Printable View
http://img182.echo.cx/img182/7162/capture0023up2tv.jpg
http://img230.echo.cx/img230/1756/sandracpu27vh.jpg
http://img230.echo.cx/img230/4291/sandracpu39ps.jpg
http://img230.echo.cx/img230/8515/sa...ibench24ht.jpg
http://img230.echo.cx/img230/8919/sa...ibench13lm.jpg
http://img230.echo.cx/img230/7317/sa...ibench26kq.jpg
update BIOS
Socket939 :banana:
any overclock result @ default voltage & Overvolt voltage? :hehe:
ATI RS480 reference board can't OC :(Quote:
Originally Posted by tictac
Why dont test it on DFI nForce4 Ultra?
Is it because the processor wont boot on nForce4 board without proper Processor Microcode Update... :(
nice! 1.3v! :slobber:
Because... This is Test in the company.. Cannot flow outQuote:
Originally Posted by tictac
smuggle it out the back door ;)
then bring the DFI in lol
i see... :fact:Quote:
Originally Posted by sxs112
anyway thanks for the info :up:
When are these due for general release?
I read somewhere that says next week Apr. 21st is the release of the opteron s940 dual core. June is the release of s939 a64 dual core, no specific date. I'm still waiting on the Venice core and this dual core is coming already. i'll probably wait till end of this year or early next year to upgrade to dual core when longhorn comes out. who's going to take the plunge and get dual core s939?
can u get a photo of it, at least a blurry pic so we can see if the cores are both in the sime die, i cant remember if the cores are separate or together in one big die :confused:
Well hed have to take the ihs off for that........
and they are in one big die, i dont think amd would work so hard and build dual core chips with two cores in one die and make them work, and then build a new dual core cpu that has two single dies...
Why is it only 512kb cache on it? wasnt it supposed to be 1 MB? or is it just not showing up on cpu-z?
Wow men you did it again where do you work? :clap:
wow, i didnt notice that... maybe its a bug? or maybe its a different chip... maybe there will be 1mb and 512kb dual core chips? :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Noldor
do you honestly think he will answer that? ;) :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ferry82
isnt it 512kb cache per core, so thats just showing one core
Is it possible for u to run SuperPi/Pifast and Sandra?
Thank for this info. :banana: :banana: :banana:
Hmm, they could at the ATI event in Dallas . . . in fact they had OC options I'd never seen before ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by sxs112
1.3V default, that is astounding - though I was under the impression that Toledo was 1MB per core, 512KB is nothing to sneeze at . . . thanks for the info bro! :up:
EDIT: posted this to the FP! :toast:
how hot do they run compared to the single cores
Thanks for the info sxs112! I'm guessing they break 100W...
Anyone know when XP 64bit will be widely available? :D
i know what i am buying...
this is great, at 2200mhz too, means that they wont be much slower then regular A64's...
plus on 939!
I'm very exited, i was a bit worried after seeing intel's DC stuff, but on 939 with dual cores and a good clock like that, looks like AMD will remain on top for at least a little while longer.
TDP is supposed to be 95W for the Opteron DC up to 2.2GHz, just FYI - I'd suspect these to be no different . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Gogeta
You're a brave soul.
benches? :slobber:
Doesnt look like it. I imagine it would complicate NDA if he gave us ANY performance numbers.Quote:
benches?
Perkam
i might be being a bit dumb but if its 2.2 with dual core then that is 2x1.1 rather than 2x2.2
what about power output.. can you tel us that?
It has 2 cores, each @ 2.2Ghzs and maybe 2x 512Kb L2 cache. I think the only shared thing is the memory controller, but not sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by shuRe
I know it's impossible for u, but it would be very nice to see it under Phase Change =)=)
Then what was the sample shown by the Italian site, which was 939 2.4GHz 1MB L2 for EACH core?Quote:
Originally Posted by sxs112
Are there going to be 2 sorts of Toledo parts?
http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/1193/1.html
"On board sono integrate due cache L2 distinte, ciascuna in quantitativo pari a 1 Mbyte."
Roughly: On board is integrated two DISTINCT L2 caches, EACH equal to 1MB in size.
My first inclination is that the Toledo chips are 512MB L2/core, and the Opteron DC (codename?) are 1MB L2/core, which would make sense considering a server/workstation environment makes excellent use of L2 . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
where can i buy 1 from ?
