An early look at Phenom dual / tri core performance

[cnumartyr]

My apologies for misinterpreting your post, after rereading it I understand what you mean. That is still a rather bold claim, you are predicting a 5 - 15% increase just from the L3 issue alone.

40% Improvement over C2D!!!

 

[epsilon84]

40% Improvement over C2D!!!

 

[Grimmy]

bold claim?

okay.. okay..

15 + 20 - 40 +2 -15 +12 = random numbers / = percent +/-

Bah... where's the A1 sauce?

 

[epsilon84]

bold claim?

okay.. okay..

15 + 20 - 40 +2 -15 +12 = random numbers / = percent +/-

Bah... where's the A1 sauce?

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, bamboozle them with stupidity... :lol:

 

[Grimmy]

. o O (hey, I try to do the best of what I got... I know A1 had bold sauce.. just can't figure out the percentage on it vs the original sauce)

. o O (just give me a few years to figure that one out)

 

[yomamafor1]

That's because all of you want AMD buyers to be wrong you read what you want. It should be obvious that I meant GROW to 20% over X2 K8.

I thought you said the L3 bug affected at least 20%?

I imagine that if the L3 bug IS affecting general perf (which I think it is) we will see at least 20% and maybe 30%.

How come it becomes "grow to 20%" all of the sudden?

Look Baron, no one wants to prove AMD buyers wrong. AMD buyers know what they got when they made that purchasing decision. We only want to prove YOU wrong. Almost all of your claims are based on that random number generator in your head. NOTHING solid.

And I thought TLB errata lead to BSOD, not performance hit?

 

[yomamafor1]

Now they also know why you can't even quote yourself in YOUR sig. You just take your silly reasoning and run. I'm not going to preface my statements anymore cause it never worked in the past.

At least I don't come up with random numbers, and rabidly defend them with name calling and personal attacks.

 

[yomamafor1]

It's a certain % faster now. Only biased people would jump by the fact that it means GROW to 20%. Not add 20% on top of the current. I guess context clues weren't your forte.

Really Baron? No one, and I mean NO ONE that I know of make that claim, only YOU. Even those who has extensive knowledge and experience in the field never claimed such number, only YOU

I guess we're all biased rabid Intel fanboy. 😗

 

[itotallybelieveyou]

Tri-core was the stupidest idea from AMD since.... forever

 

[cnumartyr]

Tri-core was the stupidest idea from AMD since.... forever

I don't agree. I think claiming it was a "native" tri-core was.

I don't really see this as anything different than the 6300/6400 with 2 MB of L2 Cache or the 21x0 line with 1 MB of L2 Cache.

If disabling a single core will for whatever reason let them run higher and can fill a "market" segment it will be a good idea. The question is where will they be priced.

 

[pogsnet]

Yes there is still inefficiency with the L3 cache they have. It appears useless. And some errata still occur. Too bad AMD rushed so much about these things. Hence, we wait until 9700 officially comes out with fixings on the errata and other improvement.

 

[caqde]

I don't agree. I think claiming it was a "native" tri-core was.

I don't really see this as anything different than the 6300/6400 with 2 MB of L2 Cache or the 21x0 line with 1 MB of L2 Cache.

If disabling a single core will for whatever reason let them run higher and can fill a "market" segment it will be a good idea. The question is where will they be priced.

Where did they claim it was a native quad core? I read a lot of news and have never read that they claimed it was a native tri core... But I do agree that it will be a good processor as long as it is priced decently..

After looking at the benchmarks closely I have to say that the Phenom X2 Benched here is being bottlenecked by something likely the point that it is a Quad Core running only 2 cores and likely those 2 cores are on the same Memory Controller (Phenom has 2 64-bit Memory Controllers one on the left and one on the right..) which would explain the Drastic change in performance from the Dual to the Tri-core on the PS CS3 benchmark..

 

[cnumartyr]

Where did they claim it was a native quad core? I read a lot of news and have never read that they claimed it was a native tri core... But I do agree that it will be a good processor as long as it is priced decently..

After looking at the benchmarks closely I have to say that the Phenom X2 Benched here is being bottlenecked by something likely the point that it is a Quad Core running only 2 cores and likely those 2 cores are on the same Memory Controller (Phenom has 2 64-bit Memory Controllers one on the left and one on the right..) which would explain the Drastic change in performance from the Dual to the Tri-core on the PS CS3 benchmark..

When they first started talking about the Tri-Core it was claimed that it would be a native tri-core and not a quad with a single core fused off.

 

[turpit]

So which one doesn't show scaling increases? Photoshop? Oh, so you just have to have something to say about the underdog.

Besides Anand got 15% so it shows that benchmarks ARE NOT GOSPEL. They are just a guide. I imagine that if the L3 bug IS affecting general perf (which I think it is) we will see at least 20% and maybe 30%.
It looks liek certain workloads don't hit the problem as AMD says, but if you look at Sandra Memory, NO chip should have higher bandwidth than a Phenom with 1066DDR2, but they ALL do.

I guess AMD is moving totally away from Intel's "methodolgy" so they need K10-optimized benchmarks or they won't see the improvements.

That's my guess though, not meant to be taken as fact, like YOU ALL USUALLY DO.

Ding Ding Ding....we have a winner. Congrats to Yomamafo1 for calling it, here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/page-246375_28_160.html
Posted on 11-20-2007 at 04:30:03 AM

Very nice Turpit, but to be honest, I really don't think Baron will take any of these words seriously. As you, and other forum members who has spent the last 3 years on THGF, know Baron all too well.

