Barcelona quad 50% faster than Intel’s quad-Xeon

[Heinz68]

AMD: Barcelona quad-core 50% faster than Intel’s quad-core Xeon
By Wolfgang Gruener
Monday, April 23, 2007 00:56

Sunnyvale (CA) – Following last week’s sobering financial news, AMD today provided some news that may calm down worried analysts and investors.

AMD Barcelona - technical details in pictures ...

There are lots of question marks surrounding AMD’s first quad-core CPU, the Barcelona server/workstation processor. How fast will it be and - most importantly - will it be able to outpace Intel’s quad-core Xeon 5300-series (“Clovertown”) processors. It will, says AMD, and in fact upgraded its performance expectations.

So far, we the company had claimed that Barcelona will surpass the performance of Clovertown by about 40% at any given clock speed. Now the company says that it believes that Barcelona will have a 50% advantage over Clovertown in floating point applications and 20% in integer performance “over the competition’s highest-performing quad-core processor at the same frequency.”

AMD did not release the specific clock speeds of Barcelona. Intel’s Clovertown currently tops out at 2.66 GHz, but the company has begun supplying limited numbers of 3.0 GHz server quad-core processors.

AMD also announced the new dual-core Opteron models 2222 SE and 8222 SE, which somewhat had been announced already at the beginning of this month: AMD claims that the new 3.0 GHz Opterons beat comparable Intel Xeon 5100 series processors in three server-specific benchmarks (SPECint_rate_2006, SPECint_rate2006, SPECompM2001) by up to 24%.

The 2222 SE is available for a tray price of $873, the 8222 SE is priced at $2149. Intel’s 3.0 GHz Xeon 5160 processor currently sells for $851.
For more links and comments check tgdaily (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31729/135/)
50% faster? Almost hard to believe. What do you think about that?
PS
I know some off you prefer better source for rumors so here is
theINQUIRER (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39103) confirmation. :)

[grey_1]

That's quite the claim. As I can afford neither atm it's easy to be open minded. :D

[TimeOut]

I saw some benchmarks of Barcelona running in one of our flagship servers but, I cannot give you any details. :D
I'm just gonna say that the second half of this year is going to be very interesting in the server's arena.

[nemecb]

I wouldn't be shocked. Opteron was what made AMD a real player in the CPU market in the first place, so the fact that the next-gen Opteron would be a damn nice processor is to be expected.

Of course it's not going to beat Xeons by 50% anyway since that's just pure floating-point performance. I don't know too many apps that don't use any integers (where it only wins by 20%).:)

So, as always, I take performance numbers from the company themselves with a large grain of salt. Put the hardware in my hands to test or your claims are just that, claims.

[DaveW]

“over the competition’s highest-performing quad-core processor at the same frequency.”

... meaning the AMD chips run at a lower frequency than Intel ones, but if you overclock them (or underclock the Intel ones) so they are the same frequency, AMD wins!!!11... How is this different from the current gen of chips?

[Redeemed]

“over the competition’s highest-performing quad-core processor at the same frequency.”

... meaning the AMD chips run at a lower frequency than Intel ones, but if you overclock them (or underclock the Intel ones) so they are the same frequency, AMD wins!!!11... How is this different from the current gen of chips?

To be honest- I highly doubt that is what they intended.



Why is it that everybody keeps bashing AMD??? Would you guys prefer that they just throw in the towel and declare bankruptcy??? That way you could be paying $500 for a mid-range Intel CPU since there wouldn't be any competition (and no, IBM is not competition for Intel). You could praise your almight Intel and have to pay out that wazoo for even a low-end cpu. It sickens and annoys me at how biased everybody has become towards AMD since the introduction of the Core2. You all act as if they are the scourge of the computer world and they need to be gone. We'd be in a far worse state if it wasn't for AMD. If it wasn't for AMD you guys wouldn't have your precious little Core2s.

I can understand buying an Intel chip simply cause they do perform better and overclock like crazy- but to completely bad mouth AMD and say all they release is crap is only making yourself look ignorant at best. Not so long ago AMD was kicking Intel's @$$ and everybody was praising how awesome AMD was. Now, suddenly Intel did what everybody should have been expecting (releasing a decent chip and regaining the performance crown) and you guys instantly start bowing to the might Intel God and curse the blaspemous name of AMD.

