Printable View
Directly from AMD themselves, and Groo over at the Inq:
1) Native quad core design
2) Shared expandable L3 cache
3) Doubling of SSE/FP capabilities and extra instructions
4) More aggressive prefetch
5) RAS improvements
Some other stuff aswell!
Looks like AMD has no intention of surrendering the performance crown for any length of time :)
prefetch is no 32B instead of 16B (the inquirer) so they doubled it
i would like to know the impact of that thing
shared L3 is very nice also
and doubling SSE/FP capabilities just had to be done to at least match intel a bit
nice work AMD
I think AMD will have the advantage in a quad core design over Intel due to a superior platform and infrastructure.
The K8L will be battling the quad core version of Conroe (Penryn), which will most definitely have some architectural improvements, and could possibly be on 45nm by that time aswell.
A bit late IMO.... K8L isn't set out to be due til late 07. Doubt intel will sit still until late 07...
Good to see some news though but not from a site that i'd trust.
is k8l late 07???
i thought is was begin/mid 07 to counter kentsfield
65nm in november 2006, and K8L late 2007? Doesn't make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by n91htmare
I think K8L will apear 1Q 2007 as been scheduled to apear for a long time.
I thought the 65nm wasn't going to hit market till early 07 and then the new K8L architecture late 07... Only thing we're expecting from AMD this year is AM2 and AM2 90nm processors..... Though i'm prolly wrong
Desktop Quadcores are not coming until 1H 2008.
Nothing to get excited about for me until AMD decide to bring out more desktop goodness.
unless they are getting some #sswhopping from intel maybe
Quote:
Originally Posted by vitaminc
2008 ?
if its truth that is a slow response from amd, disappoint.
AMD's first quadcore processor for desktops will be in 2008.Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleZero
Quadcore Roadmap:
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php?tid=593736
yes of course, its a proven scientific fact... youre like the opposite of nn_step... nobody knows when k8l is coming out, and we wont at least until the end of 2006.
Bad. Okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by cky2k6
Let's try to keep it VERY clean in here guys :)
2008 may be too late.
Intel's next microarchitecture Nehalem is scheduled for 2008; and native quad cores at 45nm for 2007.
However, mid-2007 K8L will shake Intel up a bit, provided they work as promised...
mid 2007 is a much more believable figure than 2008. i saw the website that posted 2008, and their roadmap was fud, they even forgot to list some present core name. amd might be behind intel in production capabilities somewhat, but theyre not that futile. 2008 would be suicide if they want to actually stay around in the desktop market, so that site seems nothing more than some intel propoganda. please dont sound so assured as if you know something we all dont, vitaminc, as it is misleading...
I don't know if the website I sited is misleading or not, but they do have pretty good track record of getting new informations, as DailyTech and Inquirer both refer to it several times.
Some cores might be missing, yes. But that roadmap is for Quadcores only. I don't know any other quadcore projects other than those.
And mind you, the first quadcore Deerhound server MP processor is due in 2H07 according to the HKEPC published roadmap. That's the same as AMD's official roadmap AFAIK.
The first quadcore DESKTOP processor in 2008 doesn't sound that bad at all.
I wouldn't call HKEPC Intel's propoganda as they are the first to publish AMD's AM2 offerings, Turion X2 offerings, Quadcore roadmaps, and now 65nm AM2 roadmaps.
"AMD desktop quad core in 2008" and server quad core 2007. Intel will also come out with server quad core during 2007.
The market for consumers getting quad core is much smaller than consumers wanting dual core. Dual core gives faster multitasking, quad core will only give benefit for applications that are multithreaded, for multitasking you won't notice anything over dual core.
Perhaps games and a lot more apps will be multithreaded by 2008.
Actually they really couldn't do much about it, they are contract limited with Intel to not outsource more than 25% of thier total fab capacity. AFAIK Chartered is also only producing Semprons and such....
I'd agree about the die size on .65, unless AMD has done something to really cut down on logic or SRAM size this thing will be hot and huge, performance should be good though barring any major screwups of course...
