AMD Bulldozer server info

I believe that people talking about something like this JF:

http://www.dvhardware.net/news/2010/...ro_h8sgl_f.jpg

Now all we need is some rearrangement of PCB, throw a couple of PCIe 16x, FX with 5,6,8 modules and OC BIOS. :D
Is that to much to ask?;)

:shocked::shocked::shocked:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cky2k6

Intel's core 2 quads were mcm chips and clocked quite well. Doesn't mean that bulldozers will be similar, but mcm doesn't necessarily mean poor clocks.

---

But they were released at significantly lowered clocks, and that was on a power efficient chip. In a time when real quads actually were possible. An mcm-quad with chips capable of a real quads isn't that hard. BD would use way to much power to be used in any high clocked MCMs. Besides, the difference between 2 and 4 cores is much bigger than the difference between 8 and 16 cores in games.

So, the best comparision should be with magny cours, that's chips that are made at the edge of their TDP range, and chips with many cores. And the frequency differences between these MCMs and SCMs are big.

Magny Cours at 2.3GHz is 140W. Six core Opteron manages 2.8GHz at 95W. Phenom II X6 manages 3.3GHz at 125W. 3.4 - 3.5GHz would be possible within the 140W TDP. But let's be on the safe side and say that without MCM you can get at least 1GHz further. I think it's safe to say that similar differences will be seen between MCM BD and SCM BD.

In other words, BD MCMs would be useful to worksation and server loads only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n

LOLL epic quote


did you see how large the die is for magny cours???? i expect a big die for the mcm 16 core interlagos cpu ... so i dont expect high clocks to remain in the tdp region they aimed

---

Interlagos dies will be smaller than MC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SQjay

Now all we need is some rearrangement of PCB, throw a couple of PCIe 16x, FX with 5,6,8 modules and OC BIOS. :D
Is that to much to ask?;)

---

Rearranging the board is no problem, but that is not my world, we make chips not boards. You're talking about ~$100K to do a 1P board.

However, you won't get an OC BIOS. Opteron does not overclock, it is locked. If you want to overclock, you should use Phenom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

However, you won't get an OC BIOS. Opteron does not overclock, it is locked. If you want to overclock, you should use Phenom.

---

By no overclock, you mean by way of fsb(htt) because of hyper transport between the chips not functioning properly when raised or do you simply mean no unlocked multi's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

However, you won't get an OC BIOS. Opteron does not overclock, it is locked. If you want to overclock, you should use Phenom.

---

Well if I remember correctly Stephen had some ES MC with unlocket multy so I see no problem with making unlocked G34 BD under FX brand.

The BIOS only needs this OC options: vCore, vDIMM, multy for CPU&NB and dividers/timings for RAM.
I think even that a lot of current 2P MBOs have these options (my Tyan S2915 has) but only in the basic scale.

FYI, Opterons were the best OC CPUs in AMDs lineup! :D
My 2376s can go up to 250MHz HTT without any adjustements (multy/dividers).

Quote:

---

However, you won't get an OC BIOS. Opteron does not overclock, it is locked. If you want to overclock, you should use Phenom.

---

Thats just fracking nomenclature, "opteron does not overclock", of course it can , theres just no mobo with functions.Its not like architecturally its incapable of changing multis or htt.

And as to the problem with low base clocks of current magny cours.
Valencia cores will be smaller than magny,they will be more power efficient,and will use smaller node, thats for one, and second, server cpus cant go above certain tdp threshold because of the cooling restrictions and overall stability requirement (rock solid under even worst conditions).
Its not like it would be a problem with enthusiast heatsinks/systems.
About the sex, well, i dont know what years covers high school in the states, i was 17 :P.

As to the 2P systems, i had two, first was abit in pentium II days with two celerons on it.And second was Athlon MP with modified mobile barton cores if i remember correctly.
I dont have intel, because im not a fan currently.
BTW.JF-AMD ,are there any official roadmaps for AM3+ from AMD ? Im wondering about platform longevity.Will it get something after 8C zambezi ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

If dual proc client systems are so great, why is it that everyone that says we are missing the market has a single proc desktop in their sig. Yes, why do you have a Core i7 920 3849B028 if the intel 2P systems are our there and so great?

Dual proc client systems are like sex in high school. Everyone talks about it but nobody is really doing it.

---

Because... let's see, they've usually been too expensive? It wasn't as if you just doubled the processor cost and you were good to go.

