Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

3.0GHz Phenom and 3-Way CrossFire Spotted

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the beautiful-hardward-needs-place-to-live dept.

AMD 103

MojoKid writes "AMD revealed the clock speed of the Agena-based processor they showed to the press today yesterday in conference, and clocks in at 3.0GHz. There has been a lot of speculation that AMD wasn't able to push early Phenom samples to frequencies this high, but here is proof that at least some Phenoms clocked at 3.0GHz do exist. You may also notice that the system hit a Windows Experience index score of 5.9, which is the highest score possible. It should be noted that AMD talked about 4-way CrossFire as well (a 3-way CrossFire is shown online), and that the company has continued plans to produce discreet GPUs at all performance levels (mainstream — enthusiast), even after Fusion arrives."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

climbing back or post mortem movement? (4, Interesting)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 7 years ago | (#20011697)

I, for one, miss our AMD performance overlords. I'm hoping that they climb back on top, especially since that would mean beating out the core 2 duo in performance.

Re:climbing back or post mortem movement? (2, Funny)

green453 (889049) | more than 7 years ago | (#20011741)

Do you hope that they climb back on top today yesterday?

Re:climbing back or post mortem movement? (1, Offtopic)

daskinil (991205) | more than 7 years ago | (#20011893)

Mod parent funny- that was a neat comment.

Re:climbing back or post mortem movement? (4, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012147)

Mod parent under-rated - he's trying to assist the moderators damnit! I, for one, am glad that he pointed out the comment was so neat! We need more meta-comments spamming up slashdot! Someone please advise on how my post should be moderated!

Sorry, I don't know why I'm being such a bastard today, maybe someone in the office has PMS..

Re:climbing back or post mortem movement? (1)

ookabooka (731013) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012269)

Mod parent funny- that was a neat comment.

Ok, pretty basic comment, moderators are apparently inept and highly suggestable.

Mod parent under-rated - he's trying to assist the moderators damnit! I, for one, am glad that he pointed out the comment was so neat! We need more meta-comments spamming up slashdot! Someone please advise on how my post should be moderated!

Ok. . .now I'm suspecting that the great grandparent has multiple accounts. . .In any case, in true tradition with recursive modding, mod parent up because I said so. Don't mod this comment up unless someone replies to it instructing you to do so. Pretty sure thats how it works.

Re:climbing back or post mortem movement? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012347)

Mod parent down - I don't have multiple accounts, I only have 3 normal ones

Re:climbing back or post mortem movement? (1)

Reddragon220 (890851) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012807)

Mod parent up for telling the truth - them give him a lollypop and send him back off to the playground.

Re:climbing back or post mortem movement? (1)

Poltras (680608) | more than 7 years ago | (#20014569)

Mod parent! Whatever you feel like, but mod it!

Re:climbing back or post mortem movement? (1)

Afecks (899057) | more than 7 years ago | (#20015953)

I have mod points so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

Re:climbing back or post mortem movement? (1)

yourmomisfasterthana (1097719) | more than 7 years ago | (#20019741)

I don't, but mods should mod this guy who has mod points up anyways!

Re:climbing back or post mortem movement? (1)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 7 years ago | (#20020897)

Mod self up! (Yeah, I bet you didn't think of that, did you!)

Re:climbing back or post mortem movement? (1)

stdarg (456557) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012277)

Mod parent down. The post started off informative and interesting, but ended poorly.

Re:climbing back or post mortem movement? (4, Informative)

Holmwood (899130) | more than 7 years ago | (#20011903)

Despite a reference to heat, this is not intended as a flame. I want to see a very strong AMD; it'll take that to keep Intel running hard. I'll buy whoever makes the best product at the best price.

The linked website seems aptly titled -- "HotHardware". Did you see the four extra fans built into the side of the case in the photo in the article?

The mind boggles at how much heat that setup must be producing.

I hope AMD can produce product at 3GHz (and faster) in quantity. And I hope they can do so without requiring 4 large fans taking up the entire side of the case.

Of course, those fans could be just to cool the three AMD graphics cards.

While I'm sure case modders and extreme performance enthusiasts don't care about this point, the rest of us like lower power consumption and quieter computers, while still being very fast.

