backtop


Print 93 comment(s) - last by jazkat.. on Jun 28 at 10:35 PM


Cinebench ran AMD "Barcelona" 1.6 GHz in 27 seconds. (Source: DailyTech, Anh Huynh)

Cinebench ran Xeon X3220 2.4 GHz in 17 seconds. (Source: DailyTech, Anh Huynh)
An early AMD "Barcelona" revision gets its first non-simulated benchmark

Earlier today, AMD announced that it successfully demonstrated Barcelona across the server market.  The company did not publically state how fast the processor was running, the stepping of the processor, the processor thermal envelope or the eventual ship date.

We had the opportunity to benchmark the AMD Barcelona, native quad-core on an early stepping. We only had a few minutes to test the chip, but we were able to run a quick Cinebench before we were instructed to leave.

The AMD benchmark ran on a single-socket, K10 CPU running at 1.6 GHz on NVIDIA's nForce Professional 3400 chipset.  According to the system properties, the AMD system used 4GB of DDR2-667.

The most similar Intel system we could muster up on such short notice was an Intel Xeon 3220.  The Xeon X3220 is clocked at 2.4 GHz, and ran on Intel's Garlow platform (Intel X38).  This system property profile stated the system utilized 4GB of DDR2-800.

Cinebench completed the default benchmark in 27 seconds for the 1.6 GHz K10; 17 seconds for the Intel Xeon X3220.  The Kentsfield Xeon was 58% faster with a 50% higher clock frequency for Cinebench.

Both systems ran Windows 2003 R2, 64-bit.

AMD partner engineers tell DailyTech the chip we tested was the latest revision silicon.  The same engineers claim 2.0 GHz Barcelona chips are making the rounds, with 2.3 GHz already on the desktop and server roadmaps. 

AMD's current guidance suggests a late July announcement for Barcelona.  However, when DailyTech tracked down the individual partners named in AMD's press release, all cited "optimistic September" ship dates for motherboards. 


Comments     Threshold


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

By RussianSensation on 6/6/2007 6:28:19 AM , Rating: 4
Nevermind, I don't know what I was thinking. Twice as fast would position a Xeon at 13.5 seconds (or 100% faster). The 58% makes sense actually. My bad...Time to re-learn grade 3 math :)


RE: Am I understanding the math correctly?
By jpeyton on 6/6/2007 4:00:53 PM , Rating: 5
Just for comparisons sake (I know some of you were looking for this number), I ran CineBench 9.5 on a dual-Opteron workstation (4 cores total) with the processors running at 1.6GHz (Vista Ultimate 32-bit, 4GB DDR2 667, nForce Pro 3600 Chipset).

[b]29 seconds[/b] to render the scene in the multiprocessor benchmark.

DailyTech didn't mention what OS they used; if they do, I'll rerun the benchmark with it.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/6/2007 6:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, it was Windows 2003 Server SP2, 64-bit. I updated that into the article.


RE: Am I understanding the math correctly?
By jpeyton on 6/6/2007 4:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
Just for comparisons sake (I know some of you were looking for this number), I ran CineBench 9.5 on a dual-Opteron workstation (4 cores total) with the processors running at 1.6GHz (Vista Ultimate 32-bit, 4GB DDR2 667, nForce Pro 3600 Chipset).

29 seconds to render the scene in the multiprocessor benchmark.

DailyTech didn't mention what OS they used; if they do, I'll rerun the benchmark with it.


By Proteusza on 6/6/2007 4:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
Good god. may god have mercy on AMD if that is true, because Intel wont.


By Furen on 6/6/2007 4:21:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think the test system was running windows server 2003 x64. Notice that Cinebench was the 64bit version, which does make a big difference.


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home

Related Articles













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