Printable View
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/2...roadmapbj8.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by tweakers.net
http://tweakers.net/nieuws/44504/AMD...cket-1207.html
Please edit the title with a question mark...It's obviously still a rumor. If it's true it makes sense, but is very disappointing imho.
if true, that means no cheap X2 for 4x4 like AMD fanboys were deraming and trolling about.
ANY news about price ???
________
vaporizer
'Voor kerst' = ??
And wow...what a bummer. One market they really could have taken from Intel is the budget-minded 'megatasker'. Now there's 250W of heatdump and it still might not give Intel's high-end market much of a challenge :( And it'll likely cost more, and it'll be harder to cool (at least Intel's two dies will be under the same IHS), and it definitely won't clock as well.
I really hope this is a rumor, a cheap 4-core system would have been very nice....
"voor kerst" is "For Christmas".Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
I agree with you on all points.
Bad bad move if true, what a letdown :(
I'm more concerned about the prices ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle
Damn im so looking forward to the release of this.:D
And the fact that this system goes all the way down to x2 4400 means it will probaly be cheaper to build than a 1207 rig.
Now consider having 2x x2 4400 and ddr800 NUMA:woot:
Edit: Disregard this
I skimped without reading the text:slap:
so is this suppose to use registered ram ?
there is a tyan mother board already that is set up just like amd said that 4x4 motherboard would be like , but it uses server cpu's
time will tell , maybe we will find more sources to agree or disagree
LOL reading is hard isn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teroedni
4 x 4 = 1207.
FX-70, FX-72 and FX-74 are 1207.
... I think.
Damn I got it all wrong :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Vassili
So only socket 1207 is gonna be 4x4:stick: :mad:
That's what it looks like, just those three.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Popo
Well, and of course the spring refresh...Which could be what saves it from falling into the terrible abyss of bad ideas to market to the mainstream.
I'm really starting to wonder whats going to happen with
AMD's sockets over the next year or so.....
;) I remember that AMD promised sets of 4x4 CPU's for under $1000, that means FX-74 for around $500 each:D pretty cool, but I will wait for K8L based FX for 4x4
Does it mean that the "intel fanboys trolls" told you the truth?Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
Is this the best of you LOE? :clap:
http://www.ctgilles.net/images/pictars/chill.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
there are allready "4x4"-like motherboards for socketF and 940... 4x4 will be AM2...
this is just a rumor, we'll have to wait and see.
i think there is a rule that says you cant call other fanboys this is really getting out of control from certain guys here
I wouldn't be too concerned about the prices of these new FX.
Currently the X2 5000+, a 2.6Ghz 512Kb dual core is going for around 280 Euros/Dollars,
I serioulsy doubt AMD would be stupid enough to charge anything above 400 Euros/Dollars for the lower 2.6Ghz 1mb FX70 version.
They will most likely release the dual package for about 699 dollars which
would be considerably good for a quad core system, especially if thats less
than the Kentsfield when it comes out.
I don't quite understand it but that is ok. I'm holding out for K8L, I don't have any money anyway :p:
I hope so too. It's a major letdown if 4x4 is on socket F. Pretty pointless to rebrand 2-way server technology as 4x4.Quote:
Originally Posted by alayashu
Damn :) you want me overdosed.Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle
Which brings back the conspiracy theory...
What if your new desktop architecture couldn't beat the competition and you planned on refreshing it shortly anyway with a new memory controller...How would you release it?
Personally, if I had a separate socket/platform for just servers/enthusiasts using at least dual socket-capable chips I'd keep it out of the single-socket limelight and push it as an at least dual cpu solution to consumers first...because I think (barring something absurd) 2xK8L on desktop or 4x/8x K8L on servers is gonna beat anything Intel has....and AM2 is still only 1-way last time I checked, and Socket F is at the LEAST 2-way.
@Naw, only love amigo. You can never have too much chill :)Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
replace K8L in your post with K8 and it's all ok ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle
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.
Now that i actually have read the text
So in October comes Stronger Sempron
Sempron 3800+ 2,2GHz 256KB 90nm 62W AM2 Oktober
Sempron 3500+ 2,0GHz 128KB 90nm 35W AM2 Oktober
Then In November Comes stronger X2
X2 6000+ 3,0GHz 2x1MB 90nm 125W AM2 November
X2 5600+ 2,8GHz 2x1MB 90nm 98W AM2 November
X2 5400+ 2,8GHz 2x512KB 90nm 98W AM2 November
Then in December comes 65 nm x2 (Cheaper to produce):D
X2 5000+ 2,6GHz 2x512KB 65nm 65W AM2 December
X2 4800+ 2,4GHz 2x1MB 65nm 65W AM2 December
X2 4400+ 2,2GHz 2x1MB 65nm 65W AM2 December
X2 4000+ 2,0GHz 2x1MB 65nm 65W AM2 December
Now this comes at the End on the Year when Intel is ramping up with Conroes
See a connection;)
AMD knows very well that Core dou 2 is a treat and are reoginasing their lineup to better compete.
