backtop


Print 110 comment(s) - last by eKi.. on Jun 15 at 9:03 PM


Windows 2003 R2, 64-bit identifies the "Barcelona" processor as an unknown AMD CPU. (Source: DailyTech, Anh Huynh)

AMD's benchmarking utility reveals all four cores ran at 1.6 GHz. (Source: DailyTech, Anh Huynh)
Quad-Core AMD Opteron demonstrated by MSI, Supermicro, TYAN and Uniwide

AMD took the opportunity at Computex to show server platforms running the Quad-Core AMD Opteron processors, codenamed Barcelona, with the help of MSI, Supermicro, TYAN and Uniwide

The AMD quad-core processors are designed to drop-in (following a BIOS upgrade) with all existing AMD Opteron processor-based systems using DDR2 memory, while also enabling new platform capabilities such as those being demonstrated today.

One vendor demonstrated Barcelona to DailyTech, running at 1.6GHz. According to engineers familiar with the chip technology, the current AMD Barcelona samples are not scaling core frequencies well. AMD partners confirmed the highest running, POST and OS capable, Barcelona processor is 2.0 GHz. AMD previously posted benchmarks of a simulated 2.6 GHz Barcelona.

“We commend AMD for its non-disruptive roadmaps, allowing for a smooth upgrade from dual-core to quad-core,” said Danny Hsu, president, TYAN. “Streamlining and mitigating the complexities customers often face when upgrading their IT infrastructure is especially important in today’s competitive marketplace. TYAN has collaborated with AMD since 2001, and we will continue to support and take advantage of the customer-centric innovation AMD is offering in its quad-core processors when they are made available later this year.”

AMD roadmaps show Barcelona-based Opteron processors will launch in July, but the general consensus from partners is the processor isn’t performing well enough for a July launch.

“Quad-core, codenamed Barcelona will launch later this summer, in the July, August kind of time frame -- followed by [consumer chips] on the desktop... You'll see that in the Christmas line-up,” stated Robert Rivet, AMD executive vice president and CFO, just a few months ago.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: One never ever knows.
By Martimus on 6/6/2007 12:40:03 PM , Rating: 4
AMD had faster 486 chips than Intel. The K6 was also faster than the Pentium and the Pentium Pro. Not many people knew these things, because Intel had a much more marketing and clout in the industry. At that time, it was always assumed that Intel had the best quality, because other chips were known to have poor quality (like Cyrix) and Intel was a safe bet. Intel did not always have better chips than AMD. I would even go so far as to say that AMD had the better processor throughout most of the 90's.

As for the memory contoller; Intel plans on incorporating that with the next architecture change, not the next die shrink. It will likely be available at the end of 2008. Nehalem is the Intel chip that should have the memory controller on the die.


RE: One never ever knows.
By Justin Case on 6/6/2007 12:45:29 PM , Rating: 3
Not to mention the Athlon MP which was, IMO, the real "turning point" for AMD in terms of going after the server / workstation market.


RE: One never ever knows.
By hans007 on 6/7/2007 7:13:37 PM , Rating: 3
Amd's faster 486 chip was the 5x86-133 which was about equaly to a pentium 66.

Sure AMD had faster 486 than Intel but by the time it came out the pentium was already out. They also had a faster 386 the 386-40. But that was actually a complete clone, just running faster.

The k6 really wasn't better than the Pentium it was maybe equiavlent and had a poorer FPU. the Pentium MMX 233 was faster than the k6-233 and at the time the k6-233 was overclocked at 3.2 volts compared to 2.9 for the k6-200 and 166 for .35 micron node. The Pentium MMX was much cooler running at the time (and at the time 35 watts TDP was a lot).

That said, it was competitive. By the time the k6-266 and 300 came out on .25 micron, the k6 was getting blown away by the pentium ii. And the Pentium II was head and shoulders above any k6-2 , the only thing really competitive was the super expensive and hard to find k6-3 chips or the few k6-2+ laptop chips.

So basically the entire k6 generation was not quite up to par / slightly behind. This was around the time that AMD was nearly bankrupt like now, and its stock fell to like $4-5. I remember I was a huge AMD fan boy and bought stock when I got out of high school.

the K7 was better than most p3s and earlier p4s until the northwood. That was around when AMD actually recovered out of their near bankruptcy around then the first german fab opened.

Also , for the reliability thing. HP was one of the first major OEMs to pick up AMD. Coincidentally I worked at an HP factory (since closed and moved to mexico btw) in california when they first got k6-2 300-350 chips.

The failure rate was easily 3 times as high for dead on arrival or chips that didnt quite perform to spec compared to the intel class equivalents (which were the celeron 300 a and 333 a in the systems we were refurbing / building).

That was a terrible summer job btw, but the AMD is not as reliable thing was definitely true back then. They were binning chips too high just to try to keep up with the Pentium III and Celeron As


“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki