Intel says Penryn "complete"

[Julian33]

I wonder how much AMD are paying him :?

 

[salvador]

I wonder how much AMD are paying him :?

Probably not that much, you did see AMDs numbers right :lol:

Perhaps Hector is paying him in other ways?

 

[turpit]

How silly are AMD going to look if Intel launches 45 nm before K8L? :lol:

You will be the silly one becasue a 45nm die shrink won't put a threat to AMD's Barcelona.

Penryn will just be a die shrink of the C2D architechture and some added SSE4 instructions.

You have to remember that AMD will refine 65nm even more and we still don't know Barcelona/K8L (or call it how you want it) final specs.

Also, AMD will debut 45nm with Ultra-Low-K and DC 2.0 in the 2008 timeframe. Definately, intel is not in the lead or the king of the hill like how many tend to believe and not everything is doom and gloom for AMD.

So everyone be sure to run out and smoke some crack so you can enjoy the same distorted perspective Barcelona does

 

[epsilon84]

Penryn will just be a die shrink of the C2D architechture and some added SSE4 instructions.

Yeah, because a 4GHz Penryn really isn't that much better than a 3GHz Conroe...

 

[aron311]

Just to clarify

 

[epsilon84]

Remeber K8 vs Netburst....Who had much higher clocks there and still lost hands down, that even putting aside the power issue. Need say no more.

So you think Core2 is similar to Netburst? :lol:

 

[cwj717]

How silly are AMD going to look if Intel launches 45 nm before K8L? :lol:

You will be the silly one becasue a 45nm die shrink won't put a threat to AMD's Barcelona.

Penryn will just be a die shrink of the C2D architechture and some added SSE4 instructions.

You have to remember that AMD will refine 65nm even more and we still don't know Barcelona/K8L (or call it how you want it) final specs.

Also, AMD will debut 45nm with Ultra-Low-K and DC 2.0 in the 2008 timeframe. Definately, intel is not in the lead or the king of the hill like how many tend to believe and not everything is doom and gloom for AMD.

Still seeing pigs flying around, eh, barcelona? You do know what usually comes with a die shrink yeah? Higher clocks but remaining on the same power-level? Yes, thats right.

Lets say, theoretically, if Barcelona/K8L debuts with a 2 - 2,8 Ghz range, and Intel manages to release up to 3,5 Ghz (still remaining on same power-level as Conroe). Hands down, who do you think will win? Hey, who am I kidding. We'll just have to wait and see.

Hope they showcase a Yorkfield on IDF. :twisted: Clocking down.

Remeber K8 vs Netburst....Who had much higher clocks there and still lost hands down, that even putting aside the power issue. Need say no more. Conroe is no Netburst. Conroe is already 20-30% faster per clock than K8... Do you realize how much K8L would have to improve over K8 to make it as fast as, let alone faster than a higher clocked Conroe?

 

[Barcelona_Xtreme]

Conroe is no Netburst. Conroe is already 20-30% faster per clock than K8... Do you realize how much K8L would have to improve over K8 to make it as fast as, let alone faster than a higher clocked Conroe?

LOL.

Where do you get your numbers from?
And please, don't tell me that JumpingJack (or some other intel troll) have told you so).

Conroe is only 10-15% better than K8 OVERALL!!!
Also, don't count K8L yet.

 

[clairvoyant129]

Conroe is no Netburst. Conroe is already 20-30% faster per clock than K8... Do you realize how much K8L would have to improve over K8 to make it as fast as, let alone faster than a higher clocked Conroe?

LOL.

Where do you get your numbers from?
And please, don't tell me that JumpingJack (or some other intel troll) have told you so).

Conroe is only 10-15% better than K8 OVERALL!!!
Also, don't count K8L yet.

Ah, good old Barcelona_isnotXtreme making up random numbers again.

I think you're familiar with these graphs,

 

[Barcelona_Xtreme]

How silly are AMD going to look if Intel launches 45 nm before K8L? :lol:

You will be the silly one becasue a 45nm die shrink won't put a threat to AMD's Barcelona.