If it works on AM2 THAT will be nice, though being quad core I doubt it. According to Inq sched. release date in 2007 Q3 which seems optimistic unless they've really been working on it for a long time, when were thier other projects cancelled again, mid-2005? I dunno, seems too soon for such a major revision to able to ship if they've only been working since that time.
I know other road maps have said desktop quad core in 2008 only, that may be true but remember, those release times aren't set in stone. They can be pushed back or pulled up, generally the former rather than the latter though... The difference is only a handful of months off from what thier old dates were too, I think its unlikely but Q3 2007 may be possible.
Things get interesting if you start thinking about what they'll be able to do with that HTX slot support for every CPU. Think something like an Ageia PPU but more general purpose so it can help with Folding/SETI or video encoding or rendering, with low latency access to the CPU and main memory sustainable performance could be huge, ie. Cell-ish performance for certain work loads.
I wouldn't dismiss the power of change that software can under-go in a short timespan. Look at games, no, the actual software hasn't changed, but the drivers have been made to make use of the unused core and speed things up that way. That's only in the VERY short term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pjotr
In another year or so, most games made will actually be multithreaded and most multimedia applications already are. Pretty much anything that will be CPU intensive will be multithreaded.
Another thing to think about is that a lot of what we do now, stresses one core. The multitasking ability comes from that second core still being free to do stuff and not slow down the original task. In the near-future, things we'll be doing will take up more than one core's CPU-time. Yes, they'll be able to back down to 1, but that'll slow it down. ;) So by then we'll have the tech to have four cores and have them only back down to 3, barely slowing them down.
Also, the dual core 'scene' wasn't great even 3 months after AMD brought them to shelves. People were still pessimistic about them. Now it's rare for a recommendation to not include a dual core proc (and it's only ~7-8 months later).
The age of multitasking and multithreading is still young....I wouldn't be doubtful if by 2k7 we'd be asking for even more cores.
K8L as an architecture looks great...it really does. These aren't things that are getting patched, these are raw improvements, VERY much akin to Yonah -> Conroe/Merom. It'll be interesting to see what AMD might be able to do in the meantime. I do not think they'll be able to match Conroe/Merom in 2006, but if they bring something to market that can at least fill a niche that Conroe/Merom can't fill, they'll still be okay and not lose a huge portion of marketshare or consumer confidence.
Yea, right now multi-threading is still being worked into most programs so releasing quad core on desktop would be silly for most people, but in late 2007 it'll make alot of sense I bet.
I think on the desktop market they're screwed til' K8L comes out, so about a year of financial/market share reaming without lube barring any mis-steps in thier product or processes, in which case it'll be even worse...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
Server market they've got a toe hold though, and for quad and up machines I think they'll still sell well so I don't think that they'll be in as dire financial straits as they were back when it was Thoroughbred vs. 2.4C Northwood but they are gonna be hurting.
Only way I can see them compete is on price in the desktop market, and that hurts AMD more than it hurt Intel, it'll be nice having some good* cheap dual core options available.
*I ain't saying that those PD 805's are bad mind you, just that even at around 3.8-4Ghz even a X2 3800+ still holds up pretty well against them. If AMD gets thier dual core prices to somewhere around there and they OC as well as they currently do it'll be well worth it to go AM2 (though not at launch though, price hikes.... :stick: ).
Here's a more comprehensive list of all the improvements, quoted from David Kanter who was kind enough to list all the improvements so my lazy self wouldn't have to :)
The only problem AMD may have is with the cache. If AMD doesn't extensively rework the cache of the K8L, then they'll run into bandwidth problems because the execution units won't be optimally fed.Quote:
0. Native quad core
1. Hypertransport up to 5.2GT/s
2. Better coherency
3. Private L2, shared L3 cache that scales up.
4. Separate power planes and pstates for north bridge and CPU
5. 128b FPUs - see 14,15
6. 48b virtual/physical addressing and 1GB pages
7. Support for DDR2, eventually DDR3
8. Support for FBD1 and 2 eventually
9. I/O virtualization and nested page tables
10. Memory mirroring, data poisoning, HT retry protocol support
11. 32B instead of 16B ifetch
12. Indirect branch predictors
13. OOO load execution - similar to memory disambiguation
14. 2x 128b SSE units
15. 2x 128b SSE LDs/cycle
16. Several new instructions
Coprocessors:
media processing
JVM/CLR acceleration
TOE, XML or SSL processing
Thats one area where Intel has always excelled. They definitely know how to make an impressive cache!
