Intel's 8 Core Faster Than AMD's 16 Core/Barcelona

[NoPeace]

At the Microprocessor Forum, Intel demoed its V8 workstation running the POV-Ray benchmark. The machine is equipped with Intel's Workstation Board S5000XVN, 2 quad-core Xeons 5365, clocked at 3GHz and 16GB RAM. And the results are simply impressive: Intel scored over 4,900 pixels per seconds versus a little bit over 4,000 for AMD's 4 sockets quad-core (Barcelona) system. Again, this is an AMD 16 cores system versus Intel's 8 cores V8 machine.

If you take 16 cores at 1.8Ghz, divided by 2 and add 60% to get to 3.0Ghz, it gives POV-Ray score of 3600 for 8 cores. Meaning that at 3.0GHz, Barcelona still lose by quite some compare to an 8 cores Clowertown system.




"Why do you need 16 cores, when you can do better with 8. Our 8 core system is 30% faster than the 16 core machine AMD showed to the press yesterday. I just don't understand how they can claim to be 40% faster", said Francois Piednoel, an Intel engineer present at the show.

Well, now AMD has some explanation to do and sooner rather than later. Because if they can't figure out what happened with those POV-Ray results they showed us, that's the end of it. At the show, Intel also demoed a system with a 45nm Penryn quad-core processor (shipping by year end, about the same time than Barcelona!) that is 40% faster than the top of the line quad-core generation, the Core 2 Extreme processor QX6800. Wow!

Source: [Microprocessor Forum] 8 Intel cores faster than 16 AMD cores!

Ouch time for AMD's trump card.

NoPeace - out

 

[Lithic]

Ouch owned...
Personally I feel Intel pwns AMD in multi core systems but I feel that AMD pwns Intel in single core systems.

 

[username1]

Well, duh. It's a Xeon, a server-class CPU.

Now, if they could make a single or dual-core CPU faster than those 8 cores, that would be awesome.

 

[Sardaukar]

No user end basic home system will ever be able to afford an 8 core or 16 core Right nwo the market lies in dual and quad cores.. which is what AMD is putting out to go against Intels own Quad's.. and from the benchmarks 'supposedly' AMD says it is faster in that retrospect

 

[kip0130]

wow Intel is really kicking it up but amd will own again with the AMD + IBM chips

 

[NoPeace]

Ouch owned...
Personally I feel Intel pwns AMD in multi core systems but I feel that AMD pwns Intel in single core systems.

Not a year and half ago before the C2Ds came out.

The Pentium D's where a piece of crap. The A64 X2s where vastly faster.

Well, duh. It's a Xeon, a server-class CPU.

Now, if they could make a single or dual-core CPU faster than those 8 cores, that would be awesome.

And what's the difference between server and desktop class CPU's now anyways?

They are the same chip with different names.

For Intel all of the Conroes are same same as the Xenons. Just a different name.

And what about the A64s and A64 FXs? The FXs has always been an unlocked "server" grade CPU (the new Intel Extreme Editions are the same now too) while all of the 1mb Cache A64's were server grade CPUs also. The only real difference was the name.

All the LGA775 Xenons are the same exact CPU as the Core 2 Duo/Quad. Just like all the s939 Opterons where the same as the 1mb Cache A64s.

Now days all high end Desktops CPUs are in fact server grade chips and most of the time over priced.

And yes. It would be awesome to see a dual core as fast as those 8-way systems. But well have to wait to see that.

No user end basic home system will ever be able to afford an 8 core or 16 core Right nwo the market lies in dual and quad cores.. which is what AMD is putting out to go against Intels own Quad's.. and from the benchmarks 'supposedly' AMD says it is faster in that retrospect

Well... Come this fall there will be no more Quad FX. Since well... It will be dual 4-way Opterons for the flagship AMD gamer platform. Instead of the current dual 2-way Opterons or should I say FXs.

But yeah. Only the hardcore PC users will be touching this stuff for home use. And for the basic users. Quad core probably wont be happening till next year. Dual cores are the best option for basic users until the power useage of Quad cores become that of a Dual core.

NoPeace - out

 

[SantaClaus1]

And what's the difference between server and desktop class CPU's now anyways?

They are the same chip with different names.

For Intel all of the Conroes are same same as the Xenons. Just a different name.

exactly therr is no difference between server and desktop class CPU's
, the only difference
is the extensive testing and quality control they did on the xeons (for 24/7 use)

 

[NoPeace]

exactly therr is no difference between server and desktop class CPU's
, the only difference
is the extensive testing and quality control they did on the xeons (for 24/7 use)

Hardly. A Xenon, Opteron, Extreme Edition, and FX chips are just the ones cut from the center of the wafer.

The high end desktops are cut further out form the center and the mid range ones are pretty much cut at the edge of the wafer.

Same chips. Just the closer to the center, the better the quality. And with the high end desktops and server chips they are nearly the same chip.

And if they were much better chips. Then why on earth would they cost the same or even less then the desktop version at times? Why is a 4x3.2 ghz Xeon the same price as a 4x2.66 ghz C2Extreme? And what this the actual difference between them? Same core just different speed.

NoPeace - out