I think the numbers and the facts speak for themselves. AMD took a shot at the moon, but instead, they land themselves in a toilet. To be honest, the phrase "colossal failure" is a pretty accurate description of what Phenom has become.

Baron, I've been saying this from day 1, and I won't stop saying it until you get it: you don't know jack about processor architecture, and manufacturing. My suggestion: Stop taking a small segment out of a report, and interpret it however you like.

Baron's next arguments:
1. Benchmark not optimized.
2. L3 cache TLB fix will yield 20%~30% performance.
3. B3 stepping will allow Phenom to go up to 3.4Ghz.
4. Its already been demonstrated that Phenom can run up to 4.0Ghz in lab.
5. Intel should be punished for devaluing the market.
6. Intel should be punished for overcharging, and rip off its customers.
7. I am a hater of monopoly, not a specific company.
8. I was traumatized when discovered how Intel's Pentium 3 1Ghz was so low performing.
9. I'm not an AMD fanboy, but I just don't buy Intel, ever.

Good call Yomama [:turpit:2]

 

[turpit]

Now now, If you keep that up you will have to lock the thread. :lol:

😉

 

[WR]

When they first started talking about the Tri-Core it was claimed that it would be a native tri-core and not a quad with a single core fused off.

I would really, really doubt this, as it's hard to squeeze 3 equivalent cores in circular fashion into a square. You could still efficiently fit this on a wafer with a tetris-like design, but that opens a whole set of problems with the patterning and circuit testing machines.

Far more likely, they're just fusing off bad or weak cores off a quad.

 

[Tostino]

Ding Ding Ding....we have a winner. Congrats to Yomamafo1 for calling it, here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/page-246375_28_160.html
Posted on 11-20-2007 at 04:30:03 AM





Good call Yomama [:turpit:2]

Yomama missed the bonus points for getting the correct order the arguments would be brought up in! Darn it...

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Yomamafor1, will you marry me?

 

[cnumartyr]

The next thing will be that the above post was a joke and sarcasm after having read Yomama's post and was done in jest...

 

[ro3dog]

I do think there is a problem with Phenom that will be worked out .No ,I know nothing of cpu more than tweaks and little basics,but this steak is not done .I believe the tri-core will come out with faster clocks (2.6 and up,cant recall where I read this)the end or 1Q 08 begining of 2Q 08.Which will be closer to the time of the Sb700 chipset and R700 gpu.For now the Phenom is a sucky over priced econo cpu.I'm patient

 

[onestar]

...just the facts, mam

 

[caqde]

For those that are interested

After taking all of the scores and finding out how much faster AMD (unganged 2.3) is from moving from dual to tri, from tri to quad, and from dual to quad, and for Intel from dual to quad (2.4Ghz).

I have come up with this information

AMD Dual to Tri = AVG Increase = 26%
AMD Tri to Quad = AVG Increase = 20%
AMD Dual to Quad = AVG Increase = 54%
Intel Dual to Quad = AVG Increase = 45%

Of interest is also the point that AMD NEVER decreased in speed in any of the benchmarks although Intel Lost performance in both the 3DMark 05 GPU Bench (93% of the speed) and HalfLife 2: Lost Cost (96% of the speed) while AMD improved in speed by 3% and 1% respectively.

So I guess at least this shows that their Native QuadCore design does have it's benifits at least with scaling.

Oh and for those that wonder Intel did not once scale better in any given benchmark.. The minimum Scale difference was in Photoshop with 0.01% difference and a maximum of 22% in Winrar.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

I don't get the fascination with scaling. So even if the AMD processors scale better, wouldn't you care more about actual performance and the fact that the Intel processors still kick AMD processors any day of the week and eat them for breakfast?

Quad core market is just plain going to be owned by Intel.

Dual core is up for grabs in my opinion, especially if AMD gets out some high clocked K10 duals, that would be very interesting.


AMD needs to take advantage of the dual core market before software most becomes highly threaded, because like I said, QUAD = INTEL, hands down.

 

[caamsa]

I will be interested in seeing Intells native quad core in action......I wonder if they will be able to get it right. Also I was reading that Intell will release an native 8 core cpu next year>>>>?

Quote from an article I was reading on Economist.com

"AMD faces three handicaps. First, it has only two chip fabrication plants, or “fabs”, compared with Intel's 15, which still supply three-quarters of all processors for PCs. This makes AMD more vulnerable to manufacturing problems: its newest chips are not as fast as promised and have been hit by production delays. It also means that Intel can usually introduce new manufacturing processes faster. With Penryn, Intel has started using hafnium, an obscure metal, to insulate the transistors in its chips. This has made it possible to shrink the tiny switches even further without leaking too much current. AMD will not reach the same level of miniaturisation until mid-2008."

Here is the link for the full article if you are interested.

http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10180738

 

[yomamafor1]

You can call that AMD's Achilles's heel. Back in the K8 days, it is AMD's manufacturing capacity that strained AMD's potential into becoming a much bigger company, not Intel's anti-competitive behavior. When AMD took its first step in expansion (ATI buyout, NY fab), BOOM, C2D debuted.

Strained manufacturing capacity might also be the sole reason why AMD continues to wither. If AMD has NY fabs up and running by this year, they could supply enough X2 chips with lower cost, without jeopardizing K10's production. This means Barcelona wouldn't be in such low volume, and further bring in desperately needed revenue and profit for AMD. Its already been two months since Barcelona launched, and very few OEMs have it.

To simply put, it isn't AMD's own product that brought AMD down, but its poor executive decision in not expanding at the right time that crippled AMD. In Rahul Sood's words, "AMD's execution this year has been nothing short of horrible."