Intel will own the rest of 2006 to mid 2007 it seems with Conroe and Merom.
AMD has a good chance of taking back the performance from with the K8L, but Intel won't be sitting idly either.
I'm sure that they plan to introduce 45nm parts next year.. Penryn will be on 45nm, and will certainly hit 4ghz (for the desktop model), along with other architectural improvements.
The computing world will be VERY interesting through to 2007 guys :cool:
QFT. Server markets have much longer product life cycle compare to desktops (just think how much CPU have you burn thru in the past year OC'ing).Quote:
Originally Posted by mesyn191
But the most advantage I see from AMD is HT.
Memory controller is a design choice. And All other nifty features AMD has in K8L are probably going to appear in Intel's real quadcores. And vice versa. (Intel has first to market shared cache architecture over AMD, mind you)
The sustainable differentiater is HT.
I am really expecting a huge price cut from AMD because AM2 processors at their current price point isnt attractive for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by mesyn191
I sold my Athlon XP 1800+ for $50 bux on ebay. My A7V333 mobo for $60 bux on ebay. What can I say? AMD shizzles are overpriced at the moment.
I think he missed the independent core voltage/multiplier turn down for power savings. That's important imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
Overpriced? Eh, I dunno, they've got the performance lead @ stock ATM as Conroe aint' out yet so they've got some justification for it.
Expensive? Hell yea, they are definitely that ATM.
BTW, carfax ty for posting the list of stuff.
Coprocessors:
media processing
wow I wonder what it will be used for. Sounds great though for all of us working with media, perhaps a new hardware accelerated encoding? I´d like to know what is that about.
wouldn't be too excited until the softwares are supporting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by npk
same thing with dual/quad cores, physics cards, etc.
unless they can make my wc3:tft/wow and excel extremely fast.
That depends....Quote:
Originally Posted by vitaminc
Remember all that info. about "reverse-hyperthreading" a while back? What if they do that with the co-processor so that its invisible to the OS (or at least requires OS support to be visible) and the CPU is the only thing that is "seen". Performance would depend heavily on whatever hardware AMD is using to do the "reverse-hyperthreading" and chip to chip bandwidth (good thing HT 3.0 does 40GB/s eh?) but getting crazy amounts of FP performance with no need to recompile or patch current software would be huge...
Well if we K8L is the K8(Rev.G) that always been associated with Deerhound(quad core due 2h 2007), then can Brisbane, also always been associated as K8(Rev.G) be K8L also?
Brisbane is due 1Q 2007, same date apointed for some time now as the launch of the K8L.
So will we have all the improvements of the K8L in a Dual Core format?
I really don't think it's bad Amd Quadcores only coming late 2007, i think it's bad K8L only coming late 2007.
Agreed, dual core is even still pretty new, quad core 2008 makes sense. I really hope we get K8L early 07 though
Personally I´m not too worried about quadcore software support as I work 9 to 5 doing 3d archviz, and the programs I´m using already supports multicore hardware, I was just curious about that media processing stuff .Quote:
Originally Posted by vitaminc
i too would like to know if all the 'reverse-hyperthreading' hype was more than just hype
also, what will vista do for dual/multi-core? any help? cause even though multiple cores perform better than single, it hurts to know so much of your money invested in the multiple cores is going to waste
All the comments that I saw about "reverse-hyper threading" were that it was still under development and would probably be in K10, but we can hope can't we?Quote:
Originally Posted by VulgarHandle
Vista will probably just hog one of those cores all for itself... No way in hell am I gonna run that DRM infested, buggy, resource hogging, POS.
You forgot DDR3 :rolleyes:
I agree but im buying a conroe initially.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
Some new info.
K8L die size may be only around 150mm on .65, thats amazing for a quad core chip... Who knows? Maybe the heat won't be so bad either.
http://www.chip-architect.com/news/Quad_vs_Dual_.jpg
If this is correct they won't be fab limited and they should have plenty of availibility too.
