AMD K8L ES coming in December

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daved+

Even with the same amount of cores, it better rape C2D

---

Remember Dothan vs K8? I think that will kind of be Kentsfield vs K8L. Higher clocks at stock but Kentsfield should win because of great overclocking. The clock delta will be larger.

4 GHz Kentsfield on air is very possible. K8L? Don't make me laugh ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Ghost

do you need to be spoon fed ? check the link right above your post , that is a amd source

try doing a little more reading instead of insisting that you know all about amd cpu's , the best way to defeat them , is to read all about them

---

Seriously ghost, this is your so called "direct link". Give us a break by now.

http://www.penstarsys.com/reviews/cp...0_939/xbar.jpg

Maybe that can help you understand it, since you obviously got huge troubles with it. Now go study or back down on the ultra fanboism. You are making things up that aint there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

IvanAndreevich:

laugh at what?

do you have any idea how will the SiGe 65nm process scale with K8L, having in mind APM improves process all the time, amd by the time amd start selling K8L they will have about 1 year of 65nm K8 production.

If K8L FX is to debut at 3Ghz then I really doubt it will have problems hitting 4Ghz. Even if it doesn't - it is still supposed to be 20% faster than core MHz per MHz so K8L can afford to lag behind with 800-1000 Mhz and still perform like a core based chip

---

Core 2 is currently 20% faster or so than K8. We still haven´t seen numbers of K8L. So if a K8L can afford to lag behind at around 800-1000Mhz or 35% or so. We talk about advancement in design at over 50%. Sorry...its not that good :mad:

And it would be the biggest breakthrough in 10 years or more. It just screams unrealistic when its improvemnts of an existing arch.

To compare, Core 2 is around 15-20% over Core. However when all the "mobile" restrictions got removed it could reach higher in clock. With K8->K8L you aint turning a mobile CPU into a desktop. But desktop to desktop or server to server.

Also on a sitenode, all info sofar points to a 2.7-2.9Ghz K8L quadcore at launch.

if AMD launches a 2.9 cpu to counter an 3.73 cpu (again these freq are fictive more or less) then this pretty much says it all about their new core. But, again, we dont have any benches of Altair/Yorkfield to judge.

Quote:

---

With K8->K8L you aint turning a mobile CPU into a desktop. But desktop to desktop or server to server.

---

you say it as a rule, that a cpu must come from an mobile design to be good, wich equals stupid logic, no offence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alayashu

you say it as a rule, that a cpu must come from an mobile design to be good, wich equals stupid logic, no offence.

---

No i dont, but the Core design was hold back by it. Just compare Conroe and Merom today. So its not some rule, it just had a higher margin of boost, since you could change the power envelope on a design from 31W to 65 and 75W. Its no secret that a Core Duo without restraints could easily follow a X2.

And where is AMD launching a 2.9Ghz core against a 3.73Ghz? No thats something you make up. The performance crown is a nice thing, but AMD dont earn its money on that. They earn their money on cheap CPUs and the socket scaling of the Opteron. What AMD is releasing is a K8L server design that Intel cant match yet in 4sockets and above. Thats money! :fact:

Look on AMDs roadmap, if AMD needed to take back the performance crown I am sure we would see 65nm FX chips as the first thing. But we dont even se 65nm FX chips before atleast Q3 2007. Its about volume and money, not some epeen contest :slapass:
Today not even 20% of AMD sales sofar I recall is dualcore. And for Intel its also not much higher if not smaller.

Overhyping a product wont make it any better. And you gonna get a reality check real soon when AMD releases the benchmark numbers. What do you expect, K8L that is a K8 with single cycle SSE and some improved buffers and prefetch to beat the K8 with over 50% clock for clock? Single cycle SSE vs 2-3 cycle and all the fusion macro, better prefetch, 4 issue wide and the memory "guessing" system improved Core 2 around those 15-20% over Core. So dont tell me K8L gonna make a 50%+ boost on less improvements.

Else we can just sit and write fiction aswell how K9 gonna beat K8L with 6000% and use 0.0001W. Lets try stay with some facts atleast.