Holmwood

Re:climbing back or post mortem movement? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20012003)

"Of course, those fans could be just to cool the three AMD graphics cards."
No shit, Sherlock.

Re:climbing back or post mortem movement? (5, Insightful)

FuturePastNow (836765) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012381)

Those three graphics cards alone are probably going to need a 750 Watt power supply. Add in the processor and other components, and the system in those pictures is likely running on 1000W.

Meh. No amount of performance is worth that. Not to me, anyway.

This is a normal case... (2, Interesting)

phildawg (1104325) | more than 7 years ago | (#20014391)

this isn't some case AMD dreamed up to test their 3-way Crossfire in it... it's a case used quite regular on the air cooling overclock scene.

Re:climbing back or post mortem movement? (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 7 years ago | (#20017043)

"While I'm sure case modders and extreme performance enthusiasts don't care about this point, the rest of us like lower power consumption and quieter computers, while still being very fast."

I've been looking for such systems for a while now, and I finally got something that is getting close to it. It's a fanless VIA EPIA system at 1.2 GHz. It's running from an ultra-quiet notebook WD drive using a laptop like PSU. I'm posting from it now (Ubuntu/Firefox). Of course, the thing lacking from it is CPU, GPU and hard drive performance. That said, Office applications run fine, and I am about to attach a very fast flash drive to it to 1) make it even more silent as my first computer (an MSX, you could just hear the PSU on those things) and 2) make it faster and 3) make it use even less energy.

With very low powered Xscale CPU's from Intel and Geodes from AMD, I am still waiting on their first true fan-less systems with a bit of raw (64 bit?) performance. But it seems that performance is still considered to be top priority. I would be much more interested in a low powered system on a chip myself (maybe with an external GPU and memory for performance).

5.9, which is the highest windows score possible (5, Funny)

Zero Degrez (1039938) | more than 7 years ago | (#20011727)

Because we automatically subtract 4.1 for being on Windows?

Re:5.9, which is the highest windows score possibl (5, Funny)

ookabooka (731013) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012195)

4.1 is a gross approximation. The exact number is actually closer to elevendy billion.

Re:5.9, which is the highest windows score possibl (2, Funny)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012499)

No, no, you're completely wrong. That number is actually a percentage.

Re:5.9, which is the highest windows score possibl (1)

Reddragon220 (890851) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012671)

The Vista Experience index only goes from 1-5.9 at the moment to compensate for the release of new hardware. When the newer and faster components roll out next year we will see the index adjust and ostensibly 6.9 will be the highest possible score. If windows '7' comes out on time - which m$ has projected to be three years - the highest possible score would be '9.9'.

Now if history shows anything, we'll probably end up with experience indexs of something absurd like say 9.9x10^14 when windows '7' and Duke Nukem Forever both come out in the year 2069.

Meaningless Numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20013639)

Dude it's a feature, not a bug. maybe 4.1 is reserved for eyecandy and spyware? I bet there is some completely relevant reason for this. For instance, the next version of windows is going to go to 6.9 just so some dipshit sales turd at Bestbuy can tell you the new OS performs better. Even on the same hardware you may have...

Re:My Windows Experience goes up to 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20014887)

So there!

Re:5.9, which is the highest windows score possibl (1)

fluor2 (242824) | more than 7 years ago | (#20016759)

A Windows Index of 5.9 is probably 5.9% of Linux performance.

Re:5.9, which is the highest windows score possibl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20017203)

A Windows Index of 5.9 is probably 5.9% of Linux performance.
Hate to pour cold reason on the holy war, but Vista performs pretty much the same as Linux on my machine, and if anything it feels slightly faster - Aero Glass in particular does stuff noticably more smoothly than Compiz. (I haven't bothered to benchmark, largely because I can't think of any meaningful tests.)

I use Linux for choice not because it's faster, but because it's more customisable, works better with my hardware, and has more software choice available, and these things more than compensate for the flaky GUI performance.

did you know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20019955)

people that say "largely" are fat

interesting!!