Sounds like they are going the Torrent of Threads path but they are taking it slowly :DQuote:
Originally Posted by mesyn191
Yeah, Dresden rulez!
I heard K8L will coming Q4 2006 and with DDR3 support.
I think you should consider which market AMD is aiming for with K8L, an awesome architecture means nothing to the average user if it's aimed at big iron. I don't even know if AM2 will accept quadcores, but I do know that Socket F isn't very far away and nor is it aimed at the desktop sector, at least at the begging.
AMD might not have a direct desktop answer to Conroe until Q2, but users willing to pay FX/EE series money should have a choice.
Let's just hope that software companies start making use of these extra cores within the next year! It sucks having multi-core processors (4 or more anyhow) and not utilizing them to their full potential.
K8L will be out in 2nd half of '07 for servers. So I've been told.
Greyhound (quadcore desktop, 1H08) is likely to use AM3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconyu
Socket F will be for servers only.
The new sockets are implemented so AMD's products can have clear characterization. F for server, S for mobile and M for desktop. Before this socket reorganization, socket and CPU pin counts are very ambigious.
Clear Characterization?... seems to me they had a lil too much bud... would be better ifQuote:
Originally Posted by vitaminc
S = server
M= mobile
F = Desktop
But whatever.
You didn't seem to catchQuote:
Originally Posted by n91htmare
S=Small form factor
M=Mainstream
F=For Industrial applications
It's helluva better than using the same socket 754 for turion and semprons, or using the same socket 939 for athlons and opterons. buying a desktop mobo and server cpu for a cheapo server implementation with :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:ty throughputs isn't the exact idea amd wants to honor. neither does buying a desktop mobo and mobile cpu for low power shizzles, which would directly erode energy efficient athlons sales.Quote:
Originally Posted by n91htmare
Ive got the newest bulid and its far from a resource hog. Infact, its shaping up quite nicely.Quote:
Originally Posted by mesyn191
The inq says
AMD's first-hand response was the briefing on the impressive K8L architecture, which our own Charlie has thoroughly dissected over the past couple of months. The DDR-II 400/533/667/800 supporting, 1207-golden dot processor is scheduled to debut in the coming weeks.
http://the-inquirer.net/?article=31787
this is good news so it seems, K8L to debut in july
This isnt K8L. It is 90nm chip based on revision F. K8L is revision G. K8L as QC chip will debut in the end of 1H07. DC chip with this revision maybe sooner as new FX line? Acording to roadmap, first bunch of 65nm chips will be more probably just die shrink of todays AMD64 cpus, for AM2. Of course, i hope they will release it asap. Core 2 will be very strong competitor in all sectors...Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
You ever wonder if AMD is sandbagging a release?
sandbagging??Quote:
Originally Posted by slavearm
english is not my native language but i think you mean, paper launch? more important than it is??:confused:
a picture is worth how many words ?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...1/brisbane.jpg
1M Total L2 cache for Windsor?
1 meg per core
you'd hope so, but it's not specific. for the current chips they give per core numbers, but aren't specific for windsor or the other next gen parts.
AMD chips are not cache cows.Quote:
Originally Posted by onewingedangel
Quit getting hung up on comparisons to Conroe, just because 4MB+ is worthwhile for that chip doesn't mean that is also true for what AMD is putting out.
They have totally different cache structures (ie. exclusive vs. inclusive, large L1's vs. mod.-small L1's, differing amounts of bandwidth and latency between L1's and L2's, etc.), and so a direct comparison is difficult if not impossible to make.
FWIW past 512KB L2 performance gains are minimal for AMD chips which makes sense since cache eats up die space so AMD would do everything possible to optimize thier CPU so that is less reliant on cache, Intel on the other hand has more fab space than they know what to do with so it makes lots of sense for them to put tons of cache on thier chips.
