AMD 4x4-platform based on Socket 1207 / AMD roadmap ?

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

09-22-2006, 11:01 PM
***Deimos***

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexDiamonds

The most dissapointing piece of information in this is the obvious truth that AMD is having problems scaling their 65nm chips. If they were having good luck with speeds/yields it would make sense that they would move all their 2x1mb cache parts to 65nm asap.

They really need to be in the 3.6ghz range to successfully compete with existing and yet to be released conroes. This is a far cry from the 2.6ghz the 65 nanos are currently reaching (and yet to be released for a few more months). The only saving grace is that peak power consumption appears to be down on the new process.

For AMD, its K8L or bust. 4x4 is simply media hype to fight conroe.

I am a die hard AMD man but I cant for the life of me figure out how they let Intel sucker punch them for at least 12-18 months.

exisitng 90nm used for FX series, and used for highest clocked parts.
new 65nm used for volume and low power chips.

wait a minute,,,
hang on a second...
this sounds a tiny bit familiar.

its, EXACTLY what AMD did last time, with FX series made on 130nm and clocked higher, whereas 90nm winchesters used for volume 3000+, 3200+, etc parts. The pattern has repeated. Just as I said it probably would.

PS: if previous 130nm -> 90nm jump was any indication of power savings, then that 65W figure for the 2.6Ghz 65nm part is a cautious value. I look forwards to the return of P3 style 30W CPUs ;)
09-23-2006, 12:43 AM
zakelwe

The thing that puzzles me is why the midrange cpu's are going back to 1Mb cache ? I thought the whole idea for AMD was to reduce the cache size and therefore possibly make more money per cpu as the cache does not make too much difference ( a handful of percent ). With 65nm you'd think that they would still only have 512KB and make even more money.

So I am suspicious of that table. However that still begs why so little known at this point? I'm starting to think it is just a big marketing ploy. Hopefully I am wrong but if it is released and it is slower in most benchmarks than single Conroe then the Intel fanboys will be laughing their socks off and this will not be a safe place for the Amd people .. de de der :sofa:

I'm still hoping they will bring out a 3Ghz X2 on 939 for $100 so I can replace my ageing FX-55 ..but hope is fading :( sob sob.

Regards

Andy
09-23-2006, 02:39 AM
nn_step

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nedjo

Well... not this time ;)

Got undeniable proof?
09-23-2006, 03:54 AM
The Ghost

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakelwe

The thing that puzzles me is why the midrange cpu's are going back to 1Mb cache ? I thought the whole idea for AMD was to reduce the cache size and therefore possibly make more money per cpu as the cache does not make too much difference ( a handful of percent ). With 65nm you'd think that they would still only have 512KB and make even more money.

So I am suspicious of that table.

so am i , here is a link to a amd brisbane ES cpu

http://translate.google.com/translat...icrosoft:en-US
09-23-2006, 05:31 AM
Nedjo

Quote:

Originally Posted by nn_step

Got undeniable proof?

Yeah, but can’t publish it…

But use common sense! There is no way that mobo makes would make another AM2 line in their portfolio based on the niche market segment. With 4x4 Socket F mobos they are covering DP Opteron, and HighEnd Enthusiast market. That’s reasonable economics.

Second: imagine RMA risk with 1880 pins packed in the new PIB?! With SocketF FX’s AMD has near zero RMA risk.

Third: AMD is in the business of selling CPU’s, and If there is a chance for them to sell two CPU’s for 500-600 bucks, instead of one (for upgrading AM2 scenario), what do you think their strategy will be?
09-23-2006, 05:36 AM
VulgarHandle

except i remember a couple of articles in which many enthusiast mobo manuf. are quoted as "embracing the platform"....
09-23-2006, 10:16 AM
arisythila

I dont really care if they use a different CPU socket. I just hope I can use My GOOD DDR2 in it....

~Mike
09-23-2006, 10:30 AM
cky2k6

it makes sense for them to use socket f for the highend, once you also factor in the fact that torenza is coming... i actually think this is a very good idea, mobo makers dont really care what socket they solder on to the board, its not going to be a server board, just 2p enthusiast board. its really not that bad of a move, especially with the unified socket idea as well.
09-23-2006, 05:12 PM
[cTx]Philosophy

I just wanna see some performance numbers, to justify this conroe build, or kick myself in da bawls for jumping ship..

All this talk about architecture is just assumptions, unless theres bulet proof, then ill wait for facts..
09-23-2006, 05:30 PM
arisythila

Regardless of what you do you will be jumping ship... Go to Conroe now, 2 months later AMD has something better. Jump ship from Intel, and 2 months later they may have something better than 4x4. It sucks, but thats how this works.

~Mike
09-23-2006, 05:37 PM
[cTx]Philosophy

Well for me ive been AMD forever but Conroes performance was nothing to be left without...

Clovertowns benchies are ownage right now..