:D
No, no. The Italian site was previewing a 2.4GHz socket 939 DC A64 part (so they claimed), not a DC Opteron part. Of course, like the current FX, and San Diego parts, there is little except the 939/940 packaging to distinguish 1xx Opteron from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by matt9669
Perhaps AMD will have both parts? DC A64 2 x 512K L2, and DC A64 2 x 1MB L2... who knows, maybe they'll change their mind and brand the latter a DC A64 FX.
Hmm, Opteron DC's are only slated to 2.2GHz initially - but you're right, perhaps we will see an FX-style incarnation at 1MB/core . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
AMD has said the FX line will continue to be single core, so they would have to give it a new name it seems like . . .
Yeah, AMD did say that... but was that before or after Intel revealed the Smithfield EE brand?Quote:
Originally Posted by matt9669
That might change their mind.
This is all correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by [_Silence_]
True, but as far as the latest info goes, the dual core 939 CPU will get a new brand name, just like Intel goes Pentium D for their desktop dual core part.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
Hmm even the 512Kb Cache? Thought that the first Dual Cores were all 1Mb Cache each CPU, or is it only San Diego's?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pjotr
The Opteron dual cores are called Egypt, Italy and Denmark (8, 2, 1 series) and have 1 MB L2 per core. The Toledo (dual core A64 new brand name) is 512 kB per core.Quote:
Originally Posted by [_Silence_]
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...18_608,00.html
Thanks Pjotr, I know I had seen the roadmap and the codenames for the Opterons but I was too lazy to go look it up :lol2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pjotr
i know its a bit crazy wanting more than 4.4ghz combined, but does anyone have any idea on how these might overclock with the two cores? would they overclock simultaneously or seperatly, would they need real good air cooling to get responable temps?
I was looking at the opteron stepping comparison charts yesterday on AMD and noticed the E4 revision 200 series were approacing 90W+, so I assumed 2 cores would most likely exceed 100.Quote:
Originally Posted by matt9669
Anyways, good to know AMD has done dual core right. :)
Why must we be incessantly teased by these new and unreleased products.
The cores cannot be clocked separately, and while the cooling requirements won't be drastically higher than single core (according to AMD) I would suggest very good air cooling :cool:
This behind the scenes info bothers you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthogonal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pjotr
I had a totally wrong ideia :S Thks =)
nice!!!!!!! looking forward to seeing the new OC's from this hardware:D
A P4 660 :p: You like your P4's dont you Ibby ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ibby
it would be a pretty good guess to say that these oc simultaniously because the share a memory controller, and being a new core design(1.3v @ 2.2ghz ;) ), they probably oc pretty well as long as your cooling can take the wattage these babies will put out, as for if you need good air to get reasonable temps.. AMD would say so, but they have a different definition of reasonable temps! so who know..Quote:
Originally Posted by shuRe
I'd think these should overclock not much worse than single cores as long as temps don't become a problem. And it dosn't look like they'd be much hotter, putting out only 95w compared to an venice or so, which as stated, is close to 100w as well. Hell.. maybe it's possible they'd even overclock better. I really doubt that but they do run alot cooler (comparably).
Why would you think this? There are obviously more transistors, so that means there are more possible points of failure. As long as the chips are manufactured with the same process single cores on avg will always clock higher than dual cores, IMO. However, if running only single threaded benchmarks, you might see similar clocks since the other half of the transistors won't be touched.Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptobs2000
Just when I finally decided to buy a San Diego when they become available, this pops up. Guess I'll get a Venice 3200+ and save my money for the Dual cores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Mag
Cause a single one of these (afaik you can't really have a 'single' one since they are on the same die but yunno what I mean) should be better than a single venice/san diego. So... just speculation.. dind't mean to sound like gf4ti :p:
And the new name for the Athlon 64 dual core CPU is:
Athlon 64 X2
I have to agree. And what a simple, yet genious name! :slobber:Quote:
Hexus.net can exclusively reveal that the CPU is to be named the AMD Athlon 64 X2. It will be available at least in the following models:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
The flagship AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ will have both its cores operating at 2.4GHz, the same frequency as the AMD Athlon 64 4000+, and we'll be surprised if this doesn't rape the already impressive Pentium Extreme Edition 840 we reviewed here.
I don't like the pr values at all. how does a dual core 2.4ghz get to 4800+? That makes no sense. It should simply be called a X2 4000+ or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptobs2000
I don't think it matters.
