AMD Dodeca-core

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11531

Quote:

---

"Shanghai! Shanghai!" the reporters cry during the AMD's financial analyst day today. Despite the fact that the company will lay off nearly 5% of its work force this week, followed by another 5% next month, most employees interviewed by DailyTech continue to convey an optimistic outlook.

The next major milestone for the CPU engineers comes late this year, with the debut of 45nm Shanghai. Shanghai, for all intents and purposes, is nearly identical to the B3 stepping of Socket 1207 Opteron (Barcelona) shipping today. However, where as Barcelona had its HyperTransport 3.0 clock generator fused off, Shanghai will once again attempt to get HT3.0 right.

Original roadmaps anticipated that HT3.0 would be used for socket-to-socket communication, but also for communication to the Southbridge controllers. Motherboard manufacturers have confirmed that this is no longer the case, and that HT3.0 will only be used for inter-CPU communication.

"Don't be disappointed, AMD is making up for it," hints one engineer. Further conversations revealed that inter-CPU communication is going to be a big deal with the 45nm refresh. The first breadcrumb comes with a new "native six-core" Shanghai derivative, currently codenamed Istanbul. This processor is clearly targeted at Intel's recently announced six-core, 45nm Dunnington processor.

But sextuple-core processors have been done, or at least we'll see the first ones this year. The real neat stuff comes a few months after, where AMD will finally ditch the "native-core" rhetoric. Two separate reports sent to DailyTech from AMD partners indicate that Shanghai and its derivatives will also get twin-die per package treatment.

AMD planned twin-die configurations as far back as the K8 architecture, though abandoned those efforts. The company never explained why those processors were nixed, but just weeks later "native quad-core" became a major marketing campaign for the AMD in anticipation of Barcelona.

A twin-die Istanbul processor could enable 12 cores in a single package. Each of these cores will communicate to each other via the now-enabled HT3.0 interconnect on the processor.

The rabbit hole gets deeper. Since each of these processors will contain a dual-channel memory controller, a single-core can emulate quad-channel memory functions by accessing the other dual-channel memory controller on the same socket. This move is likely a preemptive strike against Intel's Nehalem tri-channel memory controller.

Motherboard manufacturers claim Shanghai and its many-core derivatives will be backwards compatible with existing Socket 1207 motherboards. However, processor-to-processor communication will downgrade to lower HyperTransport frequencies on these older motherboards. The newest 1207+ motherboards will officially support the HyperTransport 3.0 frequencies.

Shanghai is currently taped out and running Windows at AMD.

---

Good. I want to see Shanghai shipping, so AMD really does get in better shape. Thanks.

intel is gonna have how much then? 12 virtual cores, 6 real cores?

Bla, bla, bla. It seems that anything AMD pumps out is crap these days.
I'll believe it when I see it. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] 2long4u

Bla, bla, bla. It seems that anything AMD pumps out is crap these days.
I'll believe it when I see it. :P

---

All I see are two AT-ATs humping...

I wouldn't say no to a decent 6-core or even 12-core CPU though.. since Intels 6-core will be useless, being S603 (?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squilliam

All I see are two AT-ATs humping...

---

Win.

Anyways.... How about those guys at intel? Native 8 cores, with 16 threads huh? hmmm tasty.

I'd like to be optimistic and say AMD will be successful with Shanghai, but the reality is, that when Shanghai is released, Intel will have Nehalem, which will be pretty much the death blow.

AMD doesn't need more cores right now, they need better cores... If these are going to be identical to B3 Barcelonas, the 45nm shrink doesn't seem to be helping too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan

I'd like to be optimistic and say AMD will be successful with Shanghai, but the reality is, that when Shanghai is released, Intel will have Nehalem, which will be pretty much the death blow.

---

I don't see how exactly that could even remotely be possible.
Also, let us just assume for a second Intel Wins and AMD is gone...
Then we will all be seriously :banana::banana::banana::banana:ed, then Intel would stop funding their R&D departments as heavily and just soak up as much profit as the market could bare. Which effectively means Windows and most of our games will stagnate on a platform that virtually stopped advancing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] 2long4u

Bla, bla, bla. It seems that anything AMD pumps out is crap these days.
I'll believe it when I see it. :P

---

Whoa - bitter much?