Sorry for the rant, but all this fiction gearing up for new core archs lately is redicilous. It was the same thing about Core 2 with 50% ending as 15-20% and 3.33ghz ending on 2.93. People tend to believe anything like it was some football match cheering on their team.

If AMD feels confident enough about the performance and design of this next chip, they should use the K9 name. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Seriously ghost, this is your so called "direct link". Give us a break by now.

http://www.penstarsys.com/reviews/cp...0_939/xbar.jpg

Maybe that can help you understand it, since you obviously got huge troubles with it. Now go study or back down on the ultra fanboism. You are making things up that aint there.

---

sorry , your diagram does not represent the order on which things are done on the cpu

amd's dual core and quad core talk to each and every core , at the spped of the core , something that conroe based cpu can so

next time try and get some pictures that represent what we are tallking about , not out of comic books

http://img8.exs.cx/img8/831/origarch...20017pc.th.png

and here is from 2001, showing they already had the links in for dual-core ;)

http://img8.exs.cx/img8/4409/orignb20010ni.th.png

and just imagine how much you read , i had already posted a link to these pictures

some more spoon feeding

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

...
Today not even 20% of AMD sales sofar I recall is dualcore. And for Intel its also not much higher if not smaller. ...

---

You're terrible missinformed my friend.For Intel the figure is 60+ % right now and will end 2006 with 90% which is a little bit more than AMDs' 25%.OTOH AMD can flood the market with cheap *ss Sem:banana::banana::banana::banana:s and retain or even gain marketshare ( see Dell ).

Quote:

---

Sorry for the rant, but all this fiction gearing up for new core archs lately is redicilous. It was the same thing about Core 2 with 50% ending as 15-20% and 3.33ghz ending on 2.93. People tend to believe anything like it was some football match cheering on their team.

---

That my friend was because of AMDs' innability to compete.Intel expected AMD to ramp faster both on DC and 65nm.When they saw the reality they downgraded Conroe XE from the original 3.33GHz to a mere 2.93GHz.At the same time power dropped from the original 95w to 75w.

It wasn't " we can't do a 3.33GHz Conroe" but it was more like " we don't need a 3.33GHz Conroe ".

Quote:

---

Look on AMDs roadmap, if AMD needed to take back the performance crown I am sure we would see 65nm FX chips as the first thing. But we dont even se 65nm FX chips before atleast Q3 2007. Its about volume and money, not some epeen contest
Today not even 20% of AMD sales sofar I recall is dualcore. And for Intel its also not much higher if not smaller.

---

this interesting , just where did you get this bit of information from ?

amd passed the dual core being 20% of it's sales for a long time , so has intel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Ghost

do you need to be spoon fed ? check the link right above your post , that is a amd source

try doing a little more reading instead of insisting that you know all about amd cpu's , the best way to defeat them , is to read all about them

---

again, multi core design are completely different from multi socket design. you are an idiot if you believe those 2 are the same thing.

Both K8 and K8L's multicore design are not as tightly integrated as C2D, but a lot more scalable because its designed for multi socket systems.

BTW, Shintai's picture is directly out of AMD's presentations, if that's your idea of comic books.

I agree with the consensus above. With 2 more cores, K8L better be able to beat the Core2 Duo by a significant margin.

Hopefully AMD has something else in the works to succeed the K8 family.

Quote:

---

again, multi core design are completely different from multi socket design. you are an idiot if you believe those 2 are the same thing.

Both K8 and K8L's multicore design are not as tightly integrated as C2D, but a lot more scalable because its designed for multi socket systems.

---

K8 was made from the start to be a server cpu , so there fore it was designed to work in a multi-cpu system

amd was designed from the start to be a multicore cpu , i provided the link for it above , this is what you said above

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vitaminc

There's a extremely big difference between multi socket and multi core designs, and K8 isn't really designed for multi-core otherwise you would seen quad/hex/oct K8 already.