Re:5.9, which is the highest windows score possibl (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 7 years ago | (#20018223)

5.9 isn't THAT hard to get. With the recent intel price drops, a $300 core 2 quad CPU, paired with a $300 (say an 8800GTS (320MB) graphics card can get a 5.9.

Now I realize that even $500 on cpu + graphics alone is more than most people spend, but the point is 5.9 'vista's highest possible score' *is* trivially achievable in a $1500 budget using parts from the upper-end of 'mainstream'. It might even be possible at the $1000 price point.

At any rate, you emphatically do NOT need an overclocked bleeding edge CPU with a 1000 Watt P/S and 3 video cards working in tandem.

I love amd (1)

PunkOfLinux (870955) | more than 7 years ago | (#20011739)

Too bad they've taken a backseat to intel :(

Re:I love amd (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20011821)

Too bad they've taken a backseat to intel

Meh, the most fun I ever had was in the back seat.

Re:I love amd (2, Funny)

centinall (868713) | more than 7 years ago | (#20013817)

Meh, the most fun I ever had was in the back seat.

Have you ever had a 3 way in the back seat? Not as fun as it sounds. Especially when you have a crappy driver.

Re:I love amd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20015891)

Have you ever had a 3 way in the back seat? Not as fun as it sounds. Especially when you have a crappy driver.
No, but I've had a 3 way in the front seat.

And I'm a good driver!

Re:I love amd (2, Funny)

suggsjc (726146) | more than 7 years ago | (#20016919)

Crappy drivers, a 3-way...man am I confused. Are you talking about getting it on? Nah couldn't be, this is /. So I'm just assuming your talking about a 3-way system with horrible driver support in the back seat of your mom's car while she is taking you to Fry's to get a cool new case. So yeah, your right...not as much fun as it sounds.

Re:I love amd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20014801)

Homer Simpson style or Pee-Wee Herman style?

Windows Experience Score (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20011805)

Intel's $266 Q6600 also gets a 5.9: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/16/cpu_charts_ 2007/page39.html#cpu_index [tomshardware.com]

Re:Windows Experience Score (1)

zdzichu (100333) | more than 7 years ago | (#20017213)

So they run out of scale in less than a year? Vista don't look future-proof enough.

5.9? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20011827)

What kind of nerd index ends in 5.9?

Re:5.9? (3, Funny)

WhyDoYouWantToKnow (1039964) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012165)

Because 6.9 would just be weird.

Re:5.9? (5, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012197)

One designed by a nerd who lost 4.1 of his fingers in a horrific tape drive accident back in 2005.. I've never seen so much red tape.. o_0

Re:5.9? (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 7 years ago | (#20013219)

What kind of nerd index ends in 5.9?

Most likely one designed by old-school figure skating fans who don't like the new ISU scoring system.

Re:5.9? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20014937)

It was defined by Bill Gates. He said, "A 5.9 Windows experience ought to be enough for anybody."

No, really, he did. In 1981. I read it on the Internet Explorer.

Re:5.9? (1)

TDRighteo (712858) | more than 7 years ago | (#20020305)

The sort of geek that rounds to the nearest 0.1, and then doesn't define what is required to obtain a 6?

Check out:
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pag es/458117.aspx [windowsvistablog.com]

Yes, Microsoft only have enough benchmarks to say that something "really surpasses the 5 benchmark by quite a lot". Apparently getting a 6 would require them to define what a 6 "meant" in terms of Windows usability, and beyond 5.9 they haven't thought of anything a more powerful machine could do better.

Frankly, I find the concept that Microsoft might run out of CPU-intensive eyecandy this quick to be pretty suspect. Having used Vista, I wouldn't have though it was possible to get it to run seamlessly any time in the next 3 years!

Homonyms (1)

solafide (845228) | more than 7 years ago | (#20011845)

Discreet or discrete? I believe the summary needs the latter in reference to the GPUs.

Re:Homonyms (3, Funny)

shadowspar (59136) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012729)

No, a discreet GPU is one that doesn't go around telling anybody that you've been using it to render porn. There's probably a substantial market for GPUs like that, as opposed to the ones that go blabbing about your browsing habits to all their friends.