No the big question is
Will we see Price Cuts?
I have a feeling we will:toast:
i do not know if this is true , the best that i can tell is that this has been disprovenQuote:
The most dissapointing piece of information in this is the obvious truth that AMD is having problems scaling their 65nm chips.
why is amd still using 90nm for it's fx cpu's , well i don't think that amd sells a whole lot of fx cpu's , and is probably making the fx chips in fab 30 , when fab 30 is converted to fab 38 , the fx cpu's will probably be 65nm
what do we think of amd being ableto take a 90nm cpu to the mhz that they are taking it to , this has to say something for amd and 90nm
Your conclusion is wrong!Quote:
Originally Posted by LexDiamonds
You don’t want to use volume production for parts that will sell in low quantities.
Beside that AMD has sharpened 90nm ‘till the very edge of the tech, so it’s natural that they’re using 90nm tech for the new FX CPU’s. Those are really Opterons 2xxx series, and its common knowledge that Opterons are always produced on the highest quality wafers
In the long run, 4x4 on Socket F is really a way to go!
And of course it makes me smug seeing I was right long time ago ;)
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...4+motherboards
I guess this will be the prime-time 4x4 mobo:
http://www.tyan.com/products/html/thundern3600b.html
I don't believe it.
The FX series is for enthusiasts, the major feature being the unlocked multiplier - which means overclocking friendly.
It doesn't make sense to put the enthusiast platform on registered RAM. There is no "overclocking" RAM available for it and it is more expensive, and right now all registered RAM has ECC which further limits speed scaling and increases cost.
For the enthusiast there is no benefit in registered RAM as they rarely use more than 2 or at most 4 sticks of memory, and they won't use ECC either.
The point about the original 4x4 design was to give people a dual-socket solution that they can use with "enthusiast"/overclocking memory.
Also, who's going to design an overclocking board for dual socket 1207? The board will all be server-style designs.
The above plan basically means "there is no 4x4". It goes back to what we had in first place - more than one CPU socket means moving to AMD's server platform, including the need for registered RAM.
It's not a question of yours belives! That's AMD's plan, and me thinks it's a good one! They wnt to sell CPU's so they will give you two FX7x CPU's for the price of the one FX6x!
actually i got the impression that the 4x4 high end enthusiast platform was gonna not require registered ram at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by uOpt
so what you will be seeing is asus, msi, dfi mobos, with 2 sockets, slots for your fav flavor of ram and then you buy a pair of processors initially and plop it into the LGA sockets. then clock the crap outta it and have an awesome system.
Of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by el rolio
But socket 1207 does.
So that doesn't fit, something odd is going on here. Either the original report is wrong, or AMD effectively drops 4x4 (going back to "need server platform for > 1 CPU socket).
That was the original plan, unregistered RAM, 4x4 using socket AM2.Quote:
so what you will be seeing is asus, msi, dfi mobos, with 2 sockets, slots for your fav flavor of ram and then you buy a pair of processors initially and plop it into the LGA sockets. then clock the crap outta it and have an awesome system.
I wouldnt believe this stuff.. LOL The person that made that chart didnt even know how to spell Clock. They spelled it "Klok". AMD wouldnt do us like this. Atlease I hope not. Using ECC memory for thier ELITE line isnt really ELITE. I think this would be a bad mistake for them. I know they are smarter than this. I would be puzzled why they would bring a FX line to Socket F. Doesnt make sense to me. Which is why Im saying this is bunk.
~Mike
How ignorant are you, it's dutch :stick:Quote:
Originally Posted by arisythila
Fud
So now 4x4 uses ECC, is on 90nm still, and costs more than most people will pay. Also they sell 90nm CPUs clocked higher than the 65nm? RIIIIIGHT
ok, so just to make sure im not missing hte boat in my impression here:Quote:
Originally Posted by uOpt
is there anything about the socket and mobo that determines the ECC vs nonECC ram thing? i assumed that its built in as part of the ram controller on the cpu DIE. so along that lines, i assumed the 4x4 would be as you said in your orignal plan, save for the fact that it starts on the socket F, presumably cuz of hte extra HT connects blah blah blah.
so what we essentially get is:
budget line (sempron?)