I'll tell you about bitter. I've had AMD stock since 2001. I kept buying it as the market collapsed. When it finally got up to around $14 several months ago, I should have sold. But I believed - I BELIEVED. Now I've watched it surf the swirly waters down to $6 and less. That's bitter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

I don't see how exactly that could even remotely be possible.
Also, let us just assume for a second Intel Wins and AMD is gone...
Then we will all be seriously :banana::banana::banana::banana:ed, then Intel would stop funding their R&D departments as heavily and just soak up as much profit as the market could bare. Which effectively means Windows and most of our games will stagnate on a platform that virtually stopped advancing

---

AMD won't be dead, but Nehalem will be pushed aggressively by Intel, which could make it hard for AMD to grab market share.
AMD could spring a surprise with Shanghai. Who knows? The only thing you can do is make a somewhat educated guess.
And Intel won't allow AMD to die. AMD dead would mean bad happenings to Intel courtesy of the FTC and DOJ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan

AMD won't be dead, but Nehalem will be pushed aggressively by Intel, which could make it hard for AMD to grab market share.
AMD could spring a surprise with Shanghai. Who knows? The only thing you can do is make a somewhat educated guess.
And Intel won't allow AMD to die. AMD dead would mean bad happenings to Intel courtesy of the FTC and DOJ.

---

AMD doesn't need superior performance to grab market share, it just needs a cost competitive product and guess what they do.
Heck soon we will have sub $100 Quad cores, combined with $60 mobos with the 780G chipset, make killer budget boxes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twilyth

Whoa - bitter much?

I'll tell you about bitter. I've had AMD stock since 2001. I kept buying it as the market collapsed. When it finally got up to around $14 several months ago, I should have sold. But I believed - I BELIEVED. Now I've watched it surf the swirly waters down to $6 and less. That's bitter.

---

Ouch.
I believed in AMD at one point also. I don't really like mainstream anything.
The music I listen to isn't mainstream, the vehicles I drive arn't mainstream, and the processor I used to run wasn't mainstream. It bothers me there is a quad core in my rig right now, but it is better then anything AMD has to offer. :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

AMD doesn't need superior performance to grab market share, it just needs a cost competitive product and guess what they do.
Heck soon we will have sub $100 Quad cores, combined with $60 mobos with the 780G chipset, make killer budget boxes

---

Yes, but does it blend? er, Fold.:ROTF:

I would buy AMD stock if I could afford to. Can't get much lower before it goes up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] 2long4u

Yes, but does it blend? er, Fold.:ROTF:

---

yes, in fact not only the CPU does folding, you can get the Integrated graphics to fold as well :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

yes, in fact not only the CPU does folding, you can get the Integrated graphics to fold as well :D

---

Probably still won't have as many PPD as my quad! :down:

But if AMD doesn't get the performance crown, it will have so much to loose from the user "hype". Its a free advertisement for them that way.

12 cores huh...
that 4 to play with and 8 for F@H :D

I've been telling people I know to buy some stock in AMD. I'm almost tempted to just buy 10 shares, just to see how it'll end up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

AMD doesn't need superior performance to grab market share, it just needs a cost competitive product and guess what they do.Heck soon we will have sub $100 Quad cores, combined with $60 mobos with the 780G chipset, make killer budget boxes

---

QFT but remember me being flamed for saying the same thing? I don't see AMD failing at all. Wayyyyyyy too many and too important folks have too much money tied up in them for that to happen.:up: Considering all of the debt they have that's being paid back, they've done a lot better than the 611 million they lost when they were paying back smaller loans.

Everyone's saying that "nehalem will be such 1337 h4x, AMD is n00bzor"

Well, let's look back when Intel thought they'd be having 10 GHz Pentium 4's eh? We all know that didn't work out. Athlon 64 *crushed* anything Intel could offer. I for one want to see it happen again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swatrecon_

Everyone's saying that "nehalem will be such 1337 h4x, AMD is n00bzor"

Well, let's look back when Intel thought they'd be having 10 GHz Pentium 4's eh? We all know that didn't work out. Athlon 64 *crushed* anything Intel could offer. I for one want to see it happen again.