Q3-06 to H1-08 isn't a length of time? According to AMD their focus for 2007 is to get 65nm production ramping, add power saving, SOI process improvements and security features to the existing K8 (Brisbane, Sparta) and launch K8L Opterons in late 2007 and K8L Athlons in H1-08.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
Hey, I can make those too! The problem with 3rd party roadmaps is that they're made by 3rd parties. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ghost
AMD's L2 cache is so slow in comparison to Intel's L2 that AMD can't afford to make it any larger (and subsequently slower). Now if AMD could produce a fast, efficient L2 cache like Intel's, they would most likely benefit from larger cache sizes as Intel does.Quote:
Originally Posted by mesyn191
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ghost
I am sorry, but where is the source of this?
What are you talking about? Latency-wise they're almost dead even:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2748&p=2
Any bandwidth differences between the 2 is because AMD uses a 128 bit bus vs. Intel's 256 bit bus, that has nothing to do with L2 "speed".
AMD is fab space limited, not process limited, this affects all thier arch. decisions first and fore most.
2way vs 8 way anyone??
then do your self a favor and do a search on amd bribaneQuote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
like maybe one like this
http://www.mikeshardware.co.uk/Roadm...AMD%20Brisbane
how many more would you want john ?? :stick:
What makes you think they can't do this and ramp .65 at the same time? They've intro'd core refresh on a new process before you know, as has Intel...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
From a process standpoint fabbing the current K8 rev. and K8L would be just as hard barring yield issues due to die size.
and this would be the reason why amd is going to use z-ram on it's L3 cache because it's L2 is so slow ?? amd does not need a large cache because it's memory controller is so efficient :slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
the person asked me not to give his site as the source , but from all that i have read it is legitQuote:
Originally Posted by vitaminc
I meant "slow" as in unable to provide nearly as much bandwidth to the cores when they need it, making the cores wait, hence "slow". Yes, AMD's L2 cache has similar latency to Intel's L2 but with substantially less bandwidth, woefully inferior prefetching and a much greater cache miss rate. Then there is also the issue of Core 2's far superior shared L2 cache vs AMD's exclusive L2 cache. What I'm saying is that the reason larger L2 caches don't benefit K8 very much is because as the cache size is increased, latency goes up but bandwidth doesn't. This means that K8 won't benefit from a larger L2 cache because the bandwidth to make use of it isn't there.Quote:
Originally Posted by mesyn191
The bottom line is that if AMD's L2 cache was as wide and efficient as Intel's, there would be an immediate benefit from increasing the L2 cache size above 1MB per core. Obviously, accessing a fast L2 cache is far better than going to main memory even with an ODMC and a 10-15% latency advantage over Intel's NBMC.
I've seen the same Brisbane = K8L rumor parrotted at several different places. That doesn't make it any less fictional.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ghost
BTW, who is John?
And if Intel made everything else work as fast as Amd does, maybe they won't needed dumb amounts of L2 cache, resulting in new generation cpu's that once the cache is trashed, have wrost performance that old generation cpu's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
Lukely for Intel, in desktop that isn't really a issue, i think.
And another one:
http://www.matbe.com/actualites/1317...dmap-quadcore/
Brisbane and Deerhound both have rev.g (K8L)
It all points to Amd dual cores at 65nm powered by K8L, by december, January.
It's not what I think they can or can't do. It's simply a matter of trusting what AMD says they're going to do more than what certain rumormill sources speculate they're going to do. If I've learned anything over the years it's that rumormill speculation has never proven to be more accurate than official AMD roadmaps and statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by mesyn191
anyone here wanna help me make a 10% share buy of AMD so i can get all the answers?
WTF are you babbling about? Core 2 Duo is at least 20% faster than X2 at the same clock speeds, regardless of cache size. AMD's ODMC gives them only a 10-15% latency advantage in main memory accesses and that is still a lot slower than accessing L2 cache. Get a clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleZero
There is a lot of speculation out there. Did you see the story by The Inq back in March claiming that AMD was going to announce that 65nm AM2 cpus would be available in June 2006?
sorry about calling you john , that was one of your buddies over at the ZoneQuote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
try doing your own google search on amd brisbane K8L
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...d+brisbane+k8l
LOL! So a 10-15% latency advantage in main memory accesses from their ODMC makes cache irrelevant?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ghost
The reason AMD is adding L3 cache is because, although slower than L2 cache, it is still a lot faster than main memory. If AMD could produce better L2 cache they wouldn't need to add the extra latency of an L3 cache. If and when AMD can produce an efficient, shared L2 cache, they'll drop the L3 in a heartbeat.