consumer line (x2)
high end enthusiast line (4x4)
server line (opteron)
all that goes out the window if im wrong about the ECC requirement being based in the mem controller on die. if not, all of the info so far makes sense to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by biohead
geen faecalien
~Mike
Not ECC RAM but registered RAM. Big difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by afireinside
You mix up ECC and registered/unbuffered. Different concepts. All AMD64s do optional ECC. Socket 754, 939 and AM2 always use unbuffered (unregistered). Socket 940 and 1207 always use registered.Quote:
Originally Posted by el rolio
I don't think it is possible to put a controller for unregistered RAM into a socket 1207. In any case, even if that's possible that would introduce a new processor line entirely incompatible with 1207 and all other sockets so that's not going to happen.
So it is still one of two:
- Either 2+2 (4x4) is dead. And going 1207 means dead.
- The report is wrong.
My money is on AMD not having found anybody to make a board for the original 2+2(4x4) concept with unbuffered RAM. There is just not enough money in that market, and it is a difficult board to make, and a difficult customer base (overclockers). Which mainboard maker would be so insane to do that when every overclocked kentsfield will be faster.
So I say 2+2(4x4) is dead and AMD just now markets it's server platform as "the new 4x4".
However, there is a chance we will get unlocked multipliers in 1207 FX chips, which would make me very happy.
ok, yea i meant registered, and ok thanks for breaking own your point of view and i definately see what you are saying now. so yea, i guess im with you there, either the report is wrong or 4x4 as we knew it is gone. im gonna hope for the possibility the report is wrong...of course.
faecalien :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by arisythila
why would the socket have anything to do with changing the ram controller?
i'm going to dismiss this entire thread and the original post as PURE AND STUPID SPECULATION, IF NOT SHEER FUD!
Since the memory controller is on the CPU, the socket in AMD systems is also fixed either registered or unbuffered. The additional pin in socket 940 over 939 was exactly for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlicerSV
The situation is different for Intel where the northbridge decides whether you go unbuffered or registered (or FB-DIMM) and the CPU socket could be the same.
Well... not this time ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
I think what AMD meant was a pair of FX70s for under $1000. :(
exisitng 90nm used for FX series, and used for highest clocked parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by LexDiamonds
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 ;)
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
Got undeniable proof?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
so am i , here is a link to a amd brisbane ES cpuQuote:
Originally Posted by zakelwe
http://translate.google.com/translat...icrosoft:en-US
Yeah, but can’t publish it…Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
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?
except i remember a couple of articles in which many enthusiast mobo manuf. are quoted as "embracing the platform"....
I dont really care if they use a different CPU socket. I just hope I can use My GOOD DDR2 in it....
~Mike
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.
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..
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
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..
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. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by LOE
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.
me thinks you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
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!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by hipno650
in single threaded games for sure it will be slower.Quote:
Originally Posted by hipno650
In multithreaded apps and multitasking it will be a hell faster.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by awdrifter
If you want MAX performance but don't expect MAX memory capacity.
Unbuffered is the way to go
you are correct , the fastest DDR2 registered memory is 667mhz , the uregistered memory is up and above the jedec standards , which is 800mhzQuote:
Are they not as fast?
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.
Samsung has Registered DDR2-800:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ghost
http://www.samsung.com/products/semi...93T2950EZA.htm
Then what's the advantage of registered ram? Why do servers use them? Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Yea but what about overclocking?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
Registered memory is a specific form of memory designed to support a larger number of chips on a given memory module. To allow for all the memory chips on the module to properly function, it is necessary for the module to add a delay to all command requests to the memory. The delay is actually generated by an additional clock generator that resides on the module instead of relying on the motherboard. This will decrease the overall performance of a given memory module. The memory type is typically used in large server environments where large amounts of RAM are required. In these environments, the benefits of the increase in RAM outweigh the performance impacts caused by memory swapping.Quote:
Originally Posted by awdrifter
:rofl: :lol: :rofl: :imo:Quote:
Originally Posted by Teroedni
Okey
It seems it is actually possible to overclock 1207 server boards if their bios supports it.