Penryn will just be a die shrink of the C2D architechture and some added SSE4 instructions.

You have to remember that AMD will refine 65nm even more and we still don't know Barcelona/K8L (or call it how you want it) final specs.

Also, AMD will debut 45nm with Ultra-Low-K and DC 2.0 in the 2008 timeframe. Definately, intel is not in the lead or the king of the hill like how many tend to believe and not everything is doom and gloom for AMD.
Are you bloody serious?

Let me ask you this and i hope YOU to answer me.

1) If the C2D is so great as many tend to believe (and I admit its a great uArch but I'm not that blind), why it's not used in the top supercomputers of the world?

2) Why did Microsoft opted for AMD's 64-bit instruction set AND processors for current and future development of apps? Indeed, AMD and Microsoft are cooperating to advertise Windows Vista

 

[exit2dos]

1) If the C2D is so great as many tend to believe (and I admit its a great uArch but I'm not that blind), why it's not used in the top supercomputers of the world?

AMD's Opteron did allow AMD to make gains over Netburst in the Supercomputer space. However, many Supercomputers are based around the Itanium or IBM's Power series. Data does indicate that Intel is taking the lead again in the x86 server space with the Woodcrest.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6135018.html
Note: Even with any lost share, Intel is still used in over half of the top 500 Supercomputers.

2) Why did Microsoft opted for AMD's 64-bit instruction set AND processors for current and future development of apps? Indeed, AMD and Microsoft are cooperating to advertise Windows Vista

Intel was favoring it's own implementation in the server space, and they did not believe that the mass consumer market needed 64-bit yet. AMD stepped in with it's 64-bit for the desktop, which forced MS to pick a platform. I will admit that this was a brilliant move by AMD - however, Intel was correct that the desktop market wasn't ready for 64-bit (Here we are in 2007, and look at 64-bit support. Windows x64 driver support and customer adoption is questionable, and 64-bit Vista support is spotty.)

As far as Microsoft using AMD only for "current and future development of apps", could you provide a link?

 

[cwj717]

Conroe is no Netburst. Conroe is already 20-30% faster per clock than K8... Do you realize how much K8L would have to improve over K8 to make it as fast as, let alone faster than a higher clocked Conroe?

LOL.

Where do you get your numbers from?
And please, don't tell me that JumpingJack (or some other intel troll) have told you so).

Conroe is only 10-15% better than K8 OVERALL!!!
Also, don't count K8L yet. LMAO. I was kind of expecting you to say that...so instead of pulling numbers out of your a$s, why don't you back it up with some data?

EDIT: Here is a link... http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=1

Ok, well after look over these benchmark results... I guess its more like 15-66% If you would like I could make a table and graph the results...

 

[Barcelona_Xtreme]

Conroe is no Netburst. Conroe is already 20-30% faster per clock than K8... Do you realize how much K8L would have to improve over K8 to make it as fast as, let alone faster than a higher clocked Conroe?

LOL.

Where do you get your numbers from?
And please, don't tell me that JumpingJack (or some other intel troll) have told you so).

Conroe is only 10-15% better than K8 OVERALL!!!
Also, don't count K8L yet. LMAO. I was kind of expecting you to say that...so instead of pulling numbers out of your a$s, why don't you back it up with some data?

EDIT: Here is a link... http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=1

Ok, well after look over these benchmark results... I guess its more like 15-66% If you would like I could make a table and graph the results...

Judging from clairvoyant's post, C2D is 18% better in real world usage than K8 (what I've been saying), but you have to take that chart with a grain of salt since it was made from an intel fanboy and with THG's benchmark scores.

 

[Barcelona_Xtreme]

AMD's Opteron did allow AMD to make gains over Netburst in the Supercomputer space. However, many Supercomputers are based around the Itanium or IBM's Power series.

Power is losing ground to Opteron and itanium is suffering a painful agony.

Data does indicate that Intel is taking the lead again in the x86 server space with the Woodcrest.