X2 is cool, though.
Where do you get the 512KB per core from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pjotr
And in that case, WHAT was tested here, at 2.4GHz, 2 x 1MB L2, socket 939 ???
http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/1193/1.html
Well to me a 4800+ at 2.4 x2 would be welcome. The current PR names are simply for comparison with Intel chips and have no relation to actual processor speed. As Intel entered the realm of useless designations, AMD can return to designations resembling the real speed, although you have to divide by 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptobs2000
for the people discussing the temps here, remember that although the watts given out will increase so has the size of the die, we'll have to wait and see how hot they run, and also depending on the program your running will be rare that both cores are at 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairydust
I just realized 4800+/2 = 2400mhz lol. I see where they get it now. I was thinking they were trying to compare it to a 4800mhz p4 or something. Which it would probably beat anyways :p:
i think it may actually be in comparision to an a64 chips for once.. the fact that it's 4800+ for a 2400mhz chip is awfully suspicious ;)
I never even put that simple observation together but that makes total and perfect sense. :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzimark
According to the roadmap, it would seem that the A64-FX will be using the Toledo core as well...
Though I do know what I want this year...2x 246 X2 Italy cores... :slobber:
You ought to look at the roadmap again. There is no connection between the A64 FX and "Toledo."Quote:
Originally Posted by BleakVoid
the line between the a64 and toledo doesn't connect :confused:
edit: snap, i was beat!
How about a picture of the chip itself?
If it was dual core, windows should've recognized it as two processors, thus CPU-z should've shown more than just one CPU.
Also the 20FB1 is also weird. On 130nm, FB* CPUID would represent an s939 256KB L2 part, the Paris (physical 256KB L2). But this one has a strange BrandID, regular desktop A64s have BrandID of 4, this one has 5, it also has 512KB of L2 instead of 256KB.
Its odd. we'll have to just wait and see what that chip is.
the pr rating may also give and idea of cost next to the curent single cores. the pr ratings are all high so expects costs to be higher than the top of the range single cores
Nice!
Ok, with this update everything makes more sense.
I'm just not sure its a Toledo. There are two types of s939 Dual Core chips, one with 1MB of L2 and the other (this one) with 512KB. One of them is Toledo, the other one is something else, I wonder which is which.
Any chance we could see a pic of the CPU itself, or at least the OPN code and stepping?
I would like to see a SUPERPI test, if that is possible..
http://img24.echo.cx/img24/7958/dualcore11xg.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by furyfax
Is the MP locked ?
This TEST is with old BIOSQuote:
Originally Posted by furyfax
i guess the p-rating points toward what we can expect, when multithreading is supported in comparison with a singlecore.
only my speculation.
greetings
Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptobs2000
I thought AMD was just continuing from the 4200+ since dual cores are "better" they continue from where single cores left off? anyware I hope they are nott too expersive :p:
What is the rating from this cpu? :stick:
A: 4400+
B: 4600+
C: 4800+
My guess....A
don't ask me why I answer this....
By the way... It is really cool while working... roadnews....XD
It's alleady widely available if you know where to look or have a MSDN subscriber ID :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gogeta
not sure if it's been posted anywhere else, but...
http://h71016.www7.hp.com/dstore/Mid...glesmb/servers
Quote:
Processor
Infomation Learn more
(2) AMD® 875 Opteron™ 2.2GHz, Dual Core Processors
edit: it was taken down :(
4800+ runs @ 2,4; so 2,2 = 4600+Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferry82
This is what I believe:
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ = 2x 2200mhz with512kb L2
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ = 2x 2200mhz with 1024kb L2
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ = 2x 2400mhz with 512kb L2
"Athlon 64 X2 5000+" = 2x 2400mhz with1024kb L2 and so on...
Actually it'll be X2 44, X2 46, X2 48, etc. Like the FX, no 00+
Maybe, or Toledo is 512kb only (and 1MB for the Opteron)Quote:
Originally Posted by furyfax
So we have 2 options here:
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ = 2x 2200mhz with 512kb L2
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ = 2x 2200mhz with 1024kb L2
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ = 2x 2400mhz with 512kb L2
(like the Sempron)
or
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ = 2x 2000mhz with 512kb L2
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ = 2x 2200mhz with 512kb L2
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ = 2x 2400mhz with 512kb L2
according to this roadmap that came out today
http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/
they have 1mb L2 per core
the 4400+ is 2ghz
the 4600+ is 2.2ghz
and the 4800+ is 2.4ghz
If the 4400+ is priced vs the pentium D at 2.8ghz @ $240 then they should be around $200 (i think) which is a really good deal considering two 3200+ venice cores would cost around $380 :banana: .