K8 is better at multi socket design and is jack :banana::banana::banana::banana: for multi core design. Exactly why AMD need to make K8L for the shared L3 cache and core to core arbitration.

---

yes there is a difference between muli-core and multi-socket support , but amd was designed from the start to do both

here is my link and quote again , please note the source , if you know more then the source knows , then i would like to know about it and how you came to that information

http://multicore.amd.com/en/Products/
Dual-Core Processor Overview

AMD64 processors were designed from the start to add a second core
Port already existed on crossbar/SRI

do you need a link to prove that opteron was designed from the beginning to be a server cpu ? that should not be too hard to find

and what in the world makes you think that conroe based cpu's are more tightly intergrated then and's K8 ??

Quote:

---

BTW, Shintai's picture is directly out of AMD's presentations, if that's your idea of comic books.

---

i know where it comes from , but it does not accurately put the crossbar in the right place , the cross bar operates at the same speed as the cpu and the L1 cache , L2 cache is a lot slower

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Ghost

K8 was made from the start to be a server cpu , so there fore it was designed to work in a multi-cpu system

amd was designed from the start to be a multicore cpu , i provided the link for it above , this is what you said above

yes there is a difference between muli-core and multi-socket support , but amd was designed from the start to do both

here is my link and quote again , please note the source , if you know more then the source knows , then i would like to know about it and how you came to that information

http://multicore.amd.com/en/Products/
Dual-Core Processor Overview

AMD64 processors were designed from the start to add a second core
Port already existed on crossbar/SRI

do you need a link to prove that opteron was designed from the beginning to be a server cpu ? that should not be too hard to find

and what in the world makes you think that conroe based cpu's are more tightly intergrated then and's K8 ??


i know where it comes from , but it does not accurately put the crossbar in the right place , the cross bar operates at the same speed as the cpu and the L1 cache , L2 cache is a lot slower

---

1. If you know where Shintai's lil pix came from, you should not put it down that harsh with comments like "comic books" and such. Blame AMD's marketing people perhaps, instead of shooting the messenger.

2. Now you are acknowledge there is a difference between multi core and multi socket. And may I kindly refer you to Intel's website for their white papers on CD/C2D architecture. They have detailed information on how much better the dual core design is better than K8. A pro techie like you must know about Intel's architecture inside out, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vitaminc

1. If you know where Shintai's lil pix came from, you should not put it down that harsh. Blame AMD's marketing people perhaps?

2. Now you are acknowledge there is a difference between multi core and multi socket. And may I kindly refer you to Intel's website for their white papers on CD/C2D architecture. They have detailed information on how much better the dual core design is better than K8. A pro techie like you must know about Intel's architecture inside out, right?

---

ENOUGH
the difference between multi-core and multi socket is this:
Multi-core:Multiple Cores in ONE SOCKET
Multi-Socket: Multiple Sockets on ONE MOTHERBOARD
K8 DUAL CORE IS MULTI-CORE
AS IS PENTIUM D's MCM PACKAGE
STOP THE :banana::banana::banana::banana:ING BICKERING YOU :banana::banana::banana::banana:ING FANBOYS :slapass:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

ENOUGH
the difference between multi-core and multi socket is this:
Multi-core:Multiple Cores in ONE SOCKET
Multi-Socket: Multiple Sockets on ONE MOTHERBOARD
K8 DUAL CORE IS MULTI-CORE
AS IS PENTIUM D's MCM PACKAGE
STOP THE :banana::banana::banana::banana:ING BICKERING YOU :banana::banana::banana::banana:ING FANBOYS :slapass:

---

1. You are oversimplifing all that XBAR/SRQ/Shared L3/Arbitor/Shared L2/fan out/etc in multi core design.
2. You are also ignoring cooling/substrate design/mechanical design/PCB layout for multi socket design.
3. I use both AMD/Intel systems whereever they excel.

Quote:

---

1. If you know where Shintai's lil pix came from, you should not put it down that harsh with comments like "comic books" and such. Blame AMD's marketing people perhaps, instead of shooting the messenger.

