AMD K8L ES coming in December

[informal]

http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/r...7742&forumid=1

They are flat out wrong. 65nm is set, has been set for a long time, and knowing the exact date, I can say they are wrong. Trust them at your own peril.

-Charlie

Charlie is one of the most informed in IT industry(by my merits at least),and I trust him on this.When he says "has been set for a long time",it seems to me that Brisbanes are over their initial problems and are set to go into retail in Dec(this year )

[LowRun]

So they only taught you reading but not thinking in school?

"X86 style" instructions meaning codes that's not highly parallel like graphics.

1. You don't think that all of the current HPC softwares will be recompiled away from the current x86/SPARC/PPC codes and translate into DX9/DX10 based GPU code, do you?
2. Running a couple X1950XTX 512M cards with 200W power dissipation each under load just all of the sudden makes a whole lot of sense, especially with AMD's compaign of green computing.

1. Obviously if an app is to take advantage of a GP-GPU, is has to be coded specificaly

2. I don't even see what kind of point you're trying to make there.

[vitaminc]

1. Obviously if an app is to take advantage of a GP-GPU, is has to be coded specificaly

2. I don't even see what kind of point you're trying to make there.

1. Do you recollect the debate between RISC vs CISC and how road of domination by x86 instruction sets.

2. GPU has a lot of FLOPS, but it doesnt mean that they are cost effective solution. One single X1950XTX consumes as much as 3 Socket F Opterons (68W HE version TDP) or as much as 4 C2Q Kentsfields (50W ULV version TDP). HVAC is a huge concern with GPUs, and AMD's success with Opteron is mostly due to its high power efficiency.

[ozzimark]

2. GPU has a lot of FLOPS, but it doesnt mean that they are cost effective solution. One single X1950XTX consumes as much as 3 Socket F Opterons (68W HE version TDP) or as much as 4 C2Q Kentsfields (50W ULV version TDP). HVAC is a huge concern with GPUs, and AMD's success with Opteron is mostly due to its high power efficiency.

might be 3x the power, but it's WAAAYYY more than 3x the FP throughput

[LowRun]

1. Do you recollect the debate between RISC vs CISC and how road of domination by x86 instruction sets.

2. GPU has a lot of FLOPS, but it doesnt mean that they are cost effective solution. One single X1950XTX consumes as much as 3 Socket F Opterons (68W HE version TDP) or as much as 4 C2Q Kentsfields (50W ULV version TDP). HVAC is a huge concern with GPUs, and AMD's success with Opteron is mostly due to its high power efficiency.

1. Don't know if it's my english reaching it's limits but i don't get what you mean there. I'm just refering to what Stanford did with folding@home for example, they coded a version specificaly to take advantage of the GP-GPU.

2. You keep on bringing that x1950xtx to the debate, did i said AMD was going to integrate one on their CPUs? Nope. In fact noone did. I don't know how they would do it but i'm confident they would do very well and as stated in the article that would put them in a very good position.

[vitaminc]

1. Don't know if it's my english reaching it's limits but i don't get what you mean there. I'm just refering to what Stanford did with folding@home for example, they coded a version specificaly to take advantage of the GP-GPU.

On top of DirectX 9 and ATI specific driver.

2. You keep on bringing that x1950xtx to the debate, did i said AMD was going to integrate one on their CPUs? Nope. In fact noone did. I don't know how they would do it but i'm confident they would do very well and as stated in the article that would put them in a very good position.

What does CPU/GPU integration has to do with power envelope? Having the capability in integrating GPU/NB/MC into GPU is one thing; doing the integration within a tight power envelope is another. Who care about where each individual component reside as long as it met power requirement and system level performace is competitive. I have faith in both AMD and Intel in the integration process, but to satisfy the power envelop requirement is another. Besides, Intel is the expert in IGP with approximately 50% marketshare.

All integrated graphics from nVidia and ATI have are using previous generation technologies, so I will not live my hope up for a massive integrated 350W TDP K8L + X1950.

[FghtinIrshNvrDi]

well no one says they'd use an x1950 type of core. Seems to me that any kind of core that specializes in graphical/physics/FP operations would make a tremendous boost. Perhaps x16xx series? Even x13xx series? There's more than one option.

Ryan

[erwinz]

so many info in this post.. but for me.. I'll wait for it..

[LowRun]

On top of DirectX 9 and ATI specific driver.

That make my point even more

What does CPU/GPU integration has to do with power envelope? Having the capability in integrating GPU/NB/MC into GPU is one thing; doing the integration within a tight power envelope is another. Who care about where each individual component reside as long as it met power requirement and system level performace is competitive. I have faith in both AMD and Intel in the integration process, but to satisfy the power envelop requirement is another. Besides, Intel is the expert in IGP with approximately 50% marketshare.

All integrated graphics from nVidia and ATI have are using previous generation technologies, so I will not live my hope up for a massive integrated 350W TDP K8L + X1950.