So a 4x4 certified board should be able to overclock well then:D
I guess Asus can just rebrand a server board like the Asus KFN32-D SLI and just add some bios options and voila 4x4;)
actually, registrered ram doesnt have too much of a penalty on latency, thats ecc, which basically just ads one more clock cycle, so cas 2 ram is cas 3 ecc. registered non-ecc ram will actually function at the same latency as it was non-buffered, its just that nobody has really cared enough to make non-ecc ram registered, as 32 bit os's cant use registered ram anyways, as you can have up to 16gb of ram as u-buffered. registered ram will be a little slower, but not a whole clock cycle slower like ecc.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
I believe what he was meaning. Is there is no decent Registered memory out.. Fastest we've seen in 1 gb x 2 is DDR2-667. Thats crap in my opinion. I want to see some nice DDR2-1000 that is overclockable to DDR2-1200, like we can with regular DDR2 memory. This is what I want.. I just hope if they take the route of going to Scoket 1207.. They make it so we can use normal DDR2 memory.
~Mike
What makes you think you can have non-ECC registrered ram?Quote:
Originally Posted by cky2k6
good pointQuote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
registered/buffered memory primarily serves the purpose of reducing the huge capacitative load on the memory controller allowing more memory to be installed. (for effect of capacitative load on memory controller, compare overclock/timing of single sided DIMM vs double sided, and 1 DIMM/channel vs 2 DIMMs (ie 4 total).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_memory
nice find , the first that i have seen :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
because they two techs are not related... ecc is for error correction, registered ram is for capacity. theyre only found together since theyre both critical on servers, and useless so far for enthusiasts... there has been non-ecc registered ram in the past, not common, but it exists...Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
This is what Rahul Sood, founder and CTO of VoodooPC, had to say:
http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/09...tegory-of.htmlQuote:
With the help of Nvidia, and others, AMD is creating an entirely new motherboard concept for 4x4. It's not your standard-issue workstation motherboard; rather, it's an enthusiast-class multiprocessor motherboard with support for unbuffered non-ECC enthusiast-class memory. AMD also promises to release three tiers of 4x4 in the box where processor kits will start well under $1,000 and go up from there.
Just because 4x4 will be using socket 1207 doesn't mean that 4x4 will require registered ram.
I guess people are being haunted by memories of the initial FX series (ie registered RAM, socket 940)
Personally, I can't wait and see what AMD delivers with "socket" 1207. Reserved pins for more HT links? Reserved pins for other memory types? Very curious to see how many DIMMs new Opterons will be able to push. I bet that memory controller is built like a tank.
Not to mention the native DDR3 support :D
HKEPC view on the subject (they are claming that the source is mobo manufacturers...):
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?...me=0&endtime=0
yea i was talkin about this a few pages back. i mean it could be a good idea but what we really need is MORE INFO FROM AMDQuote:
Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
There is only a minimal overhead for the registered and at this time almost nonexistent for the ECC. You can easily test the latter by turning on and off ECC in a board with unregistered RAM. I might have some numbers somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by awdrifter
The problem is overclocking RAM. Overclocking RAM is a product made from selected chips, or at least selected modules.
The enthusiast RAM vendors would hate to, and probably will not, offer an overclocking registered product. That didn't even happen when the first Athlon FXes were the craze and required registered DDR. OCZ and Mushkin made some low-latency but that was it.
The sad thing is that it is all rubbish anyway. RAM speed only has a minimal impact on real-world performance and that "run 1:1 for best overclock" rule seems to be a myth, too (at least my max dual mprime stabe clocks don't drop when I take down the RAM).
But the overclocking crowd doesn't care. They want fast RAM anyway.
The only point would be the unlocked multiplier and the faint hope that board vendors offer overclocking boards for dual 1207.Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle
All current processors support but no not require ECC, including AMD64, Core2, PowerPC and Itanium.Quote:
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.
It would in fact be possible for the enthusiast RAM vendors to make registered non-ECC to cut down cost and maximize overclock potential for socket 1207 if they think there's a market of people buying it (there isn't).
You reduce the load on the control lines so that the same processor can drive more chips. As a result the same mircoprocess can drive twice as many modules and each module can have twice as many chips, resulting in a 4x increase of memory capacity. It also reduces the change of RAM error from random electrical sources since the signal is now stronger.Quote:
Originally Posted by awdrifter
Keep in mind that in registered RAM as in for socket603/ 604, 940 and 1207 only the control lanes are buffered, the data lanes are not. FB-Dimms buffer the data, too, but FB also changes the whole setup to a cascading one.
Read the disription of the pin layout. The socket 1207 platform is for registered RAM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
The memory controller is on the CPU for AMD64s, so there no switching between registered and unregistered with the same CPU and/or socket.
In the Intel world that would work, because the CPU doesn't have the memory controller. The same Intel CPU can theoretically use registered and unregistered RAM in different boads. But in practice they are locked, too, because Intel usually only relases one chipset, and then the chipset fixes what kind of RAM you need.
Or in other words, you could run a Woodcrest with DDR2 unbuffered or non-FB registered, as in the CPU can, but you cannot buy a chipset to do so.
