well it looks like Intel's quad Xeon is about to get a kick in the teeth from AMD's upcoming Barcelona, it's AMD first quad apparently it beats Intel's processor by 50% Source[ot]i nearly didn't believe it, although it's not unexpected from AMD, but 50% OMG[/ot]BTW: AMD Source
Now, I'm sure Barcelona is good, but I'd like to see some independent reviews to see if this holds up. If so, great...for us!
well yeah, i suppose your right, but i was getting over-exited thanks for bringing me back down to reality[ot]tw4t[/ot]i guess it's just AMD's sales department (& they could be sniffing glue, but we'll see, it shouldn't take long for Barcelona to start appearing on desktops under some other sudo-name, but if it's half as good as AMD claim it'll be worth the upgrade (obviously when it's released) BTW: apparently their to be released in about November time
It's going to be released late, and as much as I hope it competes well with Intel I have a feeling Intel will also make improvements, especially on the desktop front with their upcoming Penryn.
Anandtech got to run a few tests on Penryn already, and if that's what's hitting shelves, AMD's got a big challenge if Barcelona drops the ball. If it is doing that 50% performance increase, then they'll be back in the game. If nothing else, as long as it's competitive with Penryn, or whatever Intel's cooking up for the inevitable Penryn successor, then AMD will be back. Intel sure took their time coming up with Conroe, but they're back on a role.
Why don't they make a dual, dual core compatible main board? Would that technically not be Quad? Imagine it running two AMD FX CPU's at once, with two cores each, I should imagine that the price would be the same price as buying one Quad core CPU, and I’m sure the performance would be just as good. Why can't AMD an Intel see that we still have yet to use Dual core to its full potential I do allot of work on my PC and I'm grateful to have a dual core CPU but what am i going to do with the two extra cores?
no, it would be a quad almost nobody will make full use of the potential of a quad personally i've never heard of Intel's Penryn, but if we dream we can have both a Barcelona & a Penryn[ot]i just tripped over the Barcelona story on tgdaily, & that started a discussion on AMD vs Intel, i personally will probably always favour AMD (cos their the underdog to Intel)[/ot]BTW:good to know you guys are on you toes
For most of the desktop users, you're right: quad-core is worthless. However, quad-core is hitting their server chips first: Opteron or Xeon. AMD does have a "desktop" "quad-core" solution with their 4x4 platform, but it's basically 2 Athlon64 FX's in SMP (a feature denied to chips outside the workstation/server-class) sans the typical Registered RAM requirement. Ultimately, it's not that much cheaper than buying a pair of comparable dual-core Opterons and all the jazz that goes with it. Servers and workstations do have processing needs that exceed the typical home computer user and market. Secondly, AMD's ability to harp on the "clockspeed doesn't = performance" tune is likely part of the reason for the shift to multi-core processors instead of clock speed. Intel has had a helluva time trying to milk the Netburst (Pentium 4-generation) architecture to 4GHz and keep it within certain parameters like voltage and cooling while maintaining stability. Penryn is the successor to the current Conroe/Allendale/Woodcrest generation of Core2 and Xeons.
