Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [TechReport] Intel gives peek into Nehalem bag of tricks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[TechReport] Intel gives peek into Nehalem bag of tricks - Page 2

post #11 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by HugeDink View Post
Shanghai Vs. Nehalem is going to be epic.
Yeah just like Phenom versus Core 2?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HugeDink View Post
Bulldozer isn't coming until 2010 or something.

Shanghai is competing with Nehalem, its basically 45nm Agena but with an improved IPC rate. They should be real close in terms of performance.
Doubt it. Core 3 is going to be 40% faster than Core 2, that would be a lot for an Agena.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_mike_and_mike View Post
in other words intel is PWNing the market. this is going to be cool
LOL How many people did you rip off?
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
Yeah just like Phenom versus Core 2?



Doubt it. Core 3 is going to be 40% faster than Core 2, that would be a lot for an Agena.
I'll just quote someone from another post. He explains things beautifully

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkcloud89 View Post
It's really all about how AMD had to prioritize decisions on how to compete with the Core marchitecture. I think a lot of people on this forum would agree with the statement "Core2 slaughters any K8." Now people tend to think that to get "back in the game", AMD would have needed to have an answer to Core2. However this isn't necessarily true. Even when AMD CPUs were performance kings, they still lacked the production capacity to really penetrate the desktop market. The most sensible thing they could do is ensure that they keep as much of their server market share as possible. This was the purpose of Barcelona. AMD knew that as long as Intel relied upon a FSB that their CPU scaling would not be good. They had the advantage with the IMC and they had to hold on to it. While Barcelona does offer a singlethreaded performance-per-clock advantage over K8, the real beneifts are multithreaded performance. This doesn't really help with desktop performance at the moment, but for servers it means everything.

What if instead of defending their server market share they would have decided to go for desktop performance? It probably wouldn't have mattered because they still lack the manufacturing capacity to sell enough, and Intel could easily undercut Core2 prices. Having just purchased ATI, AMD also needed the higher profit margins from selling scalable server processors, so going after desktop performance right away would have been a terrible move. I realize that the decision to improve scaling before performance isn't very popular with most of the computer enthusiasts, but really for AMD it was their only sane option. Before going after desktop performance/market share, they had to ensure their server market share was safe, thus Barcelona. It is commonly said that AMD has no answer to Nehalem, but in reality Nehalem is Intel's answer to Barcelona. Both chips have ironically similar features, and like Barcelona, Nehalem's only real performance improvement is going to be for multithreaded applications.

Really AMD's transition from K8 to K10.5 is remarkably similar to Intel's transition from Netburst to Nehalem. Both transitions would bring improved single-threaded performance and improved scaling. AMD chose to go after scaling first, thus K10 and Intel went with single-threaded, thus Conroe. Now, it's reversed and Intel is improving scaling with Nehalem and AMD aims to improve their single-threaded performance with Shanghai/K10.5.
Von Strauss
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 5000x2 BE @ 3.2 ASUS M2R-32 MVP Sapphire HD4850 700/1100 2x1gb G.Skill HZs 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
250gb WD IDE lol LG DVD-RAM w/ Lightscribe Vista Ultimate 32-bit Sceptre, 1280x1024, 5ms 
PowerCase
Corsair TX 650W Enermax Chakra w/ 250mm Side Panel Fan 
  hide details  
Reply
Von Strauss
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 5000x2 BE @ 3.2 ASUS M2R-32 MVP Sapphire HD4850 700/1100 2x1gb G.Skill HZs 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
250gb WD IDE lol LG DVD-RAM w/ Lightscribe Vista Ultimate 32-bit Sceptre, 1280x1024, 5ms 
PowerCase
Corsair TX 650W Enermax Chakra w/ 250mm Side Panel Fan 
  hide details  
Reply
post #13 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by HugeDink View Post
I'll just quote someone from another post. He explains things beautifully
Yeah they really kept that server market strong!



http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3335
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
post #14 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post
Nope Shanghai is not competing with Nehalem, Bulldozer is.
I wouldn't be so sure about this. I commonly see that people think that AMD has no answer to Nehalem until Bulldozer. Really this isn't correct because Nehalem is actually Intel's answer to Barcelona. How do I make this conclusion? Barcelona and Nehalem are pretty similar chips.