Re:Homonyms (5, Funny)

nigelo (30096) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012977)

All this indiscretion is making me (sic).

Re:Homonyms (1)

YourMotherCalled (888364) | more than 7 years ago | (#20017659)

Nice.

Re:Homonyms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20016087)

Nah, they're just really quiet. You can hardly tell that they're there.

Perspective (0, Troll)

JamesRose (1062530) | more than 7 years ago | (#20011919)

Well, in the harddrive rankings, mine scored 5.9, this was a 160gb IDE drive I have had for roughly 3 years, I think it was 5400RPM. Personally I think the ratings in windows are crap and irrelevant because no one runs vista.

Re:Perspective (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012899)

Windows Experience Index rankings for HDDs appear to only cover size. Yeah, that's dumb, but it's only to make sure you have enough room for Vista, swap, pagefile, and some extra storage. You're right that anything over 120 or 160 GB should get top score.

Re:Perspective (1)

Asztal_ (914605) | more than 7 years ago | (#20014507)

But my 320 GB disk gets a 5.6... Damn you, Windows Viiiiista!

Speed not size (1)

cecil_turtle (820519) | more than 7 years ago | (#20016417)

From "Windows Experience Index: An In-Depth Look" [windowsvistablog.com]

The disk score measures disk bandwidth (in Mega Bytes per Second). The conversion to an index number is set up in a way that all modern disks will score at least 2.0.

Re:Speed not size (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20020927)

So what you're saying is, size doesn't matter?

I didn't know GPUs could be "discreet" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20011953)

I think you must mean "discrete" GPUs, unless these new chips have features I haven't heard of.

3GHz expected by years end; an early bench. (3, Informative)

Visaris (553352) | more than 7 years ago | (#20011985)

pcmag.com [pcmag.com]

[. . .]Rick Berman, SVP, GM, Graphics Product Group said the technologies [3GHz Phenom + 2900XT] would be available this fall.

While I didn't hear this directly when listening to the Tech Day presentation, PC-Mag claims to have heard this. While it is true that Barcelona will launch at 2GHz, Phenom will be launched a good few months later. Further, Phenom is simpler, it only has one HT link instead of three, and qualification for desktop chips is much more forgiving than for server processors. I wouldn't be surprised to this by years end. It should compete well with the 3.2GHz Penryn Intel is expected to launch in the same timeframe. See this slide for the only halfway decent becnhmark AMD has posted for the K10-based cores:

Slide45 [ibeam.com]

Re:3GHz expected by years end; an early bench. (1)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 7 years ago | (#20014711)

Oh man! Rick Berman [imdb.com] is working for AMD now? He wasn't content fucking up the Star Trek franchise? What is the semiconductor equivalent of killing off Commander Data? AMD, I guess, will be as screwed as Scott Bacula.

Re:3GHz expected by years end; an early bench. (1)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 7 years ago | (#20021239)

AMD, I guess, will be as screwed as Scott Bacula.
--
today is spelling optional day.
You mean Scott Bakula? :-P

Heat Issues (4, Insightful)

i_am_socket (970911) | more than 7 years ago | (#20011987)

Looking at the picture in the beginning of the article, I don't think I want any system that requires a minimum of 5 case fans and a chipset fan.

If that's what they need to hit 3.0 GHz, they're better off going with watercooling.

Re:Heat Issues (3, Insightful)

kurokaze (221063) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012119)

I imagine that has more to do with the vid cards than the CPU itself. Notice that the CPU seems to cooled by a typical HSF unit.

Re:Heat Issues (1)

ganesaraja12 (963631) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012593)

Also consider that AMD has a massive "enthusiast" fanbase, which like colourful things. Having a row of fans with green LEDs gives it a '1337-halo' effect

Re:Heat Issues (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#20014117)

Doesn't each card have its own massive fan? Those cards shouldn't be taking two slot spaces for nothing.

I'm almost certain the fans are for show, I think side mounted fans can cause more problems than it fixes.

Is thing just a dual channel system? Given how people are screaming that Intel's quad core is choking on a lack of bandwidth, running four cores on dual channel memory would seem to be the next bottleneck.

Re:Heat Issues (1)

flappinbooger (574405) | more than 7 years ago | (#20015763)

The thing is, the fans might be partly for show, but while the GPU's have their own fans to remove the heat from the card you still gotta get the heat out of the case.

That looked like a pretty small case to me...

Re:Heat Issues (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 7 years ago | (#20016519)

Thought that is why they take up 2 slot and can push the heat out of the slot not used by the actual card ...

I think it's only there for show aswell, the CPU fan looks small and "lightweight".

Re:Heat Issues (1)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 7 years ago | (#20014069)

Guess you have to be a real AMD fanboy to get one of those...

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, please don't shoot!

Re:Heat Issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20016177)

That was the first comment to make me chuckle out loud in months. Very nicely done.

Re:Heat Issues (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 7 years ago | (#20016587)

I'm very sure i read somethere that THD was the same for the new quad cores as the old dual cores, and that they would use the same cooling solutions and sockets because of that. And the dual core ones doesn't run so hot do they? Aren't they on par or eventually even better than the Intel (non laptop) ones?

Re:Heat Issues (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 7 years ago | (#20014865)

Looking at the picture in the beginning of the article, I don't think I want any system that requires a minimum of 5 case fans and a chipset fan.

Did you ever see the dual processor G5 power mac? It had 10 fans and was silent.

Re:Heat Issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20015289)

I don't think I want any system that requires a minimum of 5 case fans and a chipset fan.

Though to be fair, what are the odds that a system built by a hardware enthusiast site used the _minimum_ number of fans? I mean really, they're _LED-lit florescent green fans_! The design of this system probably has very little to do with practicality. :)

Selling my house! (1, Funny)

tjstork (137384) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012041)

Alright, that's it. Money's been tight and my wife's after me to unload our house and get some place smaller and more affordable. I imagine that trading in my dual opteron for one of these new super AMD chips is just the ticket.

I just have to have it.

Re:Selling my house! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20014179)

And the best part is you can heat the new small house with the new machine! It's win-win!

Now if they can get open source drivers out... (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012061)

Now, if AMD/ATI can get open source drivers out that support the card's features reliably, this will be a big gain.

Amen! (1)

Almahtar (991773) | more than 7 years ago | (#20018381)

I would buy AMD/ATI/whatever it's called now exclusively if they got open source drivers out for their gpus.

I already buy their cpus exclusively because I like their ethos better.

I also don't buy Microsoft products - nor use them illegally, and I only buy meat from companies that actually treat the animals humanely in real life. This may seem like a small deal but it's much more expensive.

The truth is there are people out there that will only use their (limited) dollars to support companies that are morally upright or at least less evil.

I did buy an Intel mac once, and I don't believe Apple is any less evil than MS: just smaller right now. I'm willing to feed the smaller evil until it's big enough to take the larger evil down a few pegs.

Who the hell designed that scale (3, Funny)

Tweekster (949766) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012221)

It reminds me of an old SNL clip, the mcmacilin group.

"on a scale of 22-46 rate ...."

Re:Who the hell designed that scale (3, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012789)

5.9 points ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:Who the hell designed that scale (3, Funny)

ozbird (127571) | more than 7 years ago | (#20017887)

It was supposed to go up to 10, but they had to drop 4.1 features to make the shipping date.

Re:Who the hell designed that scale (1)

evilbessie (873633) | more than 7 years ago | (#20015175)

This has probably been said on here already but microsoft have designed the scale to allow for FUTURE growth in performance, otherwise we'd end up having spinal tap logic (it goes to 11). So yes it is silly, but at least they were thinking of how much faster you'd need to get to run Vista with any sort of performance.

I heard something different... (1)

Bobb Sledd (307434) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012223)

I heard they couldn't get it to work exactly right, so they'll have to push an alternate Agena.

(wah wah wah)

alternate Agena (1)

White Yeti (927387) | more than 7 years ago | (#20013821)

This [astronautix.com] one [astronautix.com] should get them up to speed.

Goes to 11? (1)

Blahbooboo3 (874492) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012231)

Shouldn't it go to eleven?

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.