For the consumers sake I want AMD to accell and surpass Intel yet again. Then in 6 months (or however long) I want Intel to surpass AMD yet agian- and I want this cycle to repeat.



Sorry for the rant, but it gets really annoying how everybody seems to be completely anti-AMD all of a sudden. I mean, would you guys really be happier if they were gone completely? And before you answer- stop and think what would happen if AMD wasn't around and Intel had no real competition?

[nemecb]

Sorry for the rant
Don't be, you're exactly right. Intel fanboys have come out of the woodwork since Intel released the C2D's and all of a sudden AMD sucks and their technology is crap, despite the fact that in a number of ways they're still ahead of Intel. Nobody seems to remember that the K8 arch is getting a bit long in the tooth nowadays and the fact that Intel can spank it with a brand new architecture of their own is not an indication that AMD sucks.

If I sound negative saying that I'm not going to take their benchmarks as gospel, then at least it's the same negative stuff I've said about Intel's. Personally I hope AMD does come back strong because they're still much smaller than Intel and the more evenly matched the two companies are the better.

Edit: DaveW, I'm pretty sure that Intel is beating AMD clock-for-clock right now so it is significant if that changes.

[Redeemed]

Don't be, you're exactly right. Intel fanboys have come out of the woodwork since Intel released the C2D's and all of a sudden AMD sucks and their technology is crap, despite the fact that in a number of ways they're still ahead of Intel. Nobody seems to remember that the K8 arch is getting a bit long in the tooth nowadays and the fact that Intel can spank it with a brand new architecture of their own is not an indication that AMD sucks.

If I sound negative saying that I'm not going to take their benchmarks as gospel, then at least it's the same negative stuff I've said about Intel's. Personally I hope AMD does come back strong because they're still much smaller than Intel and the more evenly matched the two companies are the better.

Edit: DaveW, I'm pretty sure that Intel is beating AMD clock-for-clock right now so it is significant if that changes.

My rant wasn't direct at you but more towards DaveW's ignorant comment and others that post comments like his.

I actually agree with you- atleast from what you just said in that last post of yours.

[nemecb]

I didn't think you were referring to me, but I thought I'd clarify my position anyway (in case anyone hasn't noticed that I heavily favor AMD;)).

And to further clarify, I have no problem with people saying that C2D's are great processors, because they are. I've even recommended them to several people. What I can't stand are the people saying that AMD is a crap company. I'd like to see you take on one of the biggest monopolies in the world and steal half as much marketshare as AMD has.

[evilchris]

I didn't think you were referring to me, but I thought I'd clarify my position anyway (in case anyone hasn't noticed that I heavily favor AMD;)).

And to further clarify, I have no problem with people saying that C2D's are great processors, because they are. I've even recommended them to several people. What I can't stand are the people saying that AMD is a crap company. I'd like to see you take on one of the biggest monopolies in the world and steal half as much marketshare as AMD has.

You think AMD wouldn't prefer itself the monopoly? AMD doesn't care about you.

[nemecb]

You think AMD wouldn't prefer itself the monopoly? AMD doesn't care about you.
Of course they would, but they don't have it right now. Intel does. Thus I hope for AMD's success. If they take over 80% of the market, then I'll be pulling for Intel to make a comeback.

[Redeemed]

Of course they would, but they don't have it right now. Intel does. Thus I hope for AMD's success. If they take over 80% of the market, then I'll be pulling for Intel to make a comeback.

QFT + BFT + UFT. :p

[DaveW]

I am not an Intel fan boy, I just think the article sounded like marketing BS. AMD has a history of being a better performer per clock than Intel, but Intel usually just has faster clocked processors, they're usually cheaper too.

I don't want AMD to go under, but I don't feel the need to make them up to be better than they are just because they are the underdog.

If AMD could release a CPU that just matched a Barcelona but be 10% cheaper I'd be all for it. (and I mean chip vs chip out of the box - at stock clock speeds, whatever they may be).