---

Well, now Intel has the aggressive "tick-tock" strategy, that is almost impossible to :banana::banana::banana::banana: up :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swatrecon_

Everyone's saying that "nehalem will be such 1337 h4x, AMD is n00bzor"

Well, let's look back when Intel thought they'd be having 10 GHz Pentium 4's eh? We all know that didn't work out. Athlon 64 *crushed* anything Intel could offer. I for one want to see it happen again.

---

You have one poster talking about Intel fanboys cheering AMD's pain, I've not seen it that. But wishing pain on Intel is OK?:shrug: Note, both Intel and AMD have had their share of Champs and Chumps. A64 NEVER crushed Intel LOL! X2 was the only real superior product accross-the-board like Conroe/Penryn currently enjoys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan

Well, now Intel has the aggressive "tick-tock" strategy, that is almost impossible to :banana::banana::banana::banana: up :up:

---

notice the key word, almost...
Any company given enough pride will :banana::banana::banana::banana: up, the one thing that is supposed to be :banana::banana::banana::banana: up free

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by knightwolf654

12 cores huh...
that 4 to play with and 8 for F@H :D

---

Hell, can you imagine a 4P server board with 12 cores each - 48 cores - OMG, it's better than Viagra - not that I would know.
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...ling_homer.gif

6 and 12 cores are useless for us desktop users, but it should help AMD get back some server marketshare. I really hope they don't mess it up this time. (delays, TLB bugs, etc)

even 4 cores for desktops is quite overkill for most applications right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

I've been telling people I know to buy some stock in AMD. I'm almost tempted to just buy 10 shares, just to see how it'll end up.

---

i bought 30 shares at 5.90 already made 30 cents a share
:yepp: :rofl: :up: :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

I don't see how exactly that could even remotely be possible.
Also, let us just assume for a second Intel Wins and AMD is gone...
Then we will all be seriously :banana::banana::banana::banana:ed, then Intel would stop funding their R&D departments as heavily and just soak up as much profit as the market could bare. Which effectively means Windows and most of our games will stagnate on a platform that virtually stopped advancing

---

They just don't get it nn_step and apparently never will until its too late! Mark my words though this will be the exact same people singing the blues and ...snip -Vapor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

I don't see how exactly that could even remotely be possible.
Also, let us just assume for a second Intel Wins and AMD is gone...
Then we will all be seriously :banana::banana::banana::banana:ed, then Intel would stop funding their R&D departments as heavily and just soak up as much profit as the market could bare. Which effectively means Windows and most of our games will stagnate on a platform that virtually stopped advancing

---

No. Nvidia would either buy Via or pick up the remains of AMD in bankruptcy. Nvidia is Intel's real long term competitor now, with the financial strength and profitability that AMD never had and can only dream about now. Barring something close to a miracle AMD has blown its chance to be any kind of real competition for Intel.

You cant say that AMD isn't bad. If you look at the typical market computer:

Dual Core, IGP Video

AMD Wins. You take Each companies sub 100 CPU. In this case you see a Intel Pentium Dual Core E2200 vs an AMD Athlon 64x2 5600+. (prices from Newegg)

The AMD is cheaper, faster and I dare-say that its platform in a typical environment offers more for less than a Intel System. THe problem is, that Brick and Mortal stores still are predominantly Intel and even some Catalog/Online (read Tigerdirect.) If you look at the most recent Tigerdirect catalog you will see about 70% of the pre-configured systems are Intel and offer one of the E2x00 series processors. But you see only a handful of AMD systems and even then they are single core or lower speed X2s.

With the ecomony in such a state of flux do you think the consumer is going to spend $500+ for a computer? Not unless they absolutely need to. These AMD systems can be sold quite cheap but still do what you need, and even play some games on the side for the kids or whatever. AMDs non-server division has always made its most money from the sale of the cheaper chips in high quantities, not the high end chips.

