piece of silicon.

    The space between the the cores is a very broad crossbar, allowing fast inter-core synchronization/cache-coherency. The uniform block at the edge of the chip, outside the cores, is the L3 cache shared by all four cores. Each core has its own L1 and L2 cache. This design is nicely symmetric: each core has equivalent resources. It should do very well on heavy-duty symmetric multiprocessing applications.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by suv4x4 (956391)
      On-chip connectivity can be much broader and lower-latency than off-chip connectivity. The two-dual-core in one package "quad cores" of Intel have to talk via the off-package north bridge. As you can see from the AMD Barcelona/K10/10h snapshot, the cores live together on a single piece of silicon.

      According to Intel engineers though, communication between the chips was never a bottleneck, so the avantages of one vs the other design are questionable. I'm not a processor engineer, but that holds true everywher
      • by Eukariote (881204) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @06:19AM (#19361997)

        According to Intel engineers though, communication between the chips was never a bottleneck
        What a load of crap. For quite a few applications, it definitely is a bottleneck. If you have single-threaded tasks that sit happily on their own processor and do not intercommunicate, then, yeah, it does not matter much what connectivity the cores and dies have. But in the real world, multi-threading and SMP tasks do need to intercommunicate, often heavily so. Also, processes will often migrate from one core to the next because the core it was running on before is in use. At that moment, fast inter-core synchronization of the caches is very helpful.
      • by LWATCDR (28044)
        They lie. I write multi-threaded code. My threads pass a lot of data back and forth. I try to keep it to a minimum but minimum is still a lot. Not only that but when threads do pass data between code it is often a critical path for the program. One thread is waiting on the other so it will effect the performance of the system.
        Here is logic 101.
        Your latest product has a weakness.
        do you.
        1. Admit the weakness and loose sales?
        or
        2. Downplay that weakness and say it is never a problem.

        Intel might be right. The i
    • by slashthedot (991354) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @06:55AM (#19362069) Homepage
      The single die - four cores processor architecture from AMD could be a result of their collaboration with Sun which already has 8 cores in a single die general purpose processor UltraSparc T1 for more than a year. It's surprising though that the two chip makers, Intel and AMD, still lag behind Sun in terms of cores per die.
      • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @08:11AM (#19362323) Journal
        The number of cores per die is limited by two things:
        1. Number of transistors per die.
        2. Number of transistors per core.
        Sun can put more cores on a die by having fewer transistors per core, it's as simple as that. Sun is bucking industry trends quite heavily at the moment (see here [informit.com]) by reducing the amount of die space take up by cache. Intel are right at the opposite extreme, with well over 50% of the Itanium die taken up with cache. Modern x86 chips are sitting at around the 50% mark. Intel could easily make a quad core chip with no cache for the same price as their dual-core chips, but performance would be much worse. They could make a single core chip with 50% more cache for the same price, but, again, performance would be worse.

        Exactly what the best trade-off is depends on your workload. Sun are aiming at the web-app server market. It's a good business decision, since this is a rapidly growing area. It's also one of the easiest workloads to run, since it's inherently massively parallel; each web-app typically has a few tens to a few thousand users per server. If one thread in a T1 has a cache miss, then there are a huge number of others that are able to take advantage of the processing resources. Intel and AMD have to support a lot of legacy single-threaded code. A cache miss in one of these is expensive. Main memory accesses are of the order of 100-200 cycles, and so a cache miss every 100 cycles would cause a 50% performance reduction. For the T1, with its 8 contexts per core, it would cause a negligible performance reduction overall, as long as the other threads still have work to do.

        • I also get the impression that Sun's dies are a lot larger too. Big-iron chips tend to be that way. That's part of why those systems are very expensive. So that's another reason why one shouldn't compare the technology between the consumer to small iron market and the big iron market, they are different markets.
        • Correction, it is 4 execution threads per core. The next gen model will be 8 per core (e.g. 64 exec threads), but I don't think you can buy that one yet, maybe later this year.

          Also, the reason that they are ahead of Intel and AMD at this point is probably the fact that they decided to go multicore several years ago when others were trying to squeeze insane MHz out of their chips. If I remember correctly, a lot of folks in slashdot were laughing at this so-called throughput computing strategy, but it turns o
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Wdomburg (141264)
        Sun put eight in-order single-issue integer only cores on a single die. AMD is putting eight full superscalar cores with branch prediction, virtualization extensions, vector units, blah, blah, etc, etc. Very different design philosophies producing chips with very different aims.