I have tried that and found a few hits all based on the original rumor and that 3rd party roadmap you posted. Try googling for 'Brisbane' without 'K8L' or 'K8L' without 'Brisbane' and see how many references you find to Brisbane being K8L. Try checking AMD's official roadmaps while you're at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ghost
I'm sorry if it upsets you to hear this but Brisbane being K8L is nothing more than another speculative rumor designed to encourage people to buy AM2 now with the hope of upgrading to Brisbane in Q1-07 instead of buying Conroe in Q4-06 when it's mopping the floor with AM2.
The bandwidth difference has nothing to do with the L2 cache itself, the bus on the K8 is 128 bit vs. Intels 256 bit bus. That is all there is to it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
I'm sorry but you're gonna have to post links backing this up that is true vs. what AMD has right now (ie. P4...). Everything I've heard suggests thier prefetching is pretty good as is thier BPU. As good as Conroe's? Probably not, but then its a new arch. so what do you expect? Conroe still aint' out yet, and vs. Netburst what the K8 has had so far has worked pretty damn good, don't you think? So I think calling it "woefully inferior" is making mountains out of mole hills.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
Supieror how? For mult. threaded apps sure, a shared cache is better than 2 split L2's but for everything else there is nothing inheritly better about Conroe's cache scheme. Inclusive vs. exclusive is all about saving die space vs. design simplicity BTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
I'm sorry but this is totally wrong, or at the very least highly speculative that all code will be limited by L2 bandwidth. Most code is dependant on latency instead of bandwidth as it is highly random in nature...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
I would disagree, AMD's problem with the K8 currently is with the decoders, not L2 bandwidth. Whats the point of having a high bandwidth L2 if the core can't make use of it since its waiting for instructions to be decoded most of the time right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
Now with K8L that will change, the effectively single cycle SSE2 FPU that it'll have WILL require lots of L2 bandwidth to make proper use of, and in that instance AMD might indeed be limited by thier L2 in situations that stream lots of SSE2 FP code. Right now though the L2 is fine, only thing they'd have to do is modify thier ODMC and supporting hardware in the CPU to support a shared L2 (or as in K8L's case, a shared L3) and it'd be on par with what Conroe has to offer as far as the mem. subsystem goes.
how do you know fred , that it is 20% faster ? did your employer let you play with them ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
and doesn't need 65nm to compete with intel , most people have figured that out already , just wait for the release next week
you see that is the difference , we don't have one to test , and what you are comparing isn't the cpu that is going against the mighty powerful conroe by the time conroe gets out in force next year , the bribane will be there waiting on it ,, what % is the conroe suppose to be of all the cpu's that intel is putting out ? 20% ?? personally , i don't see conroe being a factor , you have to make enough cpu's to make worth while , why do you think that intel is putting the woodcrest out first ? because they know that there is no market for them to start with
when a company starts selling off things like their flash and communications units , we know that they are in more trouble that they are letting out , i had a laugh when some one suggested that intel was going to buy out ATI
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05...ndit_forecast/
If it was some Joe Sixpack posting crap that he heard from a friend of a friend than yea I'd doubt it too. Info. about the release date of the CPU came from David Kanter at RWT, and he got it direct from the mouth of AMD's Moore et al himself. The Inq. posted some info. that was from the same source as David's too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
I wouldn't be at all suprised if there were still some changes in this sched. as I think its very optimistic, and have already said so before but I don't think its flat out made up.
Regardless of cache size? That's a joke right? Well if it isn't it made laugh anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
Where's the link to that? At least we speculate with links.Quote:
There is a lot of speculation out there. Did you see the story by The Inq back in March claiming that AMD was going to announce that 65nm AM2 cpus would be available in June 2006?