As the cheaper Quad Cores come out if AMD can still get decent ASPs for them, then they will do fine. AMD has always been more about quantity than price. THe high-end stuff matters in server rooms and workstations, not so much in the home area

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Periander6

No. Nvidia would either buy Via or pick up the remains of AMD in bankruptcy. Nvidia is Intel's real long term competitor now, with the financial strength and profitability that AMD never had and can only dream about now. Barring something close to a miracle AMD has blown its chance to be any kind of real competition for Intel.

---

Nvidia picking up Via will only help in competing in the mini pc segements.
Even if Nvidia took the left overs of AMD they can't get the x86 licence.

We need AMD.
As pointed out many a time, AMD ain't bad at all for the general population.

A64 didn't crush P4 clock for clock?

Or A64 didn't crush P4 when the P4 was oc'd unimaginably?

I'm genuinely curious here, I haven't read benchmarks that date back that far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

A64 didn't crush P4 clock for clock?

Or A64 didn't crush P4 when the P4 was oc'd unimaginably?

I'm genuinely curious here, I haven't read benchmarks that date back that far.

---

The problem is, that these battles don't really end up won based on who's chip can overclock. A large chunk of chips go to OEMs, where customers want 1 of 2 things : Cheap, or Fast.

Usually, the latter is what they get based on what the MFG says, or what their friends reccomend, and the former is whoever is willing to put out a part that can work effectively with other cheap parts.

Then comes the server market - again where OCing doesn't matter... That's really the problem - for the enthusiast, the K8 was solid gold. It spanked any Intel offering when OCed - in just the way that an OCed e2200 can beat a 5600+ now days...

I hope AMD can get the power consumption down and their clocks up.
I think that will be enough to keep up with intel, though top-end cpu's will still be intel-only territory for a while..

Dodeca-core? Hum, never saw that coming.
Given AMD's financials, I hope they're not planning on "releasing" a Dodo-core.
:p:

Whats changed from the x2 days though? It was faster and more expensive than the Intel p-d but it still helped AMD gain market share. So why do people believe being crap compared to Intel will not matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

They just don't get it nn_step and apparently never will until its too late! Mark my words though this will be the exact same people singing the blues and ...snip -Vapor

---

C'mon dude You asked for Bananas and I gave you Bananas now whats the situation? Now you (snip) my freaking Bananas would you prefer Juggling Cats or something?:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan

Intel will have Nehalem, which will be pretty much the death blow.

---

EVERY and i mean EVERY time intel announces / amd announces something this is the same rubbish i hear. IF this was true then amd would of been dead along time ago.

do people just abuse AMD becuase they are the only competition to INTEL? Via has less market share / profit and no one gives them the same amount of stick.

I'm not a fan boy of either - I've owned an XP-m and then my Xeons then C2d but hearing the same retarded nonsence is :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing annoying now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Origin_Unknown

EVERY and i mean EVERY time intel announces / amd announces something this is the same rubbish i hear. IF this was true then amd would of been dead along time ago.

do people just abuse AMD becuase they are the only competition to INTEL? Via has less market share / profit and no one gives them the same amount of stick.

I'm not a fan boy of either - I've owned an XP-m and then my Xeons then C2d but hearing the same retarded nonsence is :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing annoying now.

---

same here hate doomsayers i am intel fan but i am sure amd will survive :up:

Meh... I'd rather see fewer but faster power-efficient cores. The marketing boys would surely disagree.

And while people talk a lot about the average Joe and what he buys fact is that his next PC will most likely be a laptop... and AMD doesn't even have a roadmap thats competitive in that regard.

But anything that keeps their boat floating is good news I guess.

quad channel memory access, HA!
if only numa worked that way...

besides, if they are on the same package, and the package only has 2 memory channels routed, just like the socket and the mainboard only have 2 memory channels routed... how should 4 channel access be possible?

still, shanghai sounds promising :)

i REALLY REALLY REAAALLLYYY wanna know WHY amd abandoned dual chip in one package research back in the k8 days. WHYYYY????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

quad channel memory access, HA!
if only numa worked that way...

besides, if they are on the same package, and the package only has 2 memory channels routed, just like the socket and the mainboard only have 2 memory channels routed... how should 4 channel access be possible?

still, shanghai sounds promising :)

i REALLY REALLY REAAALLLYYY wanna know WHY amd abandoned dual chip in one package research back in the k8 days. WHYYYY????

