The Inquirer: How AMD turned Barcelona into a right royal mess

[epsilon84]

It's "bullpoop" if the entire argument is based upon it. Claiming a certain product to be better if it was at x.xx GHz is irrelevant. If you release a product at 2.2GHz and the competition has products at 3.2Ghz, than shame on you. The only real measure of performance is what you put on the table and how you design it. Frequency for a chip is a factor, this we know, but it's not the only true measure of relative performance.

QFT. I remember AMD fans using the same argument when the 3GHz+ P4 Northwoods was beating the Athlon XP.

Clock for clock is a rather meaningless metric unless the two architectures actually have similar scaling potential. It's good for comparing architectural efficiency, but at the end of the day, it's performance that matters.

 

[teh_boxzor]

lol, both our articles are from this weekend! Thanks for the link Mr. Caamsa. Interesting read.

DOOM AND GLOOM! DOOM AND GLOOM!

Prediction: AMD stock trades near 8.50 this week.

DOOM AND GLOOM! DOOM AND GLOOM!

hmmmm now is that worth risking buying 1000 shares and seeing rev. B3 crash and burn?

 

[justinmcg67]

Its never "bullpoop". It is a relative number, and only a number, and the only way to tell true relative calculation performance.

Now if an individual chooses to base their "entire argument" upon it, and their argument is incomplete, takes information out of context, or is blatently wrong, either accidentally or deliberately for the purpose of misleading, then it is the individual who misleads that is full of "bullpoop", not the numbers. Numbers never lie, only the people who use them.

Couldn't agree more.

BM is most notable for using the "clock for clock' argument, which is why i bring this up. Basing why a CPU is, or is not better (and by better it could be anything you want it to be) only upon clock frequency is subjective in my opinion. Yes, generally CPUs increase in performance as you increase the frequency. However, if you took two CPUs from Intel, and run them clock for clock such as a Core 2 Duo E4500 vs. the Core 2 Duo E6600, both being the same clock frequency (2.4Ghz), which do you think would be faster? It has a lot more to do with just frequency. You could comparatively take a Core 2 Duo E4300 and compare it against the Core 2 Duo E6600 and say the only reason it wins is due to clock frequency. However as most of us know, it has a LOT more to do with just frequency that the E6600 is pulling a win.

Numbers don't lie. But people can use those numbers in all sorts of ways. I would just like to make it clear that clock frequency is a factor...it's just not the ONLY factor.

 

[Mandrake_]

Why aren't I counting the fact that 2360SE is clocked 25% slower? Simple, AMD didn't release a 25% higher clocked product.

Well, they still haven't even released the 2360SE yet. :lol: The Anandtech results are from a 2.5Ghz part that does not exist yet. There's also the little fact that the TLB fix lowers performance by some 14% according to the TechReport.

 

[justinmcg67]

Well, they still haven't even released the 2360SE yet. :lol: The Anandtech results are from a 2.5Ghz part that does not exist yet. There's also the little fact that the TLB fix lowers performance by some 14% according to the TechReport.

Exactly. it's not OUR fault AMD hasn't released anything better. It's not the reviewers fault for posting benchmarks. If AMD is worried about performance, than they should be the ones to fix it by releasing better product. It really couldnt get any more simpler than that.

 

[sailer]

Exactly. it's not OUR fault AMD hasn't released anything better. It's not the reviewers fault for posting benchmarks. If AMD is worried about performance, than they should be the ones to fix it by releasing better product. It really couldnt get any more simpler than that.

Wait, wait a minute! Are you saying that AMD officials should be responsible for the ruin they've made of the company? That perhaps their leadership, or lack of it, has led them down into the present abyss? Do think that if they hadn't worked in such an air of secrecy, covering everthing in NDA's until the awful truth was revealed when a product was release might have helped? I mean, some web site such as Tom's might have said "This doesn't work very well. It needs to be fixed." and then they might have fixed it before release, rather than to just tell everyone how good the product would be when its finally released.

No, no, no. You just don't understand the modern way of running corperations. Then again, neither do I.

 

[3Ball]

Wait, wait a minute! Are you saying that AMD officials should be responsible for the ruin they've made of the company? That perhaps their leadership, or lack of it, has led them down into the present abyss? Do think that if they hadn't worked in such an air of secrecy, covering everthing in NDA's until the awful truth was revealed when a product was release might have helped? I mean, some web site such as Tom's might have said "This doesn't work very well. It needs to be fixed." and then they might have fixed it before release, rather than to just tell everyone how good the product would be when its finally released.

No, no, no. You just don't understand the modern way of running corperations. Then again, neither do I.

Nah, that couldnt be what any of us, especially justin, are saying/implying at all. AMD would never lie to US right? I mean, their such a morally correct based company. No...this couldnt be how they have been operating...could it? lmao!

Best,

3Ball

 

[jimmysmitty]

You know whats funny? AMD used to go based on what their part would compete as and not clock per clock which is why the whole naming scheme used to be 3000+ and so on stating it could so the same job as a 3GHz CPU at a lower speed.