What's all this chatter about ECC/reg memory? :stick:
Hey guys. It would be pointless of introducing 4X4 with anything other than normal unreg/Non ECC memory modules because if they wouldn't it would be just a normal Socket F system.
Last year I believe that Abit showed of an Opteron socket 940 (e.g. not 939) board that didn't make it to the shops but seemed to work, that could handle unreg/non ECC. So why wouldn't all the big guys over at Amd not be able to get this to work?
Amd wouldn't sell any 4x4 if they wouldn't. We know it and they must surely know it! If i'm wrong the 4x4 was just a media stunt to get people not to jump on Kentsfield.
These FX chips must be different than Socket F. If they are the same they will sell like hotcakes to potential Opteron buyers as a single 2.6GHz Opteron 285 is over $900. I am sure the memory controller is the only difference.
it wont require server memory. Any of you can use some logic and deduct that 4x4 on server board wouldn't take any time to go to market. But designing 4x4 took some time which means that AMD was changing, developing something different than normal 2p server. It certainly will be on 1207 but it won't be re branded 2p workstation board with pcie 16x.Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
I think we reasonably deduced that it isn't really a server Mobo, it doesn't require an exotic server chip or Server ram. So one can assume saying it is on one socket or another is speculationQuote:
Originally Posted by LOE
Yeah, but apparently AMD tried to do that initially, when they announced 2+2(4x4) to be AM2 based and failed to secure mainboard makers for what is essentially an entirely new platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poodle
So now that have to share with an existing platform.
Oh my, not that rubbish again. You are not the troll over from 2cpu.com, are you?Quote:
Last year I believe that Abit showed of an Opteron socket 940 (e.g. not 939) board that didn't make it to the shops but seemed to work, that could handle unreg/non ECC. So why wouldn't all the big guys over at Amd not be able to get this to work?
That board never made retail and I know nobody who actually ever used one.
Technically, it might be possible. ECC is never required and you can move the buffer chips from the RAM modules to the board. Of course, that would be pointless since although you can now use unregistered RAM you still have the register chip limiting overclocks, not to mention it is now more expensive (since you pay for 4 register chips even if you only use 2 modules).
The cause of events makes it most likely that they tried to establish an AM2 based 4x4 platform with unregistered RAM and failed, and now instead of cancelling 4x4 they just "rebase" it. That means the only technical effect of 4x4 will be that we get 1207 chips with unlocked multipliers and maybe a few boards with overvolting options.Quote:
Amd wouldn't sell any 4x4 if they wouldn't. We know it and they must surely know it! If i'm wrong the 4x4 was just a media stunt to get people not to jump on Kentsfield.
Now, whether anybody produces 4x4 boards (no matter which socket) with serious overvolting options is an entirely different matter. The length of lines on the PCB board and the fact that you have to shuffe around twice the power makes that a very serious risk for the vendor. If you can sell only a couple hundred boards and half of them come back with blown up mosfets you won't make any profit.
In any case, socket 1207 is a registered RAM platform and nobody can do anything about that.
1: First I don't hang out much over at 2cpu.com more than to :slobber: when I've heard something new is going on. I don't know what "troll" you're talking about. I don't even got an account there if you want to know...Quote:
Originally Posted by uOpt
2. You seem to be sure on your argument so I have to believe you. This said I can't say that 4x4 feels that hot to me anymore . Non ecc/reg was half the point with it. :( I was first glad about it ending up on 1207 but now I don't know...
3. What made me sure of my argument was that the new M2R32-MVP can handle ECC/reg on Am2 so I guessed that the otherway around also was possible.
Could you point me to a description of the socket F (1207) pin layout? I haven't been able to find one.Quote:
Originally Posted by uOpt
Where's that info coming from? Any pointers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poodle
%%
oldblue, since the memory controller is on the chip the lanes must match the memory access interface. Since we already know that 1207 is for registered with the normal Opterons, there is no way to use the same pin layout for unregistered RAM.
Unless they are willing to re-define what each pin does but then the result would be a new socket, even though it might have the same number of pins. That would instantly kill mainboard maker's interest since you couldn't exchange processors and boards with the other socket 120, that's out of question. Intel got away with doing that with the two 478 sockets, but both of them were major platforms so mainboard vendors could afford it.
Well here: http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/?id=4693 in Swedish I'm arfaid. Now I'm not sure anymore if the author was completly sober when he wrote it though. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by uOpt
Edit: Maybe he wasn't drunk after all: http://www.neoseeker.com/Hardware/Pr...sus_m2r32_mvp/