Once again, you're the only one thinking x1950 about AMD's GP-GPU integration into their CPUs, don't know how you got there. I believe they will do fine regarding power envelope with a solution specificaly designed for the task. As for Intel being the expert in IGP, having 50% of the market share doesn't make them experts IMO, this is due to many reasons that have nothing to do with performance or efficiency, in fact their IGPs are utterly crap and they are lagging behind badly in that field wich could put them in a bad position when AMD will bring their GPU on CPU.

[v0dka]

With all due respect, I think Vitaminc is confusing the recently released F@H client for the X1900 cards with utilizing a GPU type processor as a coprocessor for the CPU.

I think ti's perfectly clear that AMD will use these types of coprocessors, in fact many different types, anything that will go on the HT3.0 bus. It would be a very logic first step for them to start with using Ati's GPU tech.

Ofcourse there are technical difficulties that I cant even comprehend, but that shouldt stop the engineers from finding solutions to tap into this extra power. Else we would still be using 286 CPU's without a seperate math coprocessor. (I believe this was added in the 386 DX, correct me if Im wrong.)

[vitaminc]

Low Run, you are dead wrong on this. GPU on CPU is a wet dream for AMD at the momemnt for 3 reasons:
1) power envelope for integrated graphics are simply way too high.
2) graphics engine evolves faster than moore's law and requires frequent updates.
3) a good one year lag in manufacturing technologies.

I am sure all the IT departments and HPC institutions that you know just loves to apply new graphics drivers (CPU if you believe GPU on CPU story) every couple weeks, new DX (or whatever API) every year, and patch your HPC code as frequent as the combination of the two.

A tailor made x86 threaded application on x86 processors (Opteron or C2D) should be able to chuck out nearly as many FLOPs as a GPU, in the same power envelope. All those x86-64 and SSE1-4 extentions are implimented for this.

Vodka,
The match coprocessor pre-pentium Intel processors are x87 series. 8087 for 8086, 80287 for 80286, 80387 for 80386, 80487 for 80486. Their main purposes are to add FLOPs to the system. No one cares if the coprocessor resides on FSB, PCI-express x16, HT 1.0/3.0, or CSI, as long as its profitable for the co-processor company to design and manufacturer and the power/performance envelope is reasonable.

[informal]

Guys let us stick to the thread title and not wander off to 2008 or 2009 with this GPU on CPU stuff.
Topic is called "AMD K8L ES coming in Decembre"
As far as we all know it has no GPU onboard so we shouldn't go into this stuff ,at least not in this thread.Start a new one and battle in there

[Aussie FX]

Guys let us stick to the thread title and not wander off to 2008 or 2009 with this GPU on CPU stuff.
Topic is called "AMD K8L ES coming in Decembre"
As far as we all know it has no GPU onboard so we shouldn't go into this stuff ,at least not in this thread.Start a new one and battle in there

I will second that

[The Ghost]

Low Run, you are dead wrong on this. GPU on CPU is a wet dream for AMD at the momemnt for 3 reasons:
1) power envelope for integrated graphics are simply way too high.
2) graphics engine evolves faster than moore's law and requires frequent updates.
3) a good one year lag in manufacturing technologies.

this will happen at 45nm cpu's in 2008 for notebooks

A tailor made x86 threaded application on x86 processors (Opteron or C2D) should be able to chuck out nearly as many FLOPs as a GPU, in the same power envelope. All those x86-64 and SSE1-4 extentions are implimented for this

.
this is not true or software writers would have done this already , amd has many partners that are developing co-processors to do this , ati is one of these partners that are developing co-processors

by the way intel has said something about putting a gpu on a cpu

http://www.gpgpu.org/

[vitaminc]

this will happen at 45nm cpu's in 2008 for notebooks


.
this is not true or software writers would have done this already , amd has many partners that are developing co-processors to do this , ati is one of these partners that are developing co-processors

by the way intel has said something about putting a gpu on a cpu

http://www.gpgpu.org/

1. I believe AMD has not yet revealed any roadmaps for its notebook processors beyond 2007. Correct me if I am wrong though.
2. AMD's notebook processors is using a different design than its desktop/server procesors, as disclosed in June 2006 Tech Analyst Day.
3. Most softwares aren't very capable of using multi-core CPU yet, and has been a concern for both Intel and AMD.
4. As I said before, co-processors will be better, but requires very specific software support.

[informal]

1. I believe AMD has not yet revealed any roadmaps for its notebook processors beyond 2007. Correct me if I am wrong though.
2. AMD's notebook processors is using a different design than its desktop/server procesors, as disclosed in June 2006 Tech Analyst Day.
3. Most softwares aren't very capable of using multi-core CPU yet, and has been a concern for both Intel and AMD.
4. As I said before, co-processors will be better, but requires very specific software support.

vitaminc,i appreciate your effort to bring the info about CPU-GPU merging and notebook usage of those designs,but pls read : http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...3