:D
According to this news dual core A64 could take advantage of Hyper Threading: http://www.x86-secret.com/index.php?...=newsd&nid=871
And for those of us who don't speak french, here's a babelfish translation:
By attentively studying the behavior of Athlon 64 Dual Core, we realized of a very interesting characteristic relating to HyperThreading. Indeed, if the architecture even of K8 cannot support the technology of INTEL, it seems indeed that registers CPUID of the processor are not of this opinion. If one studies moreover meadows the response to instruction CPUID with EAX = 1, one obtains the following values:
Athlon 64 Simple Core - CPUID (EAX = 1)
Hex (EDX) : 0x078bfbff
Bin (EDX) : 0b00000111100010111111101111111111
Hex (EBX) : 0x00000800
Athlon 64 Dual Core - CPUID (EAX = 1)
Hex (EDX) : 0x178bfbff
Bin (EDX) : 0b00010111100010111111101111111111
Hex (EBX) : 0x00020800
The bit 28 which is emphasized here in register EDX corresponds to the support of Hyper Threading. However, it is seen clearly that this bit is now positioned to 1 whereas it was to 0 for Athlon 64 Individual Core traditional. In the same way, the bits [ 23:16 ] of register EBX, which indicate the number of CPU logical supported on CPUs INTEL with Hyperthreading, are also to "2" in the case of Athlon 64 Dual Core. It seems thus that AMD chose to activate the bit "HyperThreading" on these CPUs Athlon 64 Desktop in order to profit from optimizations already misent in place per many programmers for HyperThreading of INTEL. This will thus make it possible Athlon 64 Dual Core to also benefit from work already carried out. At present, we do not know yet if them Opterons Dual Core will also have this active bit.
EDIT: LOL! OK, I see now that the translation was not neccesary! :clap:
Yep, I've known about this feature for a couple of weeks now, its a real smart move by AMD, to make programs that support Intel's HT to also support multi core CPUs without any updates to the program itself, so the user benefits from having a dual core CPU, and the programmer of the said program doesn't have to rush to get a version that actually supports multi-core CPUs out to make it compatible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowRun
Interesting. Makes sense. So folks don't get confused, this would mean that a DC A64 can run two threads at once, even if the second thread is set up via HT technology.
(Not that a DC A64 could run 4 threads at once.)
The apparent existance of both 2x512Kb and 2x1Mb cache Toledos really threw a monkey wrench into the clear Roadmap we thought we had.
Your roadmaps have often been too wildly optimistic in terms of AMD speedgrade introductions, but it looks like you are getting back towards reality with this latest one, although FX-61 in Q106 seems highly unlikely, if it ever arrives at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by c627627
Can we see a pic of the chip itself to see if it looks any different than a regular A64? U can blur out the steppings and all, I just want to see if the IHS looks any different (not sure y it would).
ZDA4400DAA5BV......a message comes from no where?....
ADBHE XXXXXXXX
PS:botton line: 1.30V
another roadnews...m....
One dualcore is based on Venice (2x512).
The other dualcore is based on San Diego (2x1024).
Cant wait for laptops with dualcore to start showing up.....
hmm im wondering how these will do in graphic benchmarks they seem very powerfull and i love how low the voltage is cant wait to see more info on them :)
Believe it or not, that roadmap is not based on emotion.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
Here's the thought process on the particular point you raised so a counter argument could be offered:
Since it appeared that we would see a 3 GHz 90nm single-core Opteron in Q1 2006, it was safe to assume that we would see a 3 GHz Athlon 64 FX and by extension 3.2 GHz Athlon 64 FX.
Ed Stroligo of overclockers.com seemed to think so and he's got a pretty good conservative track record.
His views from a couple of weeks ago mentioning this very argument are here: "Here Comes 3"
.
.
http://img215.echo.cx/img215/4972/pic14ly.jpg
New BIOS
Athlon64 X2 Dual Core Processor 2200+(4400+)
gwan sxs112 if you can post all these screenies of the toledo then you can do a little bit of overclocking on stock cooler. plz :)