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

RE: Not so good for AMD
By bob661 on 6/6/2007 9:50:32 AM , Rating: -1
Assuming the K10 was clocked at 2.4 GHZ, it should have done the test in 18 seconds (assuming increasing clockspeed linearly decreased the time taken to perform the test).
Try reading dude before commenting. Where in the article did it say that the K10 was clocked at 2.4GHz? It was clocked at 1.6GHz.

RE: Not so good for AMD
By MDme on 6/6/2007 10:06:11 AM , Rating: 1
he did read it. The article mentions the K10 running at 1.6Ghz. He was ASSUMING that IF it did run at 2.4Ghz it would complete the task in 18sec.....which is 1/3 less time.

I would like to comment though that AMD systems would likely see more of a boost with a higher clock since the IMC would clock higher as well.

Anyway still based on this isolated specific incident, the K10 does not appear to be the C2D killer AMD purports it to be, not unless this is some ridiculously low power part where AMD can argue perf-per-watt metrics to server companies. (or it is sandbagged).

RE: Not so good for AMD
By PlasmaBomb on 6/7/2007 5:06:12 AM , Rating: 2
In AMD's forthcoming architecture the IMC will be able to be clocked separately from the cores, so who knows what the performance will be like.

RE: Not so good for AMD
By Master Kenobi on 6/7/2007 9:14:06 AM , Rating: 2
Intel has already proven IMC isn't the end all be all. Heck the C2D does just fine and the Memory Controller is on the north bridge.... IMC is good, but it isnt magical.

RE: Not so good for AMD
By KristopherKubicki on 6/7/2007 9:39:14 AM , Rating: 2
IMC sure has some distinct advantages -- but it also has some distinct disadvantages too. I really wouldn't call one approach superior to the other, especially when we're talking general computation.

Eventually the whole system is going to sit on the chip anyway :-P

RE: Not so good for AMD
By Master Kenobi on 6/7/2007 11:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
Chip? Heck by that point we will probably be growing them like crystals LOL.

RE: Not so good for AMD
By knowyourenemy on 6/12/2007 1:45:45 AM , Rating: 2
Do I detect Superman 4?

RE: Not so good for AMD
By dess on 6/7/2007 12:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
Intel has already proven IMC isn't the end all be all.

Really!? Then they should gone mad since then, because they use just that with Nehalem...

RE: Not so good for AMD
By Master Kenobi on 6/7/2007 1:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
Again. IMC is not the end all be all. The fact that Intel still holds the crown, and is still not using an IMC, after AMD has been using one for around 6 or 7 years now demonstrates this fact. Intel moving to an IMC doesn't prove anything. It just means Intel has decided an IMC would be good for the CSI board style, and having it on the north bridge would be bad on the CSI system. Having the MC on the Northbridge seems to work just fine on BUS!

RE: Not so good for AMD
By Spoelie on 6/8/2007 11:11:33 AM , Rating: 2
opteron was released april 2003, athlon64 october 2003
that's 4 years, not 6 or 7. I doubt they already had prototypes 2-3 years ahead of launch ;)

RE: Not so good for AMD
By dess on 6/8/2007 1:32:17 PM , Rating: 2
Note that Intel needs those monumental caches just because of the abesent IMC... Partly due to the IMC, K8s could be faster than P4s, despite the much lesser L2 cache.

RE: Not so good for AMD
By Accord99 on 6/9/2007 4:09:07 AM , Rating: 2
Yet even with 1MB of shared L2 cache, the Pentium 2100 series remains a powerful processor and more than a match for the K8.

RE: Not so good for AMD
By dess on 6/10/2007 10:59:15 AM , Rating: 2
The 2100 series is quite a bit slower than an E6300 (2MB L2), let alone E6400 and up, at similar clocks, while the E6300 equals to a mid-range X2.

"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki