I had a feeling something was up with those Cinebench numbers...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Leaked Intel Nehalem performance projections over AMD Shanghai
- Thread starter Bludd
- Start date
I had a feeling something was up with those Cinebench numbers...
Ok this changes everything. Looks like I'm sticking with Penryn for a while.As if on cue, Anand revised the single-threaded bench result. Nehalem is only slightly better than Penryn per clock now.
Ok this changes everything. Looks like I'm sticking with Penryn for a while.
Always a good idea to wait on production silicon and BIOSes before judging a product that is still a good way from launch.
Ok this changes everything. Looks like I'm sticking with Penryn for a while.
I was going to stick around with my rig till around the time Westmere gets launched. Hopefully seeing how ATI is doing with their yet to be released product, that is going to be a trend for their CPUs as well. We badly need competition in the CPU market.
Are there any rumours of future AMD processors going SMT (same core)? I haven't seen anything to suggest they might, but maybe they'll wise up.
There was once a rumor of reverse SMT. IE, splitting a single thread into multiple. I think it was supposed to be that on branchy code, each core would calculate a separate outcome and use whichever result was correct.
BTW, anyone know when the 45nm phenoms are supposed to launch and what changes they have from 65nm?
There was once a rumor of reverse SMT. IE, splitting a single thread into multiple. I think it was supposed to be that on branchy code, each core would calculate a separate outcome and use whichever result was correct.
BTW, anyone know when the 45nm phenoms are supposed to launch and what changes they have from 65nm?
The only problem there is do the benefits justify the setup costs? Since no one is doing it just yet I'd guess not?
The 45nm parts increase the L3 from 2MB to 6MB, but I don't know anything about core changes.
The only problem there is do the benefits justify the setup costs? Since no one is doing it just yet I'd guess not?
The 45nm parts increase the L3 from 2MB to 6MB, but I don't know anything about core changes.
Nothing about launch dates either? AMD really needs to get out their 45nm stuff not long after Nehalem if they want to have any profit margins at all. Are they even doing 45nm x2's?
Also, I wouldn't think reverse smt would justify the development. Aren't branch predictions up to like 98% on modern cpus? I suppose there could be some unusually hard to predict code with some heavy penalties though but those would really be outliers I'd think.
There was once a rumor of reverse SMT. IE, splitting a single thread into multiple. I think it was supposed to be that on branchy code, each core would calculate a separate outcome and use whichever result was correct.
BTW, anyone know when the 45nm phenoms are supposed to launch and what changes they have from 65nm?
The guys @ RWT seem to think Reverse Hyperthreading is a fanboy's pipedream, bordering on the impossible. It would take quite the feat of engineering just to pull it off, and a miracle to get it to improve performance over current designs.
The guys @ RWT seem to think Reverse Hyperthreading is a fanboy's pipedream, bordering on the impossible. It would take quite the feat of engineering just to pull it off, and a miracle to get it to improve performance over current designs.
Well, I would think you could make it trivial by just duplicating all code executed, but that wouldn't exactly make for the whole power efficiency thing the industry is going for.
The benefit would be minimal. Branch predictors are on the order of 90+% efficient, it's rare for a mispredict to happen. And to implement that "reverse SMT", you'd need double the execution resources, but for a very small gain.There was once a rumor of reverse SMT. IE, splitting a single thread into multiple. I think it was supposed to be that on branchy code, each core would calculate a separate outcome and use whichever result was correct.
BTW, anyone know when the 45nm phenoms are supposed to launch and what changes they have from 65nm?
Well, I would think you could make it trivial by just duplicating all code executed, but that wouldn't exactly make for the whole power efficiency thing the industry is going for.
Don't take my word for it, I'm no E.E. anyway. DK debunked this myth awhile back on RWT. Here is his post.