        Sun's foray into more traditional processor designs - the Rock - isn't expected to ship until 2008 and will feature only four cores.

        The only designs actually on the market with eight traditional cores would be the IBM POWER4 and PO
        • Sun's foray into more traditional processor designs - the Rock - isn't expected to ship until 2008 and will feature only four cores.
          Wrong! Rock has 16 cores. Read http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/date/20070410 [sun.com]
          • by Wdomburg (141264)
            It seems to depend on how you define a core. Released details are sparse, but what's out there suggests there will be four sets of four "processing engines" sharing essential chip resources, including L1 cache. Is that really sixteen cores as the term is commonly used in the industry today, or is it stretching the definition? If you count them seperately, is it unfair not to count the discrete execution units that make up a "core" in Intel or AMD's offerings seperately too?

            Cores are the new megahertz - a
    • In an ideal world, yes. In this non-ideal world, AMD still has to surmount the fact that they are still a fab generation behind. If AMD can't get a clock that is close 3GHz rather than the 2.5GHz I seem to recall AMD reps throwing around, I don't think the same-die advantage will be enough help. Right now, there is no "true" four core x86 on a single die, and there are still a lot of uses for Intel's Core Quad chips, without an AMD competitor in this sector, the advantage still goes to Intel vs a product
      • by Wdomburg (141264)
        AMD has been a fab generation behind for years, and still spanked Intel prior to the Core 2 release. And there's far more factors than just clock speed, number of cores and number of dies. Intel's replacement for their aging frontside bus is years behind; the first chip they announced would use it (Whitefield) was canceled back in 2005, and now they're promising it will debut in the later half of 2008. An integrated memory controller, which AMD has had since 2001, will debut at the same time. Using a de
      • by TheSunborn (68004)
        Currently both Amd and Intil produce using 65nm, so how can AMD be behind now?

  • and socket type? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Danathar (267989) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @06:12AM (#19361973) Journal
    And it will probably require ANOTHER slot type and force me to upgrade my motherboard yet AGAIN!

    Geeze...please let me keep my motherboard for 6 months!
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No it doesn't require a new socket. The socket is still AM2, so you can keep your mainboard. The boards, that do come out now are AM2+ boards, they offer a new power saving tech for the Phenom's, which will save you about 10% power consumption.
      • Re:and socket type? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Eukariote (881204) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @06:51AM (#19362059)

        Indeed so. Anyone having bought or buying an AM2/AM+2 desktop motherboard can drop in Phenom processors. When you have a performance AMD 4x4 (1,207-pin Socket F) board with FX processors, you can drop in the new quad core FX chips as well. Similarly, when you have a DDR2 Opteron server/big-iron, you can also upgrade.

        That makes the current AMD platforms attractive: you can buy a cheap Athlon X2 chip to get good performance now, and later upgrade to a Phenom chip and get excellent performance and four-way multiprocessing. I plan to wait with my upgrade until the price comes down a bit.

        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Yeah whatever. Remember socket 940?
          That was the high-end socket for K8, for Opteron/FX chips, while Athlon64 took the cheaper socket 754.

          Then AMD marketing wonks decided to invent socket 939 to differentiate the market further and isolate desktop and server platforms. (And don't fall for the marketing BS. For the last time, no, 939 doesn't have anything to do with unbuffered RAM. Sockets have nothing to do with that. Unbuffered support is purely a function of the new CPUs' fixed memory controller. Old
          • For the last time, no, 939 doesn't have anything to do with unbuffered RAM. Sockets have nothing to do with that. Unbuffered support is purely a function of the new CPUs' fixed memory controller.

            That's great and all, but it doesn't actually help you in this case. The registered / unregistered thing still meant that there was no chip / board combination that would have worked had they not introduced a new socket. A lot of people complain about the numerous AMD socket changes, but new versions of the same so

    • Re:and socket type? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Josef Meixner (1020161) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @06:42AM (#19362039) Homepage

      In every press release [amd.com] AMD stated it will run in AM2 sockets. If I remember correctly it will not be able to use the new hypertransport links, support for the new power saving functions (it can switch off complete cores if they aren't needed) in AM2 sockets, it will need AM2+ for that. Sorry, I am far too lazy to search for a reference for those last bits of information, it is something I read in a magazine (paper version).