---

agreed. we could've had quad core setups on old 939 back before c2d was even out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

AMD doesn't need superior performance to grab market share, it just needs a cost competitive product and guess what they do.
Heck soon we will have sub $100 Quad cores, combined with $60 mobos with the 780G chipset, make killer budget boxes

---

How much money does amd make though from selling their quads at such low prices? I doubt its enough to pay off debts + cover cost of production + fund r&d for new products.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

AMD doesn't need superior performance to grab market share, it just needs a cost competitive product and guess what they do.
Heck soon we will have sub $100 Quad cores, combined with $60 mobos with the 780G chipset, make killer budget boxes

---

So killer budget boxes it also killed anything called profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras
A64 didn't crush P4 clock for clock?

Or A64 didn't crush P4 when the P4 was oc'd unimaginably?

I'm genuinely curious here, I haven't read benchmarks that date back that far.

---

That's the problem, P4 NEVER competed with XP, A64 and X2 Clock for Clock=P AMD used Price Rates to sell Athlon of all kinds. Then they used we're Frakkin superior price rates to sell X2. I can't believe Green Team guys on this sight complaining about Prices after bragging about 4400+ ONLY costing $750, 3800+ going for $439, and the FX-55 for $850:rolleyes: The 8400 I'm looking at cost less than my 3500+ after they launched X2, $208 from Newegg.

The market only cares about Price, Performance and Stability. As long as AMD does that, they'll sell products. Again, they aren't going away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tulatin

The problem is, that these battles don't really end up won based on who's chip can overclock. A large chunk of chips go to OEMs, where customers want 1 of 2 things : Cheap, or Fast.

Usually, the latter is what they get based on what the MFG says, or what their friends reccomend, and the former is whoever is willing to put out a part that can work effectively with other cheap parts.

Then comes the server market - again where OCing doesn't matter... That's really the problem - for the enthusiast, the K8 was solid gold. It spanked any Intel offering even when it was OCed - in just the way that an OCed e2200 can beat a 5600+ now days...

---

QFT! I added the bold words;) The problem is when the same is pointed out now, flames start. Turn-about isn't Fairplay;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Origin_Unknown

EVERY and i mean EVERY time intel announces / amd announces something this is the same rubbish i hear. IF this was true then amd would of been dead along time ago.

do people just abuse AMD becuase they are the only competition to INTEL? Via has less market share / profit and no one gives them the same amount of stick.

I'm not a fan boy of either - I've owned an XP-m and then my Xeons then C2d but hearing the same retarded nonsence is :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing annoying now.

---

IMO the answer is very simple and stares us right in the face day in and day out on every forum on the web. Just have to ask yourself one question: Who gains if AMD fails; and there's 1 and only 1 answer to that question. I think the bigger question here is if this is akin to a certain other companies Focus Group campaign...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

i REALLY REALLY REAAALLLYYY wanna know WHY amd abandoned dual chip in one package research back in the k8 days. WHYYYY????

---

Perhaps the culprit is the IMC, considering how in K10 they split it into two 64bit controllers.

I think it sounds promising with Shanghai:clap: , wonder how this will do on wcg crunching?

Now let me see them 45nm 4ghz AMD's :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xlink

agreed. we could've had quad core setups on old 939 back before c2d was even out.

---

i hear ya!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Warlock

I think it sounds promising with Shanghai:clap:

---

Isn't that what we all said with Phenom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yukon Trooper

Isn't that what we all said with Phenom?

---

ehr.. no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triple_A

ehr.. no?

---

Yes it was. Everyone was stoked about Phenom ...until the reviews came out. AMD talked it up like a giant slayer and we all bought into it, because we all wanted to believe in it.