Had to say it :)

Awesome (3, Insightful)

u0berdev (1038434) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012403)

Although I lean towards Intel, it's good to hear some more positive news about AMD/ATI. Lately it seems that everyone is making AMD/ATI sound like a company that is falling behind and failing to deliver any product that compares to Intel's latest offerings. Some have even suggested that AMD could drop out of certain portions of the consumer market to focus on things such as low-power server chips. I, for one, hope that AMD/ATI's upcoming Phenom and other offerings blow Intel out of the water. Why? Cause competition is always good, for consumers that is.

Re:Awesome (2, Interesting)

Canar (46407) | more than 7 years ago | (#20013119)

I'm as much an AMD fanboy as the next guy. I'm also a realist. Realistically, Intel's on top right now. I'd love to see AMD regain that dominance. Like you say, competition is good. However, Intel is also much bigger than AMD. Still though, with a GPU manufacturer in-house, I think AMD will offer some really fantastic technology in a couple years. It's just getting the two sides to work together that will likely prove to be difficult.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20020337)

Lately it seems that everyone is making AMD/ATI sound like a company that is falling behind and failing to deliver any product that compares to Intel's latest offerings.
There's a difference between "sounds like" and "is". I'd say the ARE falling behind. Are they delivering any product that compares to Intel's latest offerings? I'd vote no. The future maybe, but the word 'delivering' is implying right now. Not trying to troll. I lean towards Intel myself. I'm glad that AMD/ATI has their head up for the future because competition is good for the PC market. Just making the point that they really have been sucking bigtime lately.

Ho-hum, I want SuperPi and **Mark benchmarks (3, Informative)

ganesaraja12 (963631) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012413)

Having been a dedicated AMD fanboy for many years running, I'm finding this news exciting. Also, having been a critical character, I just don't like that AMD picked that benchmark and flogging it like a dead horse. Whoop-dee-doo, your triple-Crossfire quadcore can run Vista well. Honestly, AMD need to buck up and demonstrate, directly or otherwise (ie. by reviews): 1) Server performance 2) Performance of Barcelona/Phenom vs. Kentsfield/Conroe 3) Some monumental overclockability. The halcyon days of Toledo Opteron overclocking is completely shadowed by Allensdale and Conroe now. Still, Brisbane 65nm shows promise in the overclocking stakes. And for crying out loud AMDATI, fix your drivers!

Why the links to these stories? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20012457)

This site's coverage of the analyst day is crud compared to others, yet this is the one you select?

Low Goals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20012615)

AMD needs to hit a homerun to take a lead in this inning, but they just bunted for first base.

The important question (1)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 7 years ago | (#20012891)

But will it play Crysis at 60fps?

The real question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20013255)

is it ready for Doom 3?

Re:The important question (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 7 years ago | (#20017243)

Of course it will? Or more, maybe not at highest settings and 2560x1920 resolution thought.

Re:The important question (2, Funny)

Ryan Monster (767204) | more than 7 years ago | (#20017535)

The *REAL* question is will it play Duke Nukem Forever?

I guess I'll just have to wait for ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20012939)

I guess I'll just have to wait for the Opteron 2xxx H version ... pockets aren't deep enough for the 8xxx series

On the other hand, I do accept PayPal donations at URL removed.

Beautiful Hardward Needs Place To Live (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20013989)

So what is it that makes hardward beautiful?

Re:Beautiful Hardward Needs Place To Live (1)

Ravenscall (12240) | more than 7 years ago | (#20014345)

Pretty Lights! The Picture even proves it!

Re:Beautiful Hardward Needs Place To Live (1)

heelrod (124784) | more than 7 years ago | (#20014767)

I would prefer a 4 way to a 3 way, but hey! I'm not that picky.

Is this all procs are about these days? when will the 1.21 jiggawatt time travel parallel dual core pud puller come out?