[ViN86]

Barcelona :headbang:


im psyched. if they time it right they could move right to DDR3. time will tell.

[OldGamer]

“over the competition’s highest-performing quad-core processor at the same frequency.”

... meaning the AMD chips run at a lower frequency than Intel ones, but if you overclock them (or underclock the Intel ones) so they are the same frequency, AMD wins!!!11... How is this different from the current gen of chips?

Actually the current desktop chips from Intel run at lower clocks than the AMD ones and still outperform them.

[jcrox]

I am not an Intel fan boy, I just think the article sounded like marketing BS. AMD has a history of being a better performer per clock than Intel, but Intel usually just has faster clocked processors, they're usually cheaper too.



really?? because when I bought my 3200+ it was WAYYYYY cheaper than a 3.0GHz P4 and it kicked its a$$!!!

I just want the performance between the 2 to get to even simply because I got soooo tired of listening to everyone bash anyone with an Intel cpu when the P4 couldn't compete with the AMD 64 and now you can't post about your AMD system without 50 people chiming in about how C2D rules and how you're a complete idiot because for just $200 more you could have gotten a kick but C2D system. This is exactly what every computer company wants...the general masses to make decisions on pointless and irrelevant issues. Talk all you want.....YOU CAN NOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 80FPS and 120FPS...IT IS NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE FOR A HUMAN TO DO! I would say 90% of my friends have C2D processors, and when you play a game on their systems, and then play it on mine...there's no discernable difference between the two. NONE..unless you turn the FPS display on...then WHOA..120 fps vs 80 fps in Stalker...DAMN MAN..should have spent the extra $$$ for the C2D...I would get all that and meaningless benchmark scores too!!! My brother-in-law is an engineer for AMD so I knda have to be a bit partial(no, he wont disclose any info on Barcelona) but until the day arrives that there are games that AMD simply WONT allow you to play at decent rates, i refuse to fall for the fan-boy get whats hot now BS. Give me what will play my games at top levels at the cheapest price.

[ViN86]

Actually the current desktop chips from Intel run at lower clocks than the AMD ones and still outperform them.
he was referring to the new AMD chips (aka Barcelona). we know the current Intel chips outperform the current AMD ones.

[|MaguS|]

I bet its a tons faster... but they will only release 1K of them world wide and each chip will cost $1400 easily. Kinda like the R600...

[Redeemed]

I bet its a tons faster... but they will only release 1K of them world wide and each chip will cost $1400 easily. Kinda like the R600...

It never end does it? :rolleyes:

[Viral]

YOU CAN NOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 80FPS and 120FPS...IT IS NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE FOR A HUMAN TO DO! I would say 90% of my friends have C2D processors, and when you play a game on their systems, and then play it on mine...there's no discernable difference between the two. NONE..unless you turn the FPS display on...then WHOA..120 fps vs 80 fps in Stalker...DAMN MAN..should have spent the extra $$$ for the C2D...I would get all that and meaningless benchmark scores too!!! My brother-in-law is an engineer for AMD so I knda have to be a bit partial(no, he wont disclose any info on Barcelona) but until the day arrives that there are games that AMD simply WONT allow you to play at decent rates, i refuse to fall for the fan-boy get whats hot now BS. Give me what will play my games at top levels at the cheapest price.

Yes, but what about for future games where it suddenly becomes the difference between 35 and 25fps? What about minimum framerate? All it would take is for a new game to come out that drops average framerates from 80 to 50 fps and then what do you get? One system with minimum framerates in the red zone, and another that just manages to stay in the green at all times.

I bet its a tons faster... but they will only release 1K of them world wide and each chip will cost $1400 easily. Kinda like the R600...

Are you talking about Barcelona (Opeteron)? Because that's not too far off, while actually being pretty expected and acceptable.

If you aren't talking about Opterons and the server environment then you're not exactly on-topic now are you?

[|MaguS|]

It never end does it? :rolleyes:

No because it never began!

[Xion X2]

Talk all you want.....YOU CAN NOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 80FPS and 120FPS...IT IS NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE FOR A HUMAN TO DO!

