quote:Were any tests done to compare a single dual-core K8 Opteron versus a single quad-core K10? In previous reviews single- and dual-threaded benchmark performance was actually hurt by running dual A64 FX CPUs instead of a single A64 CPU at the same frequency.
quote:That's the first thing I tried, it didn't work :)
quote:We got a call earlier in the week asking if we'd be able to turn around a review of AMD's Barcelona processor for Monday if we received hardware on Saturday. Naturally we didn't decline, and as we were secretly working on a Barcelona preview already, AMD's timing was impeccable.
quote:AMD shipped us a pair of 2U servers a day early,
quote:we need to see Single Thread tests as well to see what an k8 cpu running in 1 cpu mode that an k10 can do in 1 cpu mode (both running at the same 2ghz speed)
quote:Myrimatch: (lower better)
1 thread Opteron 2218 HE (K8 2.6GHZ) - 506
1 thread Opteron 2360 SE (K10 2.5Ghz) - 656
2 thread Opteron 2218 HE (K8 2.6GHZ) - 353
2 thread Opteron 2360 SE (K10 2.5Ghz) - 373
Decent improvement witnessed here on a single thread, but then 2 threads on K10(373) falls much closer to the level of K8(353). This protein benchmark likely reacts to some memory benefits, because other tests don't show raw computational advantages
quote:The trouble for AMD this time around is that Phenom is a much larger chip than the outgoing Athlon 64 X2, whereas Intel's Penryn family will actually be smaller than Conroe. AMD is already losing a considerable amount of money each quarter, so fabbing a larger chip at the same price as current CPUs will only make the situation worse. However, Intel can afford to continue to keep its processors as aggressively priced, especially moving to 45nm.
To put it plainly: Phenom/Barcelona make this price war more difficult on AMD, while Penryn makes it easier on Intel. What's the end game? Is there a solution?