"windows experience index" wtf? (2, Funny)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 7 years ago | (#20014989)

a number that purports to tell how well the OS I don't run will perform with applications I will never buy here rendered more meaningless by assuming CPU performance is the dominating component of such a number, just fucking great for a so-called tech site

Re:"windows experience index" wtf? (2, Insightful)

GaratNW (978516) | more than 7 years ago | (#20016673)

And the fact that a majority of the world still uses XP and/or Vista.. that little fact just *whoosh*.. right past ya. You should have just run it rhough the "/. article filter" that removes all references to Windows, and makes repetitive jokes about "5.9 should be enough for anyone".. you know, that ever paraphrased quote that was never actually made by Bill or anyone at Microsoft but is continually attributed to them for cheap shots that have no substance that typically get modded funny.

Of course, someone was foolish enough to mention anything about Windows in a tech article, so it goes reason that 90% of the comments would be about the Windows Experience score, rather than the substance of the article. Vista sucks. Ok, agreed. But seriously, humor aside, slashdot sounds more and more like tech savvy ditto-heads every day.

Re:"windows experience index" wtf? (1)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 7 years ago | (#20021263)

You're right about the repetitive comments - but didn't we just see a study on here showing that 81% of (web-browsing) users are still on XP, and only 4% are on Vista?

The experience index still means no more to an XP user than it does to (for example) a Linux user, so the GP had a point.

Re:"windows experience index" wtf? (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 7 years ago | (#20018741)

The Windows Experience Index value is computed independently on five characteristics: Hard Drive Speed, CPU speed (real speed via a benchmark test, not just clock rate), RAM (not sure if it's performance, quantity, or some of both), Video hardware capabilities (not sure how they test this, though GPU speed is presumably a factor), and video RAM. After each category is rated, the computer's overall score is the LOWEST such rating. If the entire computer scored 5.9 (by the way, MS plans to extend the index as hardware reaches the point where it would be meaningful to do so) then every single component tested went off the scale, not just the CPU. I can imagine both the CPU and GPU(s) hitting that high, plus most likely the VRAM, but the system RAM and hard drive I don't know about. It's also worth noting that these values are really only intended for gamers and other people running hardware-intensive apps; I ran Vista (well, betas of it) on a machine that scored 1.0 overall because that's the highest rating Vista will give to a video card without pixel shader 2.0 acceleration. None of the other attributes scored too well either, but it certainly ran both the OS and DirectX 8.x games well enough. The only portion of the OS that didn't work was Aero, which the video card had no chance of handling in software (I tried).

Moral of the story: Just because you don't give a fsck doesn't mean that it isn't interesting, even useful info - after all, a complete setup that rates that well (for perspective, my current laptop's core 2 duo 1.83GHz CPU gets a 4.4) will perform quite fantastically whether or not you put Vista on it.

Oh, and I have no idea what qualifies this as funny; while I wouldn't have wasted a modpoint on it it reads more like a troll - certainly YOU didn't add anything to the discussion.

Sorry ATI GPUs... (1)

Nicolay77 (258497) | more than 7 years ago | (#20016489)

But I want to have that rig with some nice nVidia cards, like in the old good times.

does it enough? (1)

Sitxu (223846) | more than 7 years ago | (#20017075)

of course it is, I'm 5,9" you insensitive clod..

Stop beating a dead horse (1)

asm2750 (1124425) | more than 7 years ago | (#20017837)

Clock speed should be irrelevant now. Better architecture methods such as pipelining and super scaling should take higher priority when it comes to performance benchmarks. The more cores that are on a processor die should also be a indicator of performance. If people programmed with parallel architecture in mind we wouldn't need a 3GHZ quad core.

Really? (1)

RTofPA (984422) | more than 7 years ago | (#20019303)

So, if someone tried to sell you a 100MHz processor, with awesome pipelining and superscaling and 8 cores, would you buy it? Clock speed is far from irrelevant, its just not as relevant as it used to be.

Parallelism only goes so far... (1)

rdean400 (322321) | more than 7 years ago | (#20019483)

Certain computational problems aren't easily decomposed into parallelizeable chunks. Deriding faster clock speeds as a waste of time in light of additional cores is extremely naive. We need multi-cores for problems that can be broken down into chunks and faster clocks for tearing through those chunks.

IBM's POWER6 is an acknowledgment that parallelism only goes so far. It's around 4.5GHz per core. I'll be interested to see the benchmarks.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?