You'd have to get registered memory (or FB in the current Xeons) and pay out of the ass for the 2P capable processors and pay out the ass again for a 2P motherboard and perhaps case (because many of them are SSI or E-ATX)

But the affordable 2P desktop/workstation enthusiast market has appeared several times like the ABIT BP6 (dual celerons), Asus PC-DL (875P chipset, dual P4 Xeons, non buffered memory), Athlon XP/MP (with the mod where you paint across the cut) and yes, your current Lisbon processors, it's actually made sense.

QuadFX and Skulltrail made absolutely no sense as they're vanity projects, still keep all the expensive parts The FX-74 was a joke at 500 USD a piece as that put it up against the QX6700. Skulltrail uses standard 'pay outta your ass' Xeons with FB memory.


Now, the screwed up thing was that both the asus board and MSI board are late despite having paper launches months back and with sandy bridge stealing all the thunder, you'll have a hard time comparing a ridiculously expensive i7 980x against say two 4180s or two 4184s. Of course, lack of marketing has hampered awareness...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

Rearranging the board is no problem, but that is not my world, we make chips not boards. You're talking about ~$100K to do a 1P board.

---

You make chipsets too don't you? (okay maybe not your department but the company in general)

But selling more processors is nice too isn't it? Let's say the current Lisbon and Thuban are similar in price to manufacture and are sold at similar price points, wouldn't it make sense to try to flog say two 150-200 dollar (current Thubans and a number of Lisbons are priced there) processors and a board with your chipset at 30-50% higher prices than 1P boards? AMD could use the mindshare to move up the performance graphs too. I mean, people do pay for 300-400 dollar intel processors are 300 dollar X58 odd boards don't they? (let's ignore the extreme series)

How about doing that with bulldozer? That seems a very typical enthusiast kind of price to pay?


By the way, who pays if a manufacturer like Asus or MSI come out with their own layout? Always been curious about that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaV666

BTW.JF-AMD ,are there any official roadmaps for AM3+ from AMD ? Im wondering about platform longevity.Will it get something after 8C zambezi ?

---

I am server, not client.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fatfool

You make chipsets too don't you? (okay maybe not your department but the company in general)

But selling more processors is nice too isn't it? Let's say the current Lisbon and Thuban are similar in price to manufacture and are sold at similar price points, wouldn't it make sense to try to flog say two 150-200 dollar (current Thubans and a number of Lisbons are priced there) processors and a board with your chipset at 30-50% higher prices than 1P boards? AMD could use the mindshare to move up the performance graphs too. I mean, people do pay for 300-400 dollar intel processors are 300 dollar X58 odd boards don't they? (let's ignore the extreme series)

How about doing that with bulldozer? That seems a very typical enthusiast kind of price to pay?


By the way, who pays if a manufacturer like Asus or MSI come out with their own layout? Always been curious about that one.

---

We have done the math, it is a money losing venture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

We have done the math, it is a money losing venture.

---

I see. Gotta trust you on that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

I am server, not client.



We have done the math, it is a money losing venture.

---

AMD person, why don't you tell AMD to make Zambezi Dual Socket. It is obvious that a bunch of people on this forum want dual socket, and it is obvious that a lot of people around the world will want dual socket also. Why on earth doesn't AMD do this. And before you answer don't say because AMD will lose money on this-that is a bogus answer. I mean if AMD makes a CPU that actually competes with Intels top offerings, I know I will and a bunch of other people will pay good money for one. Of course not 1000 dollars like intels 980x, but I am willing to pay 500 and even 600 if it is super fast. I have been an avid AMD fan for years, but now that Intel has released the i7-2600k for only 320 and is almost as fast as the 980x well that is one hell of a price and a beefy cpu and it is only 4 cores. I am starting to lose my interest fast with AMD and hope Zambezi isn't all hype or I am back to Intel for a long time.

AND AMD is all about unlocked multipliers on a lot of CPUs so it is obvious that they reach out to the enthusiast market for sales. Since they care about the enthusiast market, then why don't you tell them we want dual socket. If they can't do it with Zambezi tell them to make their future CPU dual socket. It would be such a cheap upgrade.

I wish Thuban was dual socket. I would buy another 1090T for 200 bucks and an ATX motherboard like the ASUS KCMA-D8. Then I would have a system much faster than the 980x for a fraction of the cost!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not ROCKET SCIENCE, this is just DUHHHHHH. Do you know how many people would buy this!!!!!!