AMD's transition from K8 to Barcelona to K10.5/Shanghai is very similar to Intel's transition from Netburst to Conroe to Nehalem. Conroe brought improved single-threaded performance and IPC (as well as efficiency) compared to Netburst, and the integration of the memory controller should give Nehalem scalability. AMD, on the other hand, released Barcelona and took care of the scalability improvements first by improving cHT links and a monolithic quad core design. And if they stay on track, Shanghai should bring improved IPC, power requirements/thermals (transition to HKMG 45nm), and single threaded performance. I guess you could say both companies were headed towards the same destination, but took different paths to get there.

If AMD can deliver the IPC improvements with the transition to 45nm in Shanghai, then that should suffice as Nehalem's competitor. Not only would K10.5 be faster per clock, but HKMG should allow it to clock much higher than it does now. Phenom was a ridiculously complex die to manufacture at 65nm and I think the process is holding it back more than most people think, and the 45nm transition if executed timely may open some eyes. The performance advantage with Nehalem will not be as big with single-threaded performance as it will be in multithreaded. AMD was already very good when it came to multithreaded performance, so really they just need to improve single-threaded.

EDIT: I see my post from the other thread was already quoted
Edited by darkcloud89 - 6/17/08 at 7:49pm
post #15 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
Yeah they really kept that server market strong!



http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3335
way to change subjects... you clearly didn't read his entire post.

I like your Intel(R) slides too lol, because god knows they NEVER show any Bias.
Von Strauss
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 5000x2 BE @ 3.2 ASUS M2R-32 MVP Sapphire HD4850 700/1100 2x1gb G.Skill HZs 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
250gb WD IDE lol LG DVD-RAM w/ Lightscribe Vista Ultimate 32-bit Sceptre, 1280x1024, 5ms 
PowerCase
Corsair TX 650W Enermax Chakra w/ 250mm Side Panel Fan 
  hide details  
Reply
Von Strauss
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 5000x2 BE @ 3.2 ASUS M2R-32 MVP Sapphire HD4850 700/1100 2x1gb G.Skill HZs 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
250gb WD IDE lol LG DVD-RAM w/ Lightscribe Vista Ultimate 32-bit Sceptre, 1280x1024, 5ms 
PowerCase
Corsair TX 650W Enermax Chakra w/ 250mm Side Panel Fan 
  hide details  
Reply
post #16 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
Yeah they really kept that server market strong!



http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3335
K10 was launched in Q3 07 IIRC. That graph doesn't hold much water as Opterons Scale much better and are used in large clusters more.
Edited by Somenoob - 6/17/08 at 7:48pm
Lenovo W520
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2630QM idk lol Quadro 2000M 8 Gigabytes 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
500 7200RPM Windows 8 Pro + Ubuntu 15.6 1920x1080 Lenovo plastic 
  hide details  
Reply
Lenovo W520
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2630QM idk lol Quadro 2000M 8 Gigabytes 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
500 7200RPM Windows 8 Pro + Ubuntu 15.6 1920x1080 Lenovo plastic 
  hide details  
Reply
post #17 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by HugeDink View Post
way to change subjects... you clearly didn't read his entire post.

I like your Intel(R) slides too lol, because god knows they NEVER show any Bias.
I read the article, the point was that the server market was where AMD had an advantage to compete.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somenoob View Post
K10 was launched in Q3 07 IIRC. That graph doesn't hold much water as Opterons Scale much better and are used in large clusters more.
Read the review on Anandtech, the K10 4 socket is pretty even with Intel.
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
post #18 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
I read the article, the point was that the server market was where AMD had an advantage to compete.