I just hope they deliver this time around. Less of this optimistic bla, bla, bla.

Not really. What I read about phenom in the press didn't quite make it sound as good as this, I think this time they're finally addressing issues that their marketing section wouldn't let them do. I'm more 'stoked up' about this announcement vs other AMD news releases : P

I think it will have an effect on the server market. The chip is supposed to be 1207 compatible with the only difference being you don't get HT3 for interchip communication. So if you've got 4P boards with Opterons for 16 cores per board, and you can go to 48 cores just by dropping in new chips, who isn't going love that? You triple the output of your server farm with 1 simple upgrade.

If the Shanghai chips clock better than barcelonas, and i'm willing to bet they do, it's going to be a no brainer for any shop that already has an investment in 1207 servers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twilyth

I think it will have an effect on the server market. The chip is supposed to be 1207 compatible with the only difference being you don't get HT3 for interchip communication. So if you've got 4P boards with Opterons for 16 cores per board, and you can go to 48 cores just by dropping in new chips, who isn't going love that? You triple the output of your server farm with 1 simple upgrade.

If the Shanghai chips clock better than barcelonas, and i'm willing to bet they do, it's going to be a no brainer for any shop that already has an investment in 1207 servers.

---

1 simple upgrade? Well, I'd guess more like 4 simple upgrades. You can't just replace one processor. :p: I'm guessing that Shanghai will improve a lot on Barcelona--it may not increase the MHz by much, but it should increase efficiency by a good bit. Many companies would rather a dense rack of slower machines in a small form factor--something that cannot be done very well with current Barcelonas. If they can match or beat Intel on performance-per-watt, they will have a sizable chunk, even if they don't have #1 performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathReborn

Perhaps the culprit is the IMC, considering how in K10 they split it into two 64bit controllers.

---

i dont think thats the problem... there are memory bandwidth limited apps, and there are cpu power limited apps. the latter is more often, and in those cases 4 cores work greeat even IF you are limited by the memory bandwidth.

now think of this, intel can keep 4 cores happy, bandwidth wise, with the ancient fsb feeding them! so how could amd not maintain the bandwidth requirements for 4 cores with an imc? thats nonsense...
an x2 is even fine with single channel memory! thats all the bw it needs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

i dont think thats the problem... there are memory bandwidth limited apps, and there are cpu power limited apps. the latter is more often, and in those cases 4 cores work greeat even IF you are limited by the memory bandwidth.

now think of this, intel can keep 4 cores happy, bandwidth wise, with the ancient fsb feeding them! so how could amd not maintain the bandwidth requirements for 4 cores with an imc? thats nonsense...
an x2 is even fine with single channel memory! thats all the bw it needs...

---

QFT!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xlink

agreed. we could've had quad core setups on old 939 back before c2d was even out.

---

hah you wish. The TDP on 90nm at that point in time was way too :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty for that... (unlike now where.. space and perf concerns aside, a 2.6Ghz 90nm K8 could be MCMd and be within an acceptable TDP)

You won't see octocore shanghai until 45nm K10 is mature enough to allow sub 65watt TDP/core..

Here is me just wanting a Phenom that is clocked higher then my 939 X2 4800+.

Today 2 cores is a high tech as software has got maybe by the time we start getting more then 6 cores we should see all software being optimized for them.

Until then i want faster performing cores, not just more of them.

Well, quad cores would be targets at enthusiasts, and the 90nm 4600 EE's TDP is only 65w, so they could've made a quad core with two of those and it's only 130w TDP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awdrifter

Well, quad cores would be targets at enthusiasts, and the 90nm 4600 EE's TDP is only 65w, so they could've made a quad core with two of those and it's only 130w TDP.

---

I agree with mAJORD on this one. What we're seeing at 90nm today wasn't the case back during the 939 days. Both AMD and Intel have always improved their processes.:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

i dont think thats the problem... there are memory bandwidth limited apps, and there are cpu power limited apps. the latter is more often, and in those cases 4 cores work greeat even IF you are limited by the memory bandwidth.

now think of this, intel can keep 4 cores happy, bandwidth wise, with the ancient fsb feeding them! so how could amd not maintain the bandwidth requirements for 4 cores with an imc? thats nonsense...
an x2 is even fine with single channel memory! thats all the bw it needs...