    • Who upgrades just their processor anymore anyways, most of the time its just not worth it. Ussually easier to just upgrade everything at once. If your going to be running a bleeding edge processor why would you want to run it with an old video card and only 1 gig of ram that probably isn't the right speed for it.
    • by ceeam (39911)
      I think AMD would've stick with 939/940 sockets if memory manufacturers would not switch to cheaper (but otherwise the same performance) DDR2 memory.
      • by Gr8Apes (679165)
        It's only been in the past 6 months or so that DDR2 prices fell below DDR prices.
  • Any info on a mobile version of Barcelona ? I think that AMD should follow Intel in the sense of making an uber cool mobile processor first (that motivates squeezing the most from one Watt) and then give it full throttle for a desktop version. Just like it was done with the Core.
    • Re:a mobile version? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Eukariote (881204) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @07:04AM (#19362097)

      For mobile, AMD has gone a different route for now, they have reworked the K8 for extremely low power: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39 894 [theinquirer.net]. The two cores and memory controller get independent voltage planes. And the cores can clock up and down independently. It makes good sense: for mobile, low power is crucial.

      Many of the high-end features (double FPU units, hypertransport interconnects, and so on) of the Barcelona design are not required for a laptop, and add power draw caused by static leakage, even when not in use. In due time, though, AMD will no doubt rework the K10/Barcelona core into a mobile design. Probably they will release a moderately power mobile Barcelona version before that, for high-end workstation type laptops.

  • WTF? (Score:5, Funny)

    by GreatBunzinni (642500) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @06:39AM (#19362029)
    Photos of processor dies? WTF is this? Some kind of porn for uber-geeks?
  • by eebra82 (907996) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @08:11AM (#19362325) Homepage
    Now that AMD released high-res pictures of this core, Epson can use their transistor printers we have read about and start selling this CPU ahead of AMD. Good job, AMD!
  • by LWATCDR (28044) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @10:16AM (#19362901) Homepage Journal
    Okay I really like my AMD system but they need to be slapped hard for inventing a new goofy marketing term.
    MEGATASKING.
    Dude if you have over a 1024 tasks running at once you need to run some malware clean up software.
    • Megatasking would be 1,000,000+ processes at once.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by forkazoo (138186)

      Okay I really like my AMD system but they need to be slapped hard for inventing a new goofy marketing term.
      MEGATASKING.
      Dude if you have over a 1024 tasks running at once you need to run some malware clean up software.


      My friend, you fail to appreciate the lunacy of the intricacies of marketing. That which you have described would, in fact, be merely kilotasking.
      • by LWATCDR (28044)
        Of course it was just kilotasking. That is why the term megatasking is so dumb...
        How's that for covering up a silly math mistake?

        Of course Intel will kill AMD. They will jump right to Teratasking!
    • by dodobh (65811)
      Dude, that was my webserver being hit by Slashdot.
  • whip (Score:2, Funny)

    put the photo in L1 cache to send a not-so-subtle message to your cpu
  • if you RTFA....
    aw great now i have to protect my computer from AMD slideware....
  • Finally (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    they'll be outfitted with 2MB of on-chip L2 cache (512KB dedicated per core)

    It's about effing time... maybe chip manufacturers have finally clued in that cache is the single biggest characteristic of a processor that affects (NOT impacts) performance. I have seen far too many 2-3GHz chips crippled by insufficient cache over the years, but hey, it was $20 bucks cheaper and the same speed so it must be a better deal right? Too bad that this will probably not make the market and the cache will be cut back to 6

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Just Some Guy (3352)

      It's about effing time... maybe chip manufacturers have finally clued in that cache is the single biggest characteristic of a processor that affects (NOT impacts) performance.

      Tell me about it. Those jackass chip hackers at Intel and AMD have been ignoring my advice for years in favor of their own cost/benefit analysis and engineering tradeoffs. If only they'd listen to us expects on Slashdot, there's no telling what they could accomplish!

  • So that must be the one we all need to buy, the Sempron. Megatasking might hurt someone and sounds like a war crime.

    Brilliant to market the new stuff only to weirdos :)

