What's new
  • Please do not post any links until you have 3 posts as they will automatically be rejected to prevent SPAM. Many words are also blocked due to being used in SPAM Messages. Thanks!

8 Intel cores faster than 16 AMD cores?


Well-known member
Dec 2, 2006
New Brunswick
Ugh- disturbing!~ Again, though- this is in the rumor section because the AMD tests were done without any mention of clockspeeds so who knows what they mean, but aren't these test optimized for multi-multicore?

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!

see the video at uberpulse


Latest posts