Tell AMD to put up a link on their main webpage AMD.com that is a survey. It will say something like "Would you like for Zambezi to be dual socket capable?" Then people can select yes or either no. Who on earth would pick no I don't gotta clue. If enough people vote then maybe AMD will finally realize they need to step up the game.

^ IIRC, JF-AMD said* that a dual-proc enthusiast motherboard would not happen, as it was not considered worth the cost to develop.

Besides, think about how many people want something like an SR-2, and how many actually have one.

*If I quoted you wrong, JF-AMD, please correct me.

It isn't just a dual proc desktop MB. It would also involve a lot of redesign of the architecture and a tonload of testing.

Regardless... if they DID do this you would have to pay premium prices. You don't get something for nothing. So think about $800.00 for each CPU and probably $400-$500.00 for the motherboard. (And even if they could sell the 2P capable CPU for $500.00 the motherboard won't get any cheaper.)

How many do you think they are going to sell? We have been told the demographics say: "Not enough to make it worth developing."

I wonder what you can't do with two overclocked 1P client systems + KVM vs 1 2P system :rolleyes:

Most >8T tasks probably don't mind a bit of latency through GbT ether, the overclocking makes up for it, and it's way cheaper.

Even servers are moving to split-systems in a single unit, from 2P/4P to 2x 2P


*but as always, people who buy enthusiast 2P likely don't do work-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmm5351

AMD person, why don't you tell AMD to make Zambezi Dual Socket. It is obvious that a bunch of people on this forum want dual socket, and it is obvious that a lot of people around the world will want dual socket also. Why on earth doesn't AMD do this. And before you answer don't say because AMD will lose money on this-that is a bogus answer. I mean if AMD makes a CPU that actually competes with Intels top offerings, I know I will and a bunch of other people will pay good money for one. Of course not 1000 dollars like intels 980x, but I am willing to pay 500 and even 600 if it is super fast. I have been an avid AMD fan for years, but now that Intel has released the i7-2600k for only 320 and is almost as fast as the 980x well that is one hell of a price and a beefy cpu and it is only 4 cores. I am starting to lose my interest fast with AMD and hope Zambezi isn't all hype or I am back to Intel for a long time.

AND AMD is all about unlocked multipliers on a lot of CPUs so it is obvious that they reach out to the enthusiast market for sales. Since they care about the enthusiast market, then why don't you tell them we want dual socket. If they can't do it with Zambezi tell them to make their future CPU dual socket. It would be such a cheap upgrade.

I wish Thuban was dual socket. I would buy another 1090T for 200 bucks and an ATX motherboard like the ASUS KCMA-D8. Then I would have a system much faster than the 980x for a fraction of the c!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not ROCKET SCIENCE, this is just DUHHHHHH. Do you know how many people would buy this!!!!!!

Tell AMD to put up a link on their main webpage AMD.com that is a survey. It will say something like "Would you like for Zambezi to be dual socket capable?" Then people can select yes or either no. Who on earth would pick no I don't gotta clue. If enough people vote then maybe AMD will finally realize they need to step up the game.

---

perhaps read your post a few times and check how many times you contradict yourself and know what you would need. First you are talking about your need of a cheap 2s 6 core thuban solution or new Zamzabi, since you find 980 to expensive. Then you talk about 2600K as fast as 980x. If you think 2600K is as fast as a 980x then you have no business at all looking at buying a 2s platform. You should know then that the 2600K is not even close to the performance of a 980x where 2s platforms and high core would matter: a highly multithreaded SW environment. Wherever 2600K equals or beats 980 is where the SW is not scaling enough. So you don't need 2s thuban, in your case that would be way slower then buying a 2600K.

There is nothing wrong with the volume positioning of AMD with Zambezi 4core to 8 core. With High IPC and If it scales enough on GHZ it will compete against the volume SB range for single thread ipc and due to the nature of CMP it will easily scale above a HT solution. So they will finally be able to attack the mid segment. Those x series is a very very low sales volume and for Intel in there total volume and revenue they don't care and see this rather as a marketing positioning then actually gaining money. If this would be again such a success like the a64 few years ago you will see some changes on the client offerings, if not then they will just focus again on volume and cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macadamia

I wonder what you can't do with two overclocked 1P client systems + KVM vs 1 2P system :rolleyes:

Most >8T tasks probably don't mind a bit of latency through GbT ether, the overclocking makes up for it, and it's way cheaper.