  • Well then, (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TheCreeep (794716)
    Why don't they just release the CPU? I mean they have it working, they tested it and stuff.
    I'm not trolling, I'm just curious to find out what changes a processor goes through in it's last months before being launched.
    • Two things come to mind. One is, AMD wants to make ultra-sure that there isn't some as-yet unnoticed mistake that will cause a product recall. The second is that there's a delay between the time somebody says "go" and packaged chips can be put into computers, most of which is the several weeks it takes to process wafers.
  • though AMD has lost a bit of thunder recently with the core2 line kicking butt, this multiple core phase the industry is moving towards is going to help AMD. They made a decision to change the bus for multi-core systems a while ago and this chip is the first one to really show off that bus. I think that Intel will have faster individual cores for a while and barcellona wont challenge that but AMD has a much better multi-core multi-processor bus so multi-core scaling will be much much better for AMD. an
  • I wound up buying a CD2 E6700 cuz it has the shared 4MB cache and it smoked the top-o-the-line AMDs too. I am sorry but I have found that in AMD's quest to be fast, their CPUs are not as stable as Intel's. My C2D compresses, encodes, encrypts, etc. like wildfire (in combination with a 3 drive Raid 0), runs cool, uses little power and doesn't crash. I can't say I have had the same luck with AMDs in the past. >:-/ Also, more cores does not translate into more performance unless they are actually utilized,
    • Is this a question, or is this Intel fanboy gibbering? Whatever, I'll just answer the question.

      What is with the rinky dinky cache?

      The Core 2 Duo E6700 has 4 megs of shared L2 cache and 2x64k of L1 cachee. All of the upcoming AMD chips will have 2 megs of shared L3 cache, 4x512k of non-shared L2 cache, and 4x128k of L1 cache. Nobody has rinky-dinky cache - it looks like everyone agrees about 4 megs of cache is the right answer at 65nm.

      Historically, the reason that AMD has lagged behind Intel on cache is a

      • First of all, I am not a fanboy of anything (sept maybe Linux), I go with what works and is the best VALUE for my money, not an overheating (AMD are notorious for hot running CPUs, good fan/heatsink or not), poorly designed fan (the stock AMD fans are pathetic) that loves to get clogged costing many people money (I have a registered business and work out of my home fixing PCs so next time don't be so quick to throw around names). I had a 1733MHz Athlon once, ONCE, it would kahk under real heavy loads AND LO
        • Amazing... you had a bad experience almost 10 years ago, and then you had an issue with a heat sink, and now you're 100% sure that AMD products are "crap". All I have to suggest is this: Be a little less rabid about spreading that anti-AMD FUD. I may not currently be fixing computers for people as my primary job, but I frequently help a couple of friends who do - and I see no evidence of a significant reliability difference between Intel, AMD, or even VIA on consumer-level processors today.

          As for historic

          • 10 years ago? Boy, you sure are NOT a hardware guru (read the date of the review... http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article. php/991011 [sharkyextreme.com] ). I don't care how many friends you have helped, except for a brief period just before Intel came out with its new line (C2Ds), AMD HAVE ALWAYS BEEN BEHIND, ADMIT IT, WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU? Also, I had an old IBM mini-tower that came with a stock K6-II 350, I dropped a brand new K6-II 500 in it and abused the hell out of that little machine but of course it had a
            • Sorry, I'll admit I speed-read over "1733 MHz" and assumed that "Athlon" didn't mean "Athlon XP". So it was five years ago.

              I'm still unconvinced by your vague anecdotal evidence that AMD processors are innately unstable. Like I said, I've personally seen a statistically significant number of computers built, deployed, and supported - and I've never seen processor stability issues that could be legitimately attributed to manufacturing quality. Are you 100% sure that your "unstable" Athlon XP didn't have bad

              • Boy, you don't give up, you must work for AMD to be so adamant. Look, I could care less who makes my CPU as long as it is fast, stable, runs cool (there are residual costs to hot running CPUs like ambient cooling >:-P) and doesn't break the bank when I get my electric bill. Right now, Intel happens to fit that bill with the C2D. Here's another thing, how come AMD based machines are always the 'budget' line (you get what you pay for remember) and they are no different when it comes to price gouging either
          • by rrhal (88665)
            One other note about older AMD CPU's. Well realy it's a not about thier motherboards. If you take the northbridge heatsink off you will find (usually) 1) it's warped 2) The etruded surface has big gouges in it 3) it was mounted with some kind of TIM tape that is ineffective. If you sand down the northbridge heatsink until it is flat, sand it out to 600 grit so it is smooth, and remount it with a decent thremal paste, the memory controller will actually be cooled and you wont get memory errors. Same is t
            • If you take the northbridge heatsink off you will find (usually) 1) it's warped 2) The etruded surface has big gouges in it 3) it was mounted with some kind of TIM tape that is ineffective.

              Who made the motherboards you're talking about? That's definitely a motherboard manufacturer problem, not an AMD problem - you want to pay a bit of attention to who's making your motherboard, since it's an important component in the functionality & stability of the PC.

  • This sounds powerful!

The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness. -- John Muir

Working...