am3 where's on HT3.1 mentioned on that board?
Printable View
am3 where's on HT3.1 mentioned on that board?
HT3.1 is not supported yet. these 45nm cpus were the first to actually support HT 3.0 as the original phenoms only half supported it. HT 3.1 has already been designed but hasn't been implemented yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
now it all makes sense am2+ 2600mhz am3 board supported 2,600-3,200mhz. maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
the am2+ chips and the am3 chip should have the same exact ht speeds. ht 3.0 has a max hyper transport speed of 2.6ghz. i have always thought that the only difference between the two chips was one supported ddr3 and ddr2 and one supported ddr2. http://www.hypertransport.org/defaul...SpecificationsQuote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
so just because everyone was curious about am2+ cpus using ddr3 i asked about it. k10 does infact have a ddr3 controller on it but am2+ cpus can not use it because it is disabled through fuses. so i asked if am2+ cpus could work in am3 motherboards. he wasn't sure but he said if it would work it would not work with ddr3. so even if am2+ cpus would work in am3 motherboards the am3 boards would have to have ddr2 memory slots.
edit: so im doing a google search for fuses on k10 and i get this from our own forums from last year when k10 was first released: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=699. it also states that there is a ddr3 controller but it is disabled through fuses.
IF the AM2+ Deneb works in AM3 motherboards, as someone has claimed, then it would be because of the following:
(DISCLAIMER: This is based ONLY on my opinion and a guess)
There might not really be a "true" AM2+ Deneb. All DENEB chips might be AM3 chips that will work on AM3 or AM2+ motherboards. They may just release the first couple of chips before AM3 motherboards are available and say that they are AM2+ Denebs for marketing purposes.
So why they dont make all PH2 backward compatible with am2+?
they all should work in am2+. even the am3 version.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morais
might be possible since i really don't understand why they made an am2+ version. hell if the am3 one can do both and they are both physically the same cpu but the am2+ version has the ddr3 controller disabled then they should both cost the same to manufacture. my only guess why they made an am2+ version is because they were planning to have a larger launch gap between the am2+ and am3 cpus and the am3 ones weren't quite ddr3 ready. if they have both an am2+ deneb and an am3 one i wouldn't be surprised if they stopped making the am2+ one after the am3 launch.Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
MERRY X-MAS EVE YOU MUDDA'XS'ERS!:YIPPIE::toast:
I thought that HT3.1 is Orochi/Bulldozer(32nm) features.
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...ntroadmap2.jpg
Besides i don't think HT3 is bottlenecked yet so no improvements for desktop because of HT3.1.
Uh oh, the whole of 2009 and 2010 AMD have no new CPU to replace Deneb. They're really confident of this baby? :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eson
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. They must be planning on ramping the clockspeeds over time. Otherwise they will become completely uncompetitive again once Intel goes 32nm in early 2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by amdcian
phenom I went for 2 months in 2007 and all of 2008. it was supposed to last two years but it got delayed 8 months. intel is doing the same with nehalem i believe. i don't think they got anything new coming for awhile either.Quote:
Originally Posted by amdcian
I think that ! AMD will go to 22nm with Orochi/Bulldozer.
Intel's roadmaps still show Westemere (Nehalem 32nm shrink) for Q4 09.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
Also i doubt this is a complete roadmap from amd. :yepp:
Yep.They are likely to try out 32nm on a shrink of Deneb/Istanbul than go for a new process node and a new uarchitecture in one go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Great, AMD going to go 32nm 2011. Unless they can improve their 45nm process quite a bit, there is no way AMD can compete against Intel, considering that Intel has way better fabrication process compared to AMD, not to mention smaller node(With Immersion Lithography?) in 2010.
Basically AMD has two advantages regarding current leakage, SOI and IL, while Intel has HKMG. Intel 32 nm will be far superior to anything AMD will have until 2011, and probably even until AMD gets their 32nm process working. Basically AMD is at it's best with PhII in 2009, and after it, well, PhII will be quite like PhI is right now - thrashed by any Intel QC. Though, that applies only if AMD can not improve PhII much during 2009/early 2010. I doubt they can do more than new silicon revisions which are not going to save them against Intel's very fine tuned and mature 45nm process.