Even servers are moving to split-systems in a single unit, from 2P/4P to 2x 2P


*but as always, people who buy enthusiast 2P likely don't do work-

---

pls explain a bit more, you will always need SW that is able to split work accross nodes, that is hard to find unless you work with ip based SW that can be load balanced and that eventually don't need all cpu threads for a single task, but multiple tasks divided on all available resources.

there is sw in development though that would make this work, but it is way to early, even 10gb dedicated Network provides latency when you scale to SMP systems and sync between them in a Fault tolerant way for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmm5351

AMD person, why don't you tell AMD to make Zambezi Dual Socket. It is obvious that a bunch of people on this forum want dual socket, and it is obvious that a lot of people around the world will want dual socket also. Why on earth doesn't AMD do this. And before you answer don't say because AMD will lose money on this-that is a bogus answer. I mean if AMD makes a CPU that actually competes with Intels top offerings, I know I will and a bunch of other people will pay good money for one. Of course not 1000 dollars like intels 980x, but I am willing to pay 500 and even 600 if it is super fast. I have been an avid AMD fan for years, but now that Intel has released the i7-2600k for only 320 and is almost as fast as the 980x well that is one hell of a price and a beefy cpu and it is only 4 cores. I am starting to lose my interest fast with AMD and hope Zambezi isn't all hype or I am back to Intel for a long time.

AND AMD is all about unlocked multipliers on a lot of CPUs so it is obvious that they reach out to the enthusiast market for sales. Since they care about the enthusiast market, then why don't you tell them we want dual socket. If they can't do it with Zambezi tell them to make their future CPU dual socket. It would be such a cheap upgrade.

I wish Thuban was dual socket. I would buy another 1090T for 200 bucks and an ATX motherboard like the ASUS KCMA-D8. Then I would have a system much faster than the 980x for a fraction of the cost!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not ROCKET SCIENCE, this is just DUHHHHHH. Do you know how many people would buy this!!!!!!

Tell AMD to put up a link on their main webpage AMD.com that is a survey. It will say something like "Would you like for Zambezi to be dual socket capable?" Then people can select yes or either no. Who on earth would pick no I don't gotta clue. If enough people vote then maybe AMD will finally realize they need to step up the game.

---

how many times are you going to :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: and moan about this issue eh? you have mentioned this like 5-6 times already, give it a rest!

Give me a 6 or 8 core Zambezi and I'm happy. Dual proc systems with overclocking won't happen. JF has flogged that dead horse long enough. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

Give me a 6 or 8 core Zambezi and I'm happy. Dual proc systems with overclocking won't happen. JF has flogged that dead horse long enough. :)

---

meh my quad socket f overclocks if you go oldschool and use MSR tweaker it is possible but its a pain. flash the ram down to force a lower divider MSR tweaker some other parts and clockgen the HTT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmm5351

[...]

I wish Thuban was dual socket. I would buy another 1090T for 200 bucks and an ATX motherboard like the ASUS KCMA-D8. Then I would have a system much faster than the 980x for a fraction of the cost!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not ROCKET SCIENCE, this is just DUHHHHHH. Do you know how many people would buy this!!!!!!

[...]

---

A wise man once wrote: "And all those exclamation marks, did you notice? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FischOderAal

A wise man once wrote: "And all those exclamation marks, did you notice? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head."

---

hah right.. the guy scares me of :eek:

:shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmm5351

Do you know how many people would buy this!!!!!

---

When you have responsibility in large company you cannot base your choises just in mindless optimism (or perhaps you can but eventually it will backfire..).

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oXU5pwXiUV...w434_h_q80.jpg

ZZzzz

okay goodness dammit, about the dual socket issue, well, JF, an enthusiast version may not be profitable but I've got a version if it anyway:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...akTesting1.jpg

everyone happy now? I wasn't all talk, no substance. Anyone else has plans to get this board or the Asus one?

Um, it's true that the processor is more energy efficient but the SR5670 certainly runs hot!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fatfool

ZZzzz

okay goodness dammit, about the dual socket issue, well, JF, an enthusiast version may not be profitable but I've got a version if it anyway:

everyone happy now?

---

Nope, since I see only ONE cpu used... :clap:

AMD, enough. You keep spattering out the same facts over and over and over, its not interesting anymore. Put your money where your mouth is, and show everybody some real performance numbers for Bulldozer, or don't you have any confidence in your own architecture?

I'm (and probably a lot of others) starting to think Bulldozer is a lemon and thats why theres no real numbers coming out from AMD.