I've found this:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29682
And i see revision F in there, and revision F it always been stated as 90nm, so i really don't know what YOU are babbling about.
and you see , i see conroe as being specualated about being able to come out on timeQuote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
the problem is your bosses have you blinded , the K8L dual core is going to be the 65nm am2 cpu , this is no rumor
You're the one that looks upset with the possibility of brisbane being K8L, but hey you where the first guy i've seen in a tech forum, inciting people to buy shares from a company and sell from the other company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
we will see who eats crow , i just don't understand why you like to hang out in amd type forums , personally , i don't think that they are paying you enough to have to go thru what you are going thru , trying to stand up for a company that is failing bad , so bad that instead of going up in the stock market , it has a hard time getting back up to $19Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
funny how a old amd cpu can do as good as it does against a brand new conroe
amd's problem was getting enough bandwidth to be able to funny use a full meg cache per core , even at .5meg keeps up with a amd core , that is changing , and it is not a rumor like you think it is
Hmm, how much do you think prices will start out at?
It'll probably be server only first, so expect to pay alot at launch if that is so.
If they release a QC AM2 version I'd expect it to have FX prices for several months but drop down to something reasonable after that (ie. 200-300$ price range).
Let's keep it clean guys!!!
No more attacking, no more "WTF are you talking about?", no more "That's a joke, right?", none of it!!!
Next one to do it gets an official warning at minimum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ghost
:bs:
Youre telling a 90nm AM2 is going to hang with a Conroe? What part of dreamland have you been visiting?
AMD has always been a big name in flash business. Theres always a time to " sell "... has nothing to do with being " in trouble "
Actually soon with DDR3 @ the proper latencies.. the memory will be faster than L3Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
be nice brother , still love you ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Haltech
yes amd sold off it's flash , the same way intel is plus some more stuff , they have been closing down places and laying off the people
actually you see amd wins by default , conroe is a no show , just when do you think that the conroe will show up ? who is the one waiting ?
all i can tell you , is that reviewers already have the final release am2 cpu , and i can tell you , that it is nothing like any of the am2's that anand ever had, i can promise you that , at 2ghz don't be surprised if you see over 8,000MB/s on Sandra memory bandwidth , and I'm not talking just a little either
You don't know how fast DDR3 will be or how fast the L3 cache will be, unless you're not telling everythingQuote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
BTW ghost, memory bandwidth means next to nothing for K8, this has already been shown with 939.. value ram vs expensive 250MHz stuff is hardly any different in performance. And how is Conroe a no show? Release is July :stick:
Do you really think that a shared L3 cache with it's additional latency will be as good as a shared L2 cache? I don't agree with that.Quote:
Intel's L2 cache is denser, more efficient, has better prefetchers, a lower miss rate and double the bandwidth thanks to the 256bit bus. Arguing that the cache is the same and only the bus differs is an excercise in semantics.Quote:
Originally Posted by mesyn191
I was comparing K8 to Conroe. If you want to fall back on K8 vs P4, be my guest but please don't waste my time.Quote:
I'm sorry but you're gonna have to post links backing this up that is true vs. what AMD has right now (ie. P4...). Everything I've heard suggests thier prefetching is pretty good as is thier BPU. As good as Conroe's? Probably not, but then its a new arch. so what do you expect? Conroe still aint' out yet, and vs. Netburst what the K8 has had so far has worked pretty damn good, don't you think? So I think calling it "woefully inferior" is making mountains out of mole hills.
So you don't think that each core having use of the entire cache is an advantage for single-threaded apps or multi-tasking?Quote:
Supieror how? For mult. threaded apps sure, a shared cache is better than 2 split L2's but for everything else there is nothing inheritly better about Conroe's cache scheme. Inclusive vs. exclusive is all about saving die space vs. design simplicity BTW.
What's wrong? I never said that all code was limited by L2 bandwidth.Quote:
I'm sorry but this is totally wrong, or at the very least highly speculative that all code will be limited by L2 bandwidth. Most code is dependant on latency instead of bandwidth as it is highly random in nature...
Good point.Quote:
I would disagree, AMD's problem with the K8 currently is with the decoders, not L2 bandwidth. Whats the point of having a high bandwidth L2 if the core can't make use of it since its waiting for instructions to be decoded most of the time right?