Sorry but, which lead are you talking about???
Woodcrest won't scale more than 4 sockets (don't even mention 8 or more sockets) due of its FSB dependancy.
Barcelona will establish AMD as the indisputed leader in HPC.

As far as Microsoft using AMD only for "current and future development of apps", could you provide a link?

Where did I say only?
It would be fool on Microsoft's part to rely only on AMD's instruction set (and processors) for future offerings (when I mean future I'm talking about Vista's successor).

 

[the_vorlon]

Penryn will just be a die shrink of the C2D architechture and some added SSE4 instructions.

Yeah, because a 4GHz Penryn really isn't that much better than a 3GHz Conroe...

The extra cache, faster bus, double pumped ALU, vector processing execution units, high K dielectric junctions, reduced leakage, and smaller features likely slow it down too...

Looks like a dog to me....

 

[Barcelona_Xtreme]

The extra cache, faster bus, double pumped ALU, vector processing execution units, high K dielectric junctions, reduced leakage, and smaller features likely slow it down too...

Intel won't be upgrading the NGMA's core with penryn. As I said, it's only a die shrink with some SSE4 instructions and some cache. That's all.

Expect a core upgrade in 2008 with Nehalem (which will be competing with upgrades made to K8L and DC 2.0)

 

[exit2dos]

AMD's Opteron did allow AMD to make gains over Netburst in the Supercomputer space. However, many Supercomputers are based around the Itanium or IBM's Power series.

Power is losing ground to Opteron and itanium is suffering a painful agony.
True - It's starting to look like x86 is currently the only way to go at any platform level.

Data does indicate that Intel is taking the lead again in the x86 server space with the Woodcrest.

Sorry but, which lead are you talking about???
Woodcrest won't scale more than 4 sockets (don't even mention 8 or more sockets) due of its FSB dependancy.
Barcelona will establish AMD as the indisputed leader in HPC.
I'm speaking of general x86 servers. Many supercomputers are "clusters". With 4P and higher systems (on the same board), I do agree that Barcelona will probably be the best option (at least until Tukwila).

As far as Microsoft using AMD only for "current and future development of apps", could you provide a link?

Where did I say only?
It would be fool on Microsoft's part to rely only on AMD's instruction set (and processors) for future offerings (when I mean future I'm talking about Vista's successor).

Your statement: "Why did Microsoft opted for AMD's 64-bit instruction set AND processors for current and future development of apps?"
The "AND" implied exclusivity, but judging from your response, you didn't intend it that way - so I retract my link request.

 

[Barcelona_Xtreme]

True - It's starting to look like x86 is currently the only way to go at any platform level.

I do agree with you on this one.

x86 is the driving force on desktops, laptops and servers. Even Power and itanium are being displaced by x86 processors in the HPC segment.

 

[Barcelona_Xtreme]

And talking about x86 in HPC, AMD scored another win with this supercomputer sold to the UNAM (Mexico's national Autonomous university):
AMDZone

 

[epsilon84]

The extra cache, faster bus, double pumped ALU, vector processing execution units, high K dielectric junctions, reduced leakage, and smaller features likely slow it down too...

Intel won't be upgrading the NGMA's core with penryn. As I said, it's only a die shrink with some SSE4 instructions and some cache. That's all.

Expect a core upgrade in 2008 with Nehalem (which will be competing with upgrades made to K8L and DC 2.0)

It'll also scale to higher clockspeeds than Conroe at lower wattages. A miracle aside, I think its safe to say that Penryn will scale to much higher clockspeeds than Barcelona.

Let's assume Penryn will have a 25% clock for clock advantage against K8, it would mean Barcelona will have to improve over K8 >30% to have a notable lead over Penryn clock for clock.

From the various roadmaps I've seen, the highest rumoured clockspeed for Barcelona is 2.9GHz, while Penryn has been touted to be clocked between 3.4 to 3.73GHz for QC and 3.5 - 4GHz for DC.

If these rumoured clockspeeds are remotely accurate, Barcelona will have to be at least 40% faster than K8 to be competitive, and 50% faster to be outright outperforming Penryn. That is quite an ask, despite all the enhancements Barcelona has over K8.

