Originally Posted by SZayat
First of all Paul, I admire you; you're one of the best knowlagable tech-savvy guys in this big forum.
Yes & C2D is doing better because of the performance per clock. a heart that beats slower is better than one that beats faster because the slower heart pumps more blood each beat and does not tire itself. So in other words Intel's C2D shares the same AMD architecture goals.
But what makes you pretty skeptical regarding AMD's True-Quad cores performance.
Again here is why I am skeptical.
For the infinite time, because Barcelona is launching at such low clocks I do not think it will be able to compete with Intel. Clearly the architecture does not scale well as AMD is having to constantly decrease the launch speed (2.6Ghz > 2.5Ghz > 2.2Ghz > 2.0Ghz) and delay the launch date.
At the present launch speed (2.0Ghz), it would have to be 50% faster clock for clock than Intel Xeon 5XXX series in order to match its performance. However, the Xeon's will be native quad core and clocked even faster around the launch of Barcelona. Barcelona is going to be competing right off the bad with a native quad core (why is that so special?) 1333Mhz FSB, 45nm Intel Xeon clocked in excess of 3.0Ghz.
I find it reasonable to be skeptical of Barcelona posting 50% or better performance clock for clock. Especially with the only benchmark we have to gauge performance on show Barcelona slower than the Core 2 Quad Q6600.
I find these all very good reasons to be skeptical.