---

actually I believe the limit has less to do with hardware but more to do with bad programmers trying to get away with lots and lots of bad design decisions.

Heck right now I am using a Commodore 64, with a fully GUI and thus far the 8bit proc and 64kB of Ram have yet to limit my web browsing....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

Heck right now I am using a Commodore 64, with a fully GUI and thus far the 8bit proc and 64kB of Ram have yet to limit my web browsing....

---

I see you..joke...as always. :rolleyes:

More like a CLI based one with virtually nothing but simple text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathReborn

Perhaps the culprit is the IMC, considering how in K10 they split it into two 64bit controllers.

---

Someone deserves a cookie.
http://pixiestixkidspix.files.wordpr...e-bite-web.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

I see you..joke...as always. :rolleyes:

More like a CLI based one with virtually nothing but simple text.

---

actually I am not joking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contiki

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syn.

Here is me just wanting a Phenom that is clocked higher then my 939 X2 4800+.

Today 2 cores is a high tech as software has got maybe by the time we start getting more then 6 cores we should see all software being optimized for them.

Until then i want faster performing cores, not just more of them.

---

That's exactly what I want, I realize the ghz race was getting no where, but still, I'd rather be seeing some ultra fast dual cores with SMT than a native octo core as I'm 99.99% sure I won't be needing that power any time soon. I wonder what the effect of Itanium having the high core count and desktop cpus having the highest possible clocks and ipc would be on intel's profits

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AliG

[/B]
That's exactly what I want, I realize the ghz race was getting no where, but still, I'd rather be seeing some ultra fast dual cores with SMT than a native octo core as I'm 99.99% sure I won't be needing that power any time soon. I wonder what the effect of Itanium having the high core count and desktop cpus having the highest possible clocks and ipc would be on intel's profits

---

Same here, that's why my Wolfdale 8400 should be in my rig by next weekend. Having multiple computers mean I don't have multitask enough to worry about Multi-Core until at least the 2nd revision of Nehalem.

BTW, some of us never saw Barcelona/Phenom as a Conroe killer=P

lets see here...
1 socket: 12 cores.
2 sockets: 24 cores
4 sockets: 48 cores
8 sockets: 96 cores.

Whoa... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

actually I am not joking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contiki

---

:rofl: nice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mAJORD

hah you wish. The TDP on 90nm at that point in time was way too :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty for that... (unlike now where.. space and perf concerns aside, a 2.6Ghz 90nm K8 could be MCMd and be within an acceptable TDP)

You won't see octocore shanghai until 45nm K10 is mature enough to allow sub 65watt TDP/core..

---

yeh I guess you're right for a higher end part...

I mean it's not like the chip could run at 2Ghz or so and 1V

no that'd never be feasible.

no never.

there is no way that two chips running at <50W each would fit within an acceptable thermal envelope

nope no way:stick:

Who here is first in line to get some engineering samples?

Server Division - I doubt it has a huge importance for most of you guys, but hey - you need a server to run most MMORPG. ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSAlliN

Server Division - I doubt it has a huge importance for most of you guys, but hey - you need a server to run most MMORPG. ^^

---

Sure some of us will use it, especially those folks who love Crysis LOL!:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSAlliN

Server Division - I doubt it has a huge importance for most of you guys, but hey - you need a server to run most MMORPG. ^^

---

don't forget virtualization performance, which I admit only matters to a specialized part of the market but will become more and more important as the years go along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaivan

:rofl: nice

---

you didn't think that the C64 could do that? I've seen people running web servers on their Amiga 600s with 1MB of ram.

It's only Windows and Mac os that's slow (like nn more or less states so well in his sign).

Ontopic. I like the AMD server platform better than Intels because of the dimm standard is ecc-reg and not FB-dimm (power hungry) as Intel have.

I'm looking forward to build a workstation around a AMD server board with an actual AMD chipset (Never ever again a Nvidia chipet!).