Originally Posted by pauldovi
Remember guys, there is no such thing as a "rated" operations per clock on a processor.
However, the 1.6Ghz Barcelona was 58% slower than the 2.4Ghz Kentsfield (AMD benchmarks).
Now, for arguements sake, if the Kentsfield is 12 ops / clock (what everyone likes to say) and processor speed scaled linearly, then the Barcelona would be at about 10.44 operations / clock.
Penryn or bust.
The Intel system had more bandwidth. A long time ago someone tested an E4300 at 3.6ghz, and it got whomped by a 3.1ghz X6800 in all tests. (400mhz FSB vs 520mhz FSB)
The clock speeds were superior, and it made no difference. Not enough FSB/memory bandwidth.
Now what happens if you have 200mhz vs 266mhz(RAM: 667mhz vs 800mhz)? We don't know anything about AMD's new architecture. Bandwidth could affect it just as heavily as Intel; I mean, they tripled the amount of number crunching that the FPUs can do, right? Maybe to load them up, it needs massive amounts of bandwidth, too? Maybe they finally designed something to combat Intel, that feeds on the same things Intel's CPUs do?
Or maybe it'll be a complete flop and AMD will go bankrupt.
Whichever way it goes...we should be wishing AMD sticks around, and has a killer CPU. We all know Intel would still be aiming for 10ghz if AMD wasn't there to kick them.