• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Great read on AMD's Barcelona core.

Very nice technical article indeed, unlike some other "oMg!" ones. And I so agree with "AMD left Intel with a stationary target to aim for".
 
Last edited:
it certainly does sound like an interesting core. what they need tro be doing is getting a dual-core varient to market first and start making a dent in intels dominance. i can see the quad-core being so expensive that it wont get the attention it deserves
 
It remains to be seen just how it will compete against the C2D lineup but it certainly sounds like a step in the right direction at least!
 
Most likely wont see desktop versions of these cpu's until the end of the year which is a shame, i believe the first batch will be "opteron" versions at clock speeds around the 2ghz mark. Desktop versions due later on will be upto the 3ghz mark.

Certainly looks promising, one thing thats really looking good though is there quad core implementation, its actually made for it, not just 2 dual core's stuck togeather like intels.
 
geff_r said:
Dont be ridiculous its true amd is the gamers choice.
Click to expand...

there is only one thing you need to know. people with top end amd rigs have bought cd2's. that should tell you everything. This thread will only go one way when peopel like you say things like that.
 
I was merely stating that amd will come along and beat intel they always have done in the past.I too am getting a core 2 duo so i'm not flaming and didnt realise that would be seen as a flame.
I too would be whinging if i got a core 2 duo then 3 months later
there's a an amd cpu that kicks it's butt for same price.
 
Last edited:
looking good for amd like them to be top of the game
wonder how well it clocks maybe hit 3.0 for the low ends and 3.2 for mids and top
 
geff_r said:
Dont be ridiculous its true amd is the gamers choice.
Click to expand...

Or from another point of view, intel made a radical decision and tried to reinvent X86 with Netburst, but it turned out to be slower than expected and they couldnt get the chips running fast enough to compensate for the weaker basic design.

But with all that money invested in Netburst Intel did their best to make it as fast as possible, but in the end, they just rolled back the clocks and built a desktop processor based on the designs of the Pentium-M. The rest is history.

Intel will continue to develop and refine 'Core' and its unlikely they will make the same mistake of trying a revolutionary change when an 'evolution' from the current models is the 'safer' bet.

AMD's processors have always been an evolutionary development from their previous core.

I predict that the future will offer evolutionary designs from both companies, and its unlikely that either one will have a performance advantage for very long. Intel does have the financial advantages though, and has enough R&D to have two x86 design teams at once, so thats in their favour.
 
geff_r said:
I was merely stating that amd will come along and beat intel they always have done in the past.
Click to expand...
They've done it once in history (the K8) on my count? :confused: (not stirring things up here, just I believe this is a fact?)

I think you'd have to be quite foolish to believe this chip won't be faster than the Conroe. But will it be faster than Intel's 45nm Penryn and Wolfdale... that is the question everyone is asking :)
 
Last edited:
NathanE said:
They've done it once in history (the K8) on my count? :confused: (not stirring things up here, just I believe this is a fact?)

I think you'd have to be quite foolish to believe this chip won't be faster than the Conroe. But will it be faster than Intel's 45nm Penryn and Wolfdale... that is the question everyone is asking :)
Click to expand...
Erm the thoroughbred bartons beat them too you obviously have no idea
so i will not comment any further.
 
MadMossy said:
Most likely wont see desktop versions of these cpu's until the end of the year which is a shame, i believe the first batch will be "opteron" versions at clock speeds around the 2ghz mark. Desktop versions due later on will be upto the 3ghz mark.

Certainly looks promising, one thing thats really looking good though is there quad core implementation, its actually made for it, not just 2 dual core's stuck togeather like intels.
Click to expand...

Desktop versions are due 2H 07. Early 2H apparently so hopefully there will be a proper launch before August! Early July if we are lucky!

It's not just the K8's that have been faster. K7 and K6-II (with 3D Now! :eek: well in Quake 2 anyhow) both held the lead at some point. No where near as long as the K8 did though.
 
I remember that when I got my 1Ghz Athlon is whipped butt compared to everything else on the market. Then my Athlon XP 2000 was pretty good and feinately beat the 1.8Ghz/2Ghz P4's. My A64 3000 was streets ahead of the P4 3Ghz and my A64 4200 is streets ahead of the P-D counter parts.

Intel had the advantage with the P3 until the end of its life, they also had the advantage when the P4 was reaching 3Ghz and was still pitted against XP Barton's. The latest C2D's have cleaned up for now, the next AMD chip might change that.

The performance/price crown has always swapped hands every few years, no reason to think it wont again.
 
firstly the bartons were pretty much faster than p4's in everything except stuff using sse2 effectively so intel were ahead in most of the main encoding applications. tbh they were fairly close in everything, there wasn't really a winner except price/heat/power usage. wait, was prescott out same time as k8, so long ago hard to remember exactly when what did what and when with who :p



there is talk of an "unknown" amd cpu getting an insanely fast Seti score or something, dual core unknown cpu, if its barcalona(it could be fake, hacked, or such a highly overclock fx70 or something that it came up as unknown) it is MIGHTY fast. praying its a barcalona as damn, competition and even more price drops. if its faster in dual core lead should only extend in quad core due to being native and just generally not having same issues the kentsfield will have.

its all guesswork right now though, not to long to wait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom