AMD Barcelona/Shanghai Quad to top out at 2.5GHz initially?
Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - AMD Barcelona/Shanghai Quad to top out at 2.5GHz initially?
http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/167/167267_1.shtml
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php? [...] &endtime=0
As opposed to the 2.9GHz previously reported.
Perhaps they thought no one would pay attention to the black and just the red.. 
| Quote : Perhaps they thought no one would pay attention to the black and just the red.. |
Well, I am not sure what happened, the slide looks 'AMD' like I find it odd that would advertise their mediocrity so agressively, especially considering they put together magic numbers to try to fool people into thinking they have a power advantage over woodcrest.....
In terms of the quad launch speed --- given the leaked info coming from these sites have been within the ball park and not necessarily on the nose on all counts, I am also apprehensive to start concluding on this data. Speculation though is ok, if 2.5 GHz is indeed the top speed targeted for quadcore, then this will not compete.... even with the IPC enhancements, a 3-issue core simply will not make up the delta in their current IPC deficity as well as the clock speed delta.
Maybe they know everyone wishes doom and gloom on them and decided to emphasize that this is just a minor glitch.
I say.."isn't that the pot calling the kettle black"? They have the nerve to put(in bold green letters) Intel Rushes Quad-Core to Market. What was 4x4....the definition of rush job. At least Intel's rush job performs like it should. 
I really, seriously think that AMD is so full of themselves now, like an arrogant brat in the playground.
| Quote : I say.."isn't that the pot calling the kettle black"? They have the nerve to put(in bold green letters) Intel Rushes Quad-Core to Market. What was 4x4....the definition of rush job. At least Intel's rush job performs like it should. |
In fairness, PIII 1.13 GHz many seasons ago.... is the real definition of a rush job. Consider the 4x4 platform, even THG acknowledges its merits. The processors are just underperformers. 90nm is EOL.
| Quote : Perhaps they thought no one would pay attention to the black and just the red.. |
Well, I am not sure what happened, the slide looks 'AMD' like I find it odd that would advertise their mediocrity so agressively, especially considering they put together magic numbers to try to fool people into thinking they have a power advantage over woodcrest.....
In terms of the quad launch speed --- given the leaked info coming from these sites have been within the ball park and not necessarily on the nose on all counts, I am also apprehensive to start concluding on this data. Speculation though is ok, if 2.5 GHz is indeed the top speed targeted for quadcore, then this will not compete.... even with the IPC enhancements, a 3-issue core simply will not make up the delta in their current IPC deficit plus the clock speed delta as well.
My speculation: it could compete with a 2.67 GHz Kentsfield quad.
Such a small clock difference could be compensated by the "native quad core" design, since the 4 cores could communicate with higher bandwidth (dedicated internal buses) and lower latency thanks to the shared L3 cache.
This under the hypothesis that both architectures would have a very similar IPC.
Please mind
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.
