AMD Barcelona/Shanghai Quad to top out at 2.5GHz initially?

[r0ck]

http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/167/167267_1.shtml
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php?tid=708150&starttime=0&endtime=0

As opposed to the 2.9GHz previously reported.

 

[Threshold]

Nice links.

Makes me a little disappointed, but still not /terribly/ bad.

 

[BaronMatrix]

That's interesting in that the last links I saw showed Bacelona supporting 1066DDR2 and being 2.6-2.9GHz MAX. Perhaps the efficiency is allowing them to intro lower clock speeds.

I'll reserve judgement for a few months.

 

[NEO3]

Nice post, thanks for the info!!

I know its not the place, but the "AMD introduces 65 nm processors" article by
Wolfgang Gruener sucks! the guy cant write a line without saying "intel"... hahaha

 

[Bluefinger]

Only 2.5ghz? Meh, as long as it can provide performance to allow it to compete with Clovertown, then it doesn't bother me much... however, the TDPs are all the same as with equivalent rated dual-core processors? Nice.... 8) less of a headache for upgraders with regards to cooling and power supplies...

 

[Dahak]

Apperantly that is what is happening for the time being.I would not worry though,they will probably increase core speed as time goes by.But if you think about it for a minute,that's four(4) cores,each core running at 2.5 ghz.Now that's a lot of processing power.You must have been an INTEL fanboy in your previous life as you seem overly worried about clock speed.Grinzzz.Goodluck.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.4 S-939
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7800GT CO IN SLI
2X1GIG DDR IN DC MODE
WD300GIG HD
EXTREME 19IN.MONITOR 1280X1024
ACE 520WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120

 

[r0ck]

http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=678736
Considering that they planned 2.9GHz before.. That's -16% already.

 

[r0ck]

Perhaps they thought no one would pay attention to the black and just the red..

 

[Bluefinger]

Albiet, the TDP definitions are different, they should have highlighted that....

Oh yeah, forgot about that, Intel uses a slightly different definition for their TDP values compared to AMD... a sizeable discrepancy on AMD's part... should receive a slap on the wrist for that! xD

 

[BaronMatrix]

Perhaps they thought no one would pay attention to the black and just the red..

Well, I am not sure what happened, the slide looks 'AMD' like I find it odd that would advertise their mediocrity so agressively, especially considering they put together magic numbers to try to fool people into thinking they have a power advantage over woodcrest.....

In terms of the quad launch speed --- given the leaked info coming from these sites have been within the ball park and not necessarily on the nose on all counts, I am also apprehensive to start concluding on this data. Speculation though is ok, if 2.5 GHz is indeed the top speed targeted for quadcore, then this will not compete.... even with the IPC enhancements, a 3-issue core simply will not make up the delta in their current IPC deficity as well as the clock speed delta.

Maybe they know everyone wishes doom and gloom on them and decided to emphasize that this is just a minor glitch.

 

[1Tanker]

I say.."isn't that the pot calling the kettle black"? They have the nerve to put(in bold green letters) Intel Rushes Quad-Core to Market. What was 4x4....the definition of rush job. At least Intel's rush job performs like it should. :roll: I really, seriously think that AMD is so full of themselves now, like an arrogant brat in the playground.

 

[TechMan]

I say.."isn't that the pot calling the kettle black"? They have the nerve to put(in bold green letters) Intel Rushes Quad-Core to Market. What was 4x4....the definition of rush job. At least Intel's rush job performs like it should. :roll: I really, seriously think that AMD is so full of themselves now, like an arrogant brat in the playground.

In fairness, PIII 1.13 GHz many seasons ago.... is the real definition of a rush job. Consider the 4x4 platform, even THG acknowledges its merits. The processors are just underperformers. 90nm is EOL.

 

[Pippero]

Perhaps they thought no one would pay attention to the black and just the red..

Well, I am not sure what happened, the slide looks 'AMD' like I find it odd that would advertise their mediocrity so agressively, especially considering they put together magic numbers to try to fool people into thinking they have a power advantage over woodcrest.....

In terms of the quad launch speed --- given the leaked info coming from these sites have been within the ball park and not necessarily on the nose on all counts, I am also apprehensive to start concluding on this data. Speculation though is ok, if 2.5 GHz is indeed the top speed targeted for quadcore, then this will not compete.... even with the IPC enhancements, a 3-issue core simply will not make up the delta in their current IPC deficit plus the clock speed delta as well.
My speculation: it could compete with a 2.67 GHz Kentsfield quad.
Such a small clock difference could be compensated by the "native quad core" design, since the 4 cores could communicate with higher bandwidth (dedicated internal buses) and lower latency thanks to the shared L3 cache.
This under the hypothesis that both architectures would have a very similar IPC.