Some of us bought our procs for things other than games. Video encoding, multithreading several Windows apps at once, Photoshop, etc. For all these tasks, along with general loading/installation of games, My Conroe is a good bit faster than my AMD X2 4400+ was. Them's just the facts.

I would say 90% of my friends have C2D processors, and when you play a game on their systems, and then play it on mine...there's no discernable difference between the two. NONE..

What's "not discernable" to you may be discernable to others. I can tell a difference. Hell, I can tell a difference when I have my Conroe at stock speeds in games compared to it overclocked to where I have it now. So I can certainly tell the difference in gaming performance coming from the X2 that I had before.

A close friend of mine had an X2 4800+ @ 2.7gHz paired w/ his 8800GTX when he first got it. In some places in F.E.A.R, in CPU limited areas, his game would drop to around 35fps and get a little choppy. He upgraded to an E6400 and is getting ~48fps in those same CPU limited areas and they are perfectly smooth now.

So don't tell me or others that you can't tell a difference. You may have to be a bit more picky about framerates, but it's pretty noticeable.

That's not to say that AMD is a "crap company"; you'd expect C2Ds to be faster considering they're the newer architecture. But in the same ways some of you are getting sick of Intel fanboys, you need to stop being AMD fanboys yourselves. There is a clear difference in performance between the two right now.

[Tygerwoody]

really?? because when I bought my 3200+ it was WAYYYYY cheaper than a 3.0GHz P4 and it kicked its a$$!!!

I just want the performance between the 2 to get to even simply because I got soooo tired of listening to everyone bash anyone with an Intel cpu when the P4 couldn't compete with the AMD 64 and now you can't post about your AMD system without 50 people chiming in about how C2D rules and how you're a complete idiot because for just $200 more you could have gotten a kick but C2D system. This is exactly what every computer company wants...the general masses to make decisions on pointless and irrelevant issues. Talk all you want.....YOU CAN NOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 80FPS and 120FPS...IT IS NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE FOR A HUMAN TO DO! I would say 90% of my friends have C2D processors, and when you play a game on their systems, and then play it on mine...there's no discernable difference between the two. NONE..unless you turn the FPS display on...then WHOA..120 fps vs 80 fps in Stalker...DAMN MAN..should have spent the extra $$$ for the C2D...I would get all that and meaningless benchmark scores too!!! My brother-in-law is an engineer for AMD so I knda have to be a bit partial(no, he wont disclose any info on Barcelona) but until the day arrives that there are games that AMD simply WONT allow you to play at decent rates, i refuse to fall for the fan-boy get whats hot now BS. Give me what will play my games at top levels at the cheapest price.
I love how the only people who bring up the "ZOMG UR iii's Kan only SEE 30FPS!!!" are the ones who have the inferior product. :D

I also have a friend who has C2D and his general operating system experience blows my overclocked Opteron out the water. In cpu limited games(like Vanguard and Oblivion) having a faster CPU is VERY noticeable. Its not the difference in 80fps and 120fps. Its the difference in having a bogged down stuttery game and a smooth running game. You don't have to be nit picky. The differences are plain to see. I'm not picky at all about FPS. Give me a constant 30fps-60fps and I'm happy. Minimum FPS are the only thing I care about. Alot of times minimum frames are very dependant on your CPU.

[Dazz]

Well Fudzilla seems to be claiming a 2.5GHz Barcelona is 33% faster then a 2.93GHz QX6800 http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=663&Itemid=1
I think i might holf off on getting a Core Quad. Due to the heat issues with the 680i and nVidias 2nd failed adtept for a decent Intel platform i will look forward to a decent board from them.

[Sazar]

Well Fudzilla seems to be claiming a 2.5GHz Barcelona is 33% faster then a 2.93GHz QX6800 http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=663&Itemid=1
I think i might holf off on getting a Core Quad. Due to the heat issues with the 680i and nVidias 2nd failed adtept for a decent Intel platform i will look forward to a decent board from them.

Definitely an interesting claim.

Considering that there are STILL major issues with the memory controller on Barcelona.

Architecturally, the AMD core is superior to core2 and hence penryn and the issues should technically be fixed with the latest batch. Nehalem is a whole other beast to consider :D

I can't wait to see that baby out and about.