Then again, I doubt AMD are going to live with 45nm for that long. They desperately need to close the gap with Intel in order to become competitive again. Even if AMD has superior Uarch, superior manufacturing process, Intel will hold the market share no matter what. They can produce so much more than AMD can that they can sell their chips for lower prices and still make profit. There is no way for AMD to counter this, other than getting more chips produced, meaning that TFC needs a lot more fabs.
Call me a fanboy or idiot or whatever you want, but thats how I see it. In terms of manufacturing CPU's, Intel is unbeatable by anyone. They are the best at it.
little early to predict amd's future. as we know anything can change at any time as seen by the 4870 even tho those weren't the performance leader they still came out ahead over the 280 because of its price. phenom II could end up the same way and it has been showing promise in what we have seen so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
ATI vs. Nvidia is purely up to the microarchitecture design because both companies have the same chip manufacturer(TSMC). AMD vs. Intel is up to the microarchotecture design, manufacturing process and manufacturing volume. Remember the K8 vs. P4, the reason why AMD dominated was the fact that Intel failed with their microarchitecture while AMD succeeded very well with theirs. Soon after Intel got theirs very right(C2D was huge success like K8), AMD got their ass kicked.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
CPU produced at Intel's fab will cost less than the same CPU produced at AMD's fab for at least two reasons; Intel can pack transistors more tightly resulting in smaller die and Intel has better yields. More working dies per wafer. This means that the only way AMD can keep Intel behind is Intel struggling with their designs and fabs, which is not likely due to their superb expertise and knowledge. Both companies have extremely talented designers and engineers working for them, but Intel has better fabs, so they can sell for cheaper, and sell way more.
Well, this is off topic, but where is the thread to discuss this anyway? :shrug:
AMD doesn't need a market share of 50% to survive, they can sell alot less than Intel and still do just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
Here is a greek(full of charts so you will understand everything :) ) review for Deneb.
We have deneb 920 + 940 compared to Core i7 920 + 940 Q6600 , Q9450 & Q9550.
http://www.hwbox.gr/showthread.php?p=27568
I the next couple of days we will upload a clock to clock comparison; deneb vs bloomfield vs yorkfield vs kentsfield.
Stay tuned :)
the reason why i was referencing towards the 4870 was because the 8800gt owned the 3870 but ati turned around and whipped out the 4870. what if amd comes around and whips out something amazing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
yep that image says a lot for people who think amd is taking 2009 and 2010 off. and i see November 13th 2008 on there too so its up to date.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
looks like amd has soi and hkmg.Quote:
Basically AMD has two advantages regarding current leakage, SOI and IL, while Intel has HKMG.
Oh, didn't know AMD is going HKMG with 32nm. So Intel will have IL with 32nm and AMD will have HKMG.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
The reason why AMD can't do "RV770" with CPU's is the way CPU's are. The reason why RV770 turned out to be good was that it had plenty of SP's, TMU's and ROPs and no major bottlenecks. The current GPU's are improved by adding more primitive processors and increasing parallelism. This can't be done to CPU's as the design is VERY much different. CPU consists out of many more complex parts than GPU does. To improve existing uarch you need to redesign quite a bit more of the more complex core. To improve a GPU you need to redesign/modify existing logic and add more units to the core and modify the drivers to be efficient with the improved core.
Basically GPU is a bunch of small, simple cores slapped together and a CPU is a huge, complex core. Thats why it is not possible to radically improve the existing uarch like it is with GPU's. Once a uarch fails, there won't be a new chance until new uarch is finished.
That is a way of seing it, the way i see it, and the way AMD saw it and because of that they took the fabless way is this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
You have 20% market share, you need to invest constantly a lot in the latest manufacturing technology in order to be competitive,
because of low sales + huge amortization cost(because fabs cost money) = HUGE LOSS. This is exactly what has happened theese last years
So if you take the huge burden of constant renewall of fabs, and the anual amortization cost from the equation = Profit!
Is like this, what you prefer, low production cost + huge cost in constant retooling of the fabs + huge amortization cost
Or, higher production cost, were you pay for what you sell. This is the way Amd went