This was the interesting one.
| Aceshardware http://aceshardware.freeforums.org/ |
|
| SUn/Intel slides have Nehalem performance projections http://aceshardware.freeforums.org/sun-intel-slides-have-nehalem-performance-projections-t385.html |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | jokerman [ Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | SUn/Intel slides have Nehalem performance projections |
removed broken link |
|
| Author: | TacoBell [ Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: SUn/Intel slides have Nehalem performance projections |
jokerman wrote: http://at.sun.com/sunnews/events/2008/jan/sun_intel_breakfast/pdf/Sun_Intel_Road%20Show_Austria.pdf
also has AMD Shanghai projections ... Intel expects a pretty decent fight from Shanghai. In FP it looks relatively competitive but if the Integer performance is even close to what is realized this would be very bad news for Shanghai, with Nehalem having a 40% lead (looks like about 2 for SH versus 2.85ish for Nehalem). |
|
| Author: | Wouter Tinus [ Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Working the numbers for Nehalem I get about 164/167 for SPECint/fp_rate_base2006 (assuming two socket configurations, which seems to fit with the relative numbers). Current top of the line Harpertown is at 121/80.4, while the (now invalidated) 2.5 GHz Barcelona submissions were 102/86.3. It looks like Intel/Sun are expecting a 2.8 GHz Shanghai to come in at about 122/126. Edit: switched int/fp for Barcelona. Also those are peak numbers, not base. |
|
| Author: | GeorgeOu [ Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I posted a link to here on my blog. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=1025 I ran some numbers of my own and I had to make some adjustments to the numbers since I don't know what Intel's reference point is. The following are the adjusted numbers I came up with. I estimated 176/163 for Nehalem on SPECint/SPECfp rate base 2006. I estimate 123/121 for Shanghai 2.8 SPECint/SPECfp rate base 2006. |
|
| Author: | JamesG [ Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The slides are down, anyone got a mirror or can put one up please? Thanks. |
|
| Author: | The_Wolf_Who_Cried_Boy [ Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
This was the interesting one.
|
|
| Author: | JamesG [ Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks wolf, but I was interested specifically in something I saw on the inq, they say the 2 core, 4 core and 8 core are coming "in late" and that's it, is there a date in the slides? Specifically I want to know about the 8 core desktop/enthusiast chips. |
|
| Author: | The_Wolf_Who_Cried_Boy [ Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Makes you wonder why companies bother "pulling" leaked documents. Once the horse has bolted as they say... |
|
| Author: | mocad_tom [ Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
JamesG wrote: Thanks wolf, but I was interested specifically in something I saw on the inq, they say the 2 core, 4 core and 8 core are coming "in late" and that's it, is there a date in the slides? Specifically I want to know about the 8 core desktop/enthusiast chips.
Hiroshige Goto says: Bloomfield/Lynnfield Nehalem-EP (Native Quad-Core) Q3 08 Dunnington (Native Hexa-Core for old FSB) Q3 08 Nehalem-EX Beckton (Native-Eight-Core-Nehalem) H2 09 http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2007 ... gai394.htm Dunnington only for MP-Boards (4 Sockets) Nehalem-EP is for Single- and Dual-Socket-Configurations. There is no Beckton planned for DP-Boards or Desktop, big Server-Iron only. |
|
| Author: | JamesG [ Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The_Wolf_Who_Cried_Boy wrote:
Hehe, yep. Thanks, but you were right, nothing much else of interest in there and no dates for nehalem, not sure what the inq was talking about. oh well. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC + 1 hour |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|