It wasn't until C2D hit the market that AMD started going based on clock per clock since if they had a 2.2GHz part that used to do what a 3.2GHz P4 could do and can't do the same as a C2D it still makes them seem like they are performing relatively good.

I guess thats why they dropped the naming scheme of XXXX+ with Phenom and are trying to match Intel in GHz speed. Kinda funny when you think of things back when and now and see how AMD seems to change thing to make them look decent.

But I agree that now clock per clock is where we need to base it. But AMD did claim their 2.2GHz Barcy could outperform the 3GHz Xeon so thats their bad for stating incorrect info. Thats why hey want to release higher clocked parts. But as per what the real performance of a 3GHz Bacry is we may never know until it comes out. For now AMD will probably release another statement stating what it "could" do and not a real part to test with.

 

[caamsa]

What up homies 😀

I am gonna keep it krunk with my cpu for a while, it is more than enough for me. If necessary I can always plug in a new GPU to keep it up to snuff.

Even in a year I doubt I will see a reason to upgrade to a quad......

I think I will just wait for the octo-cores......then all you dudes who purchased a quad will be kicking yourselves.



O yea did you all see this..........

UPDATE 2-AMD CEO says no plans to step down in 2008

http://www.reuters.com/article/technology-media-telco-SP/idUSN1153631020071211

 

[monsterrocks]

Very funny Baron. I never knew you have selective memory....

But, I guess that's what it takes to be AMD's spin doctor.

It takes selective hearing too. :lol:

 

[sailer]

O yea did you all see this..........

UPDATE 2-AMD CEO says no plans to step down in 2008

http://www.reuters.com/article/technology-media-telco-SP/idUSN1153631020071211

What little hope I had for AMD has just gone the way of the Titanic.

 

[homerdog]

What little hope I had for AMD has just gone the way of the Titanic.

Maybe they'll make a movie one day.

 

[Scotteq]

Maybe they'll make a movie one day.

Yeah - Because we can rely on Hollywood to tell the TRUTH!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Scotteq]

Beg Pardon?

 

[Kamrooz]

Here's a older benchmark..

http://www.ocworkbench.com/2007/gigabyte/GA-MA790FX-DQ6/b2.htm

QX6700 underclocked to 2.3 ghz to match the 9600. Clock for clock does matter, it shows the actual difference in performance of the architecture without trying to calculate the difference mathematically. Real world results....

BUT, as you can see, the phenom does stay relatively close, although still behind. Yet, they charge a arm and a leg for a 2.3 ghz phenom which is inferior to a q6600 for the price.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103225&Tpk=phenom%2b9600

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017


http://computers.pricegrabber.com/processors-retail-box/m/54962197/search=phenom+9600

http://computers.pricegrabber.com/processors-retail-box/m/31693422/search=q6600

It's idiotic to buy the phenom over the q6600 for a new build atm. If upgradability is your boat then that's a dif story, but not performance wise. The qx6700 at 2.3 couldn't be beat except in one or two (one being synthetic, which doesn't hold a lot of value for real world performance) benchmarks, meanwhile the q6600 is clocked faster and targeted at the same price range as the phenom 6600.

Bottom of the line, AMD is overcharging for a inferior processor, that is very limited in oc potential thanks to this TLB eratta, issues with their 65nm SOI design, heat, and power consumption. We also have the yorkfield processors just a month or two away, while lowering the power consumption (considerably in idle), and increasing the lowest end quad core clock speed to 2.5 ghz at 266 dollars.

AMD was extremely late in offering their solution, it performs worse then the much older core 2's, while taking more power, and having many issues that need to be fixed. They have the audacity to price it at the same range as the q6600, while it can't beat it clock for clock, they even priced the 2.3 phenom to match the 2.4 intel offering. If they at least priced it competitively I wouldn't have an issue. It's already sad to think how late this processor was to get into the market, offering this kind of performance. Especially considering the claims and lies AMD was marketing about a 40% improvement over intels core processors. Personally, this launch is a utter joke.

 

[sonoran]

AMD was extremely late in offering their solution, it performs worse then the much older core 2's, while taking more power, and having many issues that need to be fixed. They have the audacity to price it at the same range as the q6600, while it can't beat it clock for clock, they even priced the 2.3 phenom to match the 2.4 intel offering. If they at least priced it competitively I wouldn't have an issue. It's already sad to think how late this processor was to get into the market, offering this kind of performance. Especially considering the claims and lies AMD was marketing about a 40% improvement over intels core processors. Personally, this launch is a utter joke.

Hey - maybe they should go get a copy of this:

Sorry - couldn't resist taking a (much deserved) jab back at them.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Prediction: AMD stock trades near 8.50 this week.

My prediction was correct! AMD traded today, so far (1:42 EST at time of post) at a low of 8.41 today and has been down about 5% in the $8.50 range.