---

because it did not give a realistic view of where the crossbar is located , and that where his pic showed it would make some one think that it does not communicate with other cores on the same socket

dual cores talk to each other at the speed of the cpu , not the speed of the L2 cache , not at the speed of the fsb

that is where conroe is lacking

Quote:

---

2. Now you are acknowledge there is a difference between multi core and multi socket. And may I kindly refer you to Intel's website for their white papers on CD/C2D architecture. They have detailed information on how much better the dual core design is better than K8. A pro techie like you must know about Intel's architecture inside out, right?

---

yes right , you think that i'm going to waste my time looking for something that does not exist ?

if you really think that it exists , you go find it , this will give everyone a nice break while you try to do that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vitaminc

1. You are oversimplifing all that XBAR/SRQ/Shared L3/Arbitor/Shared L2/fan out/etc in multi core design.
2. You are also ignoring cooling/substrate design/mechanical design/PCB layout for multi socket design.
3. I use both AMD/Intel systems whereever they excel.

---

1) I am following the definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core
2) What does cooling have to do with A name :stick:
3) Then stop bickering like a :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: :slap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Ghost

because it did not give a realistic view of where the crossbar is located , and that where his pic showed it would make some one think that it does not communicate with other cores on the same socket

dual cores talk to each other at the speed of the cpu , not the speed of the L2 cache , not at the speed of the fsb

that is where conroe is lacking


yes right , you think that i'm going to waste my time looking for something that does not exist ?

if you really think that it exists , you go find it , this will give everyone a nice break while you try to do that

---

Just stop debating, :slap:
You are making an ASS out of yourself.


You two are Both right and Both very wrong.
Argueing on the internet is like running in the special olympics
Even if you win, you still are retarded

the rest of your post has been dealt with already so lets go to this part of your post

Quote:

---

2. You are also ignoring cooling/substrate design/mechanical design/PCB layout for multi socket design.

---

are you trying to compare a amd 90nm cpu with a intel 65nm cpu ?

like has been proven the K8 has been designed from the concept to be dual core cpu , intels design to match amds for being dual core design , does not even come close to amd's design

at best each one of intels cores can only talk to the other at the bandwidth speed of the L2 cach on intels cpu , and for intels quad core to do that it can only talk to the other half of the cpu at fsb speed

amd's 65nm cpu will be out soon enough to let us know just how cool these cpu's will be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Ghost

the rest of your post has been dealt with already so lets go to this part of your post


are you trying to compare a amd 90nm cpu with a intel 65nm cpu ?

like has been proven the K8 has been designed from the concept to be dual core cpu , intels design to match amds for being dual core design , does not even come close to amd's design

at best each one of intels cores can only talk to the other at the bandwidth speed of the L2 cach on intels cpu , and for intels quad core to do that it can only talk to the other half of the cpu at fsb speed

amd's 65nm cpu will be out soon enough to let us know just how cool these cpu's will be

---

1. there are multiple arbitors between cores for conroe, to handle cache/if/id disputes, which is similar to xbar/srq except it's like glue between 2 cores thus better dual core design. But xbar/srq are designed for multi processor/socket platforms, so they scale better.

2. cooling requirements as in the # of cores you can put in one socket without heating up like GPU, substrate design as the # of dies you can put on one substrate with a decent yield, etc. there's a very good reason why people do 2/4/8-way motherboards instead of just using dual/quad/oct cores.

I'd like to see some strong competition from AMD to counter Conroe.

I second this... I want AMD to hit them high, and hit the low...

~Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Ghost

...
at best each one of intels cores can only talk to the other at the bandwidth speed of the L2 cach on intels cpu ...

---

And you, in your infinite wisdom , consider this to be a disadvantage compared to a crossbar ? :gay:

Let me ask you : do you have any clue whatsoever on the BW and latency of the shared L2 vs. crossbar ?

Well, without any competition from AMD, it could be a dull point in CPUs. Hope they release it soon enough. Q3 of 2007. There goes my upgrade plan for next year :(

i have a question is really that it is K8L because is AMD processor 4 x 4 but i no talk that is was K8L