Quote:
Now with K8L that will change, the effectively single cycle SSE2 FPU that it'll have WILL require lots of L2 bandwidth to make proper use of, and in that instance AMD might indeed be limited by thier L2 in situations that stream lots of SSE2 FP code. Right now though the L2 is fine, only thing they'd have to do is modify thier ODMC and supporting hardware in the CPU to support a shared L2 (or as in K8L's case, a shared L3) and it'd be on par with what Conroe has to offer as far as the mem. subsystem goes.
i was juat stating what the memory bandwidth of a am2 at 2ghz was using ddr2-800 memoryQuote:
Originally Posted by Repoman
yes we know that now conroe is suppose to be in july now , after some magic reason intel changed their mind to release the woodcrest first , instead of the conroe
:guitar:
now if that was a intel cpu it would make a difference , but we are talking server cpu's with L3 cache , don't expect L3 cache of a desktop cpuQuote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
by the way actually having the L3 cache improves the latency , because then it doesn't have to go back to the memory , which is even slower
I want to see realworld benches.. If its so strong, give me an encoding benchmark score...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ghost
memory bandwidth as stated above, doesnt do anything for the K8. Thats why the move to DDR2 isnt all that appealing nor do any benchmarks show a huge increase in the bandwidth...
I find it odd that AM2 got hyped up hard by one person. Im as pro AMD as you can get, however, AMD has nothing for almost 2 yrs to combat Conroe.
I don't work for Intel or any company affiliated with Intel but I can read and I don't have my head buried in the sand crying about how Intel rigged the BMs at IDF.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ghost
AMD doesn't need 65nm to compete with 65W Conroe and Woodcrest because they have new 125W 90nm cpus coming soon that aren't terribly slower? Put the crack pipe down, dude!
As for the rest of your fanboy babble, it doesn't even warrant a reply.
memory bandwidth will make a difference with brisbaneQuote:
Originally Posted by Haltech
benchmarks are to come l but you know that with nda's in place it will be hard to get too much info , what you have seen for performance at anand's am2 cpu bench mark , does not represent the real am2 , no , it isn't going to beat conroe at superPi , but the brisbane might
i know you are pro AMD , why did you think that i called you brother for ? you are not really my brother ;)Quote:
I find it odd that AM2 got hyped up hard by one person. Im as pro AMD as you can get, however, AMD has nothing for almost 2 yrs to combat Conroe.
don't sell amd short , this time , or at the end of this year
I'm not saying that the H1-07 K8L rumor is flat out made up but it does contradict AMD's official roadmaps and statements and is pretty hard to believe. regardless of where the rumor started.Quote:
Originally Posted by mesyn191
far from the first time we've seen roadmaps change..Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
Laugh it up now because very soon you'll be crying the blues when 2MB Conroes are spanking AM2 cpus like redheaded stepchildren. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleZero
Will these two links suffice, babbleboi? :slap:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30638
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30662
now haven't we been thru this before ?? amd does not have any am2 cpu's thatr are going to be 125 watts , and you talk about me having my head in the sandQuote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
are you sure that woodcrest and conroe is only going to be 65watts ?
and no i have never done any crack either , low blows do not win you anything
so if you don't work for intel , what are you doing just posting in amd forums and like where you use to post to the news articles at amdzone ??
procrastinating ?? no even though that is what you told me at one time , that is not true , because you like to spread lies about amd that are not true
so please prove to us here in this forum where you got that there is going to be a am2 cpu that is going to be 125watts , amd does not have a presshot
please bring us a link that shows that amd is going to have a am2 cpu that is going to be 125watts , and then you can say that you have put me down
amd what do you think that those two links prove ??Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
amd has a modified process that allows it to run 90nm cpu's at the same wattage that intel is going to run at 65nm
You're funny... seen this yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ghost
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31789
I agree with you on your second point. K8L will be a 65nm AM2 cpu... when it arrives in late 2007 as Opteron and H1-08 as Athlon.
Would you mind stop pointing to the Inquirer.. they do have a bad habit of sometimes posting inaccurate informatioin..Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl