AMD Claims K8L Quad-Core Chips to Outperform Intel's by 40%

zippyjuan · 01-28-2007, 11:18 AM

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/d...126134038.html
These are server chips they are talking about, but the architecture could also be used for PCs.

Quote:

AMD’s K8L Quad-Core Chips to Outperform Intel's by 40%, Says AMD.
AMD Expects to Return Performance Crown with K8L Processors, Says Company

Category: Video

by Anton Shilov

[ 01/26/2007 | 01:42 PM ]

The chief of server business for Advanced Micro Devices is looking forward rather optimistically, as he expects AMD’s forthcoming quad-core microprocessors to be significantly faster compared to arch-rival Intel’s offerings. Nevertheless, Randy Allen admits that Intel’s approach to create quad-core chips did make sense, as customers do not really care how the chip is made.

“We expect across a wide variety of workloads for Barcelona to outperform Clovertown by 40%. The quad-core chip also will outperform AMD’s current dual-core Opterons on ‘floating point’ mathematical calculations by a factor of 3.6 at the same clock rate,” said Rick Allen, AMD’s corporate vice president for server and workstation products, in an interview with Cnet News.com web-site.

Quad-core processors clocked at moderate speeds and consisting of two dual-core dice on a single slice of substrate – Intel Xeon 5300-series as well as desktop Core 2 chips – allowed Intel Corp. to steal performance crown from Advanced Micro Devices, as such chips, thanks to the most recent “Core 2” micro-architecture by the company, provide decent performance in single-thread and dual-thread applications and lift-off in multi-thread apps.

AMD, however, believes, that a microprocessor with four cores with “monolithic” or “native” quad-core design with the x86 micro-architecture known as K8L provides better performance since processing engines do not have to use processor system bus for communication, but may use internal interconnection.

AMD agrees that clients are interested in performance achieved on quad-core processors, rather than their relative efficiency or the way they were made.

“Customers don’t care whether chips are monolithic or combine separate processors, but they do care about performance. We came to the conclusion that, given the capabilities and performance with the monolithic design, it was clearly the right answer,” Mr. Allen is reported to have said.

According to AMD, K8L includes a quad-core design for servers, workstations and high-end desktops, and a dual-core design intended for mainstream desktop markets. These next-generation processors will be built using AMD’s 65nm Silicon-on-Insulator (SOI) fabrication process, and include a broad range of functionality and micro-architectural improvements, including a new ability to dynamically alter the frequency of each core on the chip to match application workloads and thereby reduce overall power consumption.

“The magnitude of the transition is about halfway between the small tweaks AMD has made to Opteron over the years and the clean-sheet redesign Intel employed in moving from NetBurst to its current Core design,” Mr Allen is reported to have said.

AMD’s quad-core K8L processors for servers will have 128KB level-one cache (64KB for instructions and 64KB for data), 512KB level-two cache and 2MB level-three cache with the possibility to expand L3 cache. Due to higher amount of execution engines and micro-architectural improvements, clock-speeds of the initial K8L quad-core chips are projected to be lower than those of dual-core K8 processors.

brainsmile · 01-28-2007, 04:09 PM

it'll be interesting to see how this develops

johnnymk · 01-28-2007, 04:18 PM

OK, this multi-core approach appears to be working. But I never understood why they just couldn't double the size of processors.

I am sure that motherboards and cases would have to be enlarged a bit. And fan sizes would also be doubled.

Any ideas?

Jeffbx · 01-29-2007, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnymk

But I never understood why they just couldn't double the size of processors.

That's kind of what Intel did - they just crammed 2 dual core chips into the same package to make a quad core. But the 2 big limiters are power and heat - the bigger the chip, the more power it requires & the more heat it generates. The focus these days is not only on higher performance, but also less heat & power consumption so companies can cram even more processing power into smaller & smaller spaces. Server room floor space is getting to be a huge premium in many places, and so the more machine that can be crammed into the same space, the better.

That's also why there is so much buzz about server virtualization - running multiple simultaneous environments on a single physical machine.

01-28-2007, 04:09 PM	#2
brainsmile Chief of Naval Operations Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: woah... why is welfareloser here with me so early in the morning and more importantly why am I wearing her clothes?!? Posts: 13,754	it'll be interesting to see how this develops __________________ ********************************** DCM #1 (Founder) "Nobody beats Vitus Gerulaitis 18 times in a row." - Vitus Gerulaitis on beating Jimmy Connors after 17 failed attempts.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-28-2007, 04:18 PM	#3
johnnymk Chief of Naval Operations Join Date: May 2000 Location: LEVITTOWN< PA> USA Posts: 13,621	OK, this multi-core approach appears to be working. But I never understood why they just couldn't double the size of processors. I am sure that motherboards and cases would have to be enlarged a bit. And fan sizes would also be doubled. Any ideas?

User Name
Password
Remember Me?