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

RE: Am I understanding the math correctly?
By RW on 6/6/2007 1:06:33 PM , Rating: -1
It seems that those at Dailytech who wrote the article are totally moronic

The RussianSensation guy at first comment had it right with the fact that Xeon actually has a 50% advantage in clock speed and only 37% performance advantage over the K10 Barcelona.

Lets do the math right:
1600 Mhz + 50% = 2400 Mhz
that means Xeon has a 50% advantage in clock speed over K10 Barcelona in the given test

27 sec - 37% = 17 sec
that means Xeon has a 37% performance advantage over K10 Barcelona in the given test at the given speed

1600 Mhz + 800 Mhz = 2400 Mhz

27 sec / 1600 Mhz = 0,016875

0,016875 * 800 MHz = 13.5 sec

so K10 Barcelona is 13.5 sec faster with a +800 Mhz core clock advantage

27 sec - 13.5 sec = 13.5 sec
At the same speed at 2400 Mhz K10 Barcelona will run the test at only 13.5 sec compared to 17 sec Xeon at 2400 Mhz

17 sec - 20 % = 13.6 sec
That means at the same speed with Xeon the K10 Barcelona is 20 % faster in performance .


RE: Am I understanding the math correctly?
By penter on 6/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Am I understanding the math correctly?
By penter on 6/6/07, Rating: -1
By casket on 6/6/2007 10:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
Distance= Rate * Time
Distance =30,000 (renders?)
Rate = Cinebench score (Renders per second?)
Time = seconds (17.25 vs 27).
**********
"A 2.4 Ghz Quad-core K-10 goes the equivalent speed of a 2.3 Ghz Xeon. It gets a 2300+ rating.

AMD's chip is 95.84% the speed of Intel, clock-for-clock."


RE: Am I understanding the math correctly?
By jhtrico1850 on 6/6/2007 7:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
Let's just choose an arbitrary number of 5000 pixels for a scene. If Barcy at 1.6GHz finishes in 27 seconds, that is 185 pixels/s. If Kentsfield at 2.4Ghz finishes in 17s, that is 294 pixels/s. Adjust the Barcy score of 185*(2.4/1.6) for 277.5 pixels/s. As you can see, 294 is 58% faster than 185, and 2.4 is 50% more than 1.6, and in this case, the Kentsfield is faster than the Barcy clock for clock with 294 vs 277.5.


RE: Am I understanding the math correctly?
By hoyanf on 6/7/07, Rating: 0
By GlassHouse69 on 6/7/2007 12:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
My only hope is that Kuma dual core has like a 25% speed increase or something like that over am2's of same ghz rating, AND they are like 120 dollars at most to buy. this would make intel's systems to cost 300-500 dollars more to purchase, considering the AMD boards normally run 65-75 dollars for full features and full speed. DDR2 is luckily at a super cheap price at the moment. combine all of that with a more than adequate chip, this will change the market.

gaming is all gfx card so long as you use 1920x1200 displays with "image quality" settings cranked.


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher

Related Articles













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