 

[Barcelona_Xtreme]

It'll also scale to higher clockspeeds than Conroe at lower wattages. A miracle aside, I think its safe to say that Penryn will scale to much higher clockspeeds than Barcelona.

I don't count higher clock speed as an upgrade. Indeed, AMD will launch 90nm K8s at 3.2GHz. If clock speed is all that important to you, expect more refinements to AMD's 65nm process. They already have the low power crown, now they need to enhance the clock speeds.

And about intel's 45nm offerings, I'd like you to take a read of this (it's from AMDZone's Scientia):

In 2006 Intel had roughly a 9 month or 3 quarter lead on AMD for 65nm. And, although some have went on and one about 45nm for Intel it looks like Intel will lose ground in terms of lead time.

To the best of my knowledge, AMD will release 45nm mid 2008. This means that AMD has to start production about the beginning of Q2 08 to have cpu's in the channel for release. Now, I have heard of estimates of later than this like mid Q2 which would mean a release about a month later like beginning of August.

So, if AMD is going to begin production at the beginning of Q2 08 then Intel would need to begin production at the beginning of Q3 07. This definitely will not happen. Much more likely is production at the beginning of Q4 07. This would mean that Intel's lead would have been reduced from 9 months to 6 months.

If you look at the statement that production begins in the 2nd half but that 3 FABs will be producing 45nm in 2008 then you can assume that initial production is D1D. This could very well mean that 45nm will only be low volume until Q1 08. So, it seems likely that Intel's lead time will be reduced from 9 months to 6 months or perhaps even 4 1/2 by the time production really starts.

And...

I've only seen articles which brag about Intel's 45nm process which people (such as those on forumz) claim will be incredibly fast and low power. However, this is from the 13th of December 2006:

The continued enhancement of AMD and IBM’s transistor strain techniques has enabled the continued scaling of transistor performance while overcoming industry-wide, geometry-related scaling issues associated with migrating to 45nm process technologies. In spite of the increased packing density of the 45nm generation transistors, IBM and AMD have demonstrated an 80 per cent increase in p-channel transistor drive current and a 24 per cent increase in n-channel transistor drive current compared to unstrained transistors. This achievement results in the highest CMOS performance reported to date in a 45nm process technology.

Here is the link if in case: AMDZone

If these rumoured clockspeeds are remotely accurate, Barcelona will have to be at least 40% faster than K8 to be competitive, and 50% faster to be outright outperforming Penryn. That is quite an ask, despite all the enhancements Barcelona has over K8.

K8L only needs to be 35% better than K8 to beat the C2D uArch. That's all.

 

[HotFoot]

Intel only had a 9-month lead in 65nm? What are the actual dates of retail availability of Intel's first 65 nm parts versus AMD's? It seems to me that Intel launched 65nm parts in Dec '05, while AMD "launched" theirs in Dec '06, while we're still waiting for parts availability. Maybe I'm recalling the dates wrong, but that's a full 12 month lead.

And in terms of AMD's plans to do some catching up with the 45 nm node, it seems more and more likely that they'd have to have parts out in Q1 or Q2 2008 to be only 6 months behind Intel this time around.

 

[Barcelona_Xtreme]

Intel only had a 9-month lead in 65nm? What are the actual dates of retail availability of Intel's first 65 nm parts versus AMD's? It seems to me that Intel launched 65nm parts in Dec '05, while AMD "launched" theirs in Dec '06, while we're still waiting for parts availability. Maybe I'm recalling the dates wrong, but that's a full 12 month lead.

He answered that also:

abinstein wrote: ›Apple using 65nm Core Duo was shipping in January 2006. I think it's about a year ahead of AMD's 65nm shipping, not 9 months.

Yes, begining of Q1 to beginning of Q4 is 3 quarters or 9 months.

 

[HotFoot]

Isn't the beginning of Q4 October? I didn't think AMD had 65 nm parts available for sale in October.

 

[enewmen]

What's a VRM? Sorry for the stupid question.