Read the review on Anandtech, the K10 4 socket is pretty even with Intel.

Your so lost man lol, it wasn't an article, it was a post, and this discussion was never about market share, I was talking about Performance, the person I quoted just happened to mention market share

And please link the anandtech K10 4 socket review.
Von Strauss
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 5000x2 BE @ 3.2 ASUS M2R-32 MVP Sapphire HD4850 700/1100 2x1gb G.Skill HZs 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
250gb WD IDE lol LG DVD-RAM w/ Lightscribe Vista Ultimate 32-bit Sceptre, 1280x1024, 5ms 
PowerCase
Corsair TX 650W Enermax Chakra w/ 250mm Side Panel Fan 
  hide details  
Reply
Von Strauss
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 5000x2 BE @ 3.2 ASUS M2R-32 MVP Sapphire HD4850 700/1100 2x1gb G.Skill HZs 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
250gb WD IDE lol LG DVD-RAM w/ Lightscribe Vista Ultimate 32-bit Sceptre, 1280x1024, 5ms 
PowerCase
Corsair TX 650W Enermax Chakra w/ 250mm Side Panel Fan 
  hide details  
Reply
post #19 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by HugeDink View Post
Your so lost man lol, it wasn't an article, it was a post, and this discussion was never about market share, I was talking about Performance, the person I quoted just happened to mention market share

And please link the anandtech K10 4 socket review.
http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3335
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
post #20 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkcloud89 View Post
I wouldn't be so sure about this. I commonly see that people think that AMD has no answer to Nehalem until Bulldozer. Really this isn't correct because Nehalem is actually Intel's answer to Barcelona. How do I make this conclusion? Barcelona and Nehalem are pretty similar chips.

AMD's transition from K8 to Barcelona to K10.5/Shanghai is very similar to Intel's transition from Netburst to Conroe to Nehalem. Conroe brought improved single-threaded performance and IPC (as well as efficiency) compared to Netburst, and the integration of the memory controller should give Nehalem scalability. AMD, on the other hand, released Barcelona and took care of the scalability improvements first by improving cHT links and a monolithic quad core design. And if they stay on track, Shanghai should bring improved IPC, power requirements/thermals (transition to HKMG 45nm), and single threaded performance. I guess you could say both companies were headed towards the same destination, but took different paths to get there.

If AMD can deliver the IPC improvements with the transition to 45nm in Shanghai, then that should suffice as Nehalem's competitor. Not only would K10.5 be faster per clock, but HKMG should allow it to clock much higher than it does now. Phenom was a ridiculously complex die to manufacture at 65nm and I think the process is holding it back more than most people think, and the 45nm transition if executed timely may open some eyes. The performance advantage with Nehalem will not be as big with single-threaded performance as it will be in multithreaded. AMD was already very good when it came to multithreaded performance, so really they just need to improve single-threaded.

EDIT: I see my post from the other thread was already quoted
haha yeah, I had been wanting to quote that post somewhere all day, its probably the best post I've ever read on OCN.
Von Strauss
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 5000x2 BE @ 3.2 ASUS M2R-32 MVP Sapphire HD4850 700/1100 2x1gb G.Skill HZs 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
250gb WD IDE lol LG DVD-RAM w/ Lightscribe Vista Ultimate 32-bit Sceptre, 1280x1024, 5ms 
PowerCase
Corsair TX 650W Enermax Chakra w/ 250mm Side Panel Fan 
  hide details  
Reply
Von Strauss
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 5000x2 BE @ 3.2 ASUS M2R-32 MVP Sapphire HD4850 700/1100 2x1gb G.Skill HZs 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
250gb WD IDE lol LG DVD-RAM w/ Lightscribe Vista Ultimate 32-bit Sceptre, 1280x1024, 5ms 
PowerCase
Corsair TX 650W Enermax Chakra w/ 250mm Side Panel Fan 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [TechReport] Intel gives peek into Nehalem bag of tricks