Hope AMD has their shi in shape for this one..
09-23-2006, 07:46 PM
Fred_Pohl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOE

well IF amd OFFERS TWO FX70 chips AND a dual socket MOBO for 1000$ it is quite an offer

it will have no problems beating the s*it out of anything intel can offer in this price range

BUT I don't see any sense in having 4x4 s1207 - this is no 4x4 platform, it is a simple server board with server CPUs

I highly doubt that AMD is going to toss in a free 2x2 mobo with a pair of 2x2 FXs or that 2x2 will even come close to matching Kentsfield. The notion that 2x2 will beat the s*it out of Kentsfield is good for a laugh though. Thanks. :D

IIRC, AMD has said that 2x2 will use a 3rd HT link between the cpus. It seems likely that they need the extra pins for that. Not to mention that S1207 is physically superior to AM2.
09-23-2006, 07:50 PM
***Deimos***

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nedjo

Yeah, but can’t publish it…

But use common sense! There is no way that mobo makes would make another AM2 line in their portfolio based on the niche market segment. With 4x4 Socket F mobos they are covering DP Opteron, and HighEnd Enthusiast market. That’s reasonable economics.

Second: imagine RMA risk with 1880 pins packed in the new PIB?! With SocketF FX’s AMD has near zero RMA risk.

Third: AMD is in the business of selling CPU’s, and If there is a chance for them to sell two CPU’s for 500-600 bucks, instead of one (for upgrading AM2 scenario), what do you think their strategy will be?

me thinks you are right.
09-23-2006, 08:09 PM
[XC] hipno650

i want to see how the performace increases on 4x4 cuz if two fx-70's are only slightly better than a single conroe x6800:nono: :nono: :nono: the conroe will will kill them when oced:nono: :nono: :nono: i sure hope amd gets this right!!!!!
09-23-2006, 08:32 PM
[cTx]Philosophy

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipno650

i want to see how the performace increases on 4x4 cuz if two fx-70's are only slightly better than a single conroe x6800:nono: :nono: :nono: the conroe will will kill them when oced:nono: :nono: :nono: i sure hope amd gets this right!!!!!

Couldnt have said it better myself!!!
09-24-2006, 02:45 AM
alayashu

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipno650

i want to see how the performace increases on 4x4 cuz if two fx-70's are only slightly better than a single conroe x6800:nono: :nono: :nono: the conroe will will kill them when oced:nono: :nono: :nono: i sure hope amd gets this right!!!!!

in single threaded games for sure it will be slower.
In multithreaded apps and multitasking it will be a hell faster.
09-24-2006, 02:51 AM
awdrifter

Sorry for the noob question, but what's so bad about registered rams? Are they not as fast? Assuming the new 4x4 boards have oc options and we can run dividers on the rams, shouldn't we still be able to push the CPU to the max and just leaving the rams close to stock speed? But things really doesn't look good for AMD (at least for now). I hope this 4x4 will be cheaper than Intel's quad core cpu (Kentfield?), if not, I might have to switch and go Intel for my next build.
09-24-2006, 03:52 AM
nn_step

Quote:

Originally Posted by awdrifter

Sorry for the noob question, but what's so bad about registered rams? Are they not as fast? Assuming the new 4x4 boards have oc options and we can run dividers on the rams, shouldn't we still be able to push the CPU to the max and just leaving the rams close to stock speed? But things really doesn't look good for AMD (at least for now). I hope this 4x4 will be cheaper than Intel's quad core cpu (Kentfield?), if not, I might have to switch and go Intel for my next build.

Registered Memory runs slower and has WORSE latency than unbuffered memory. Both of which seriously impact a latency sensitive AMD processor.
If you want MAX performance but don't expect MAX memory capacity.
Unbuffered is the way to go
09-24-2006, 04:20 AM
The Ghost

Quote:

Are they not as fast?

you are correct , the fastest DDR2 registered memory is 667mhz , the uregistered memory is up and above the jedec standards , which is 800mhz
09-24-2006, 04:38 AM
turtle

If 4x4 is on 1207 and still requires buffered (registered) ram, what exactly is the point of trying to sell it over a dual-socket server board with 22xx Opterons which would be the exact same thing?

There's got to be something cooking on that front. Even if not, at least 1207 doesn't require ECC...I think a lot of people confuse the two.
09-24-2006, 10:33 AM
Nedjo

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Ghost

you are correct , the fastest DDR2 registered memory is 667mhz , the uregistered memory is up and above the jedec standards , which is 800mhz

Samsung has Registered DDR2-800:

http://www.samsung.com/products/semi...93T2950EZA.htm
09-24-2006, 10:35 AM
awdrifter

Quote:

Originally Posted by nn_step

Registered Memory runs slower and has WORSE latency than unbuffered memory. Both of which seriously impact a latency sensitive AMD processor.
If you want MAX performance but don't expect MAX memory capacity.
Unbuffered is the way to go

Then what's the advantage of registered ram? Why do servers use them? Thanks.
09-24-2006, 10:39 AM
[XC] Teroedni

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nedjo

Samsung has Registered DDR2-800:

http://www.samsung.com/products/semi...93T2950EZA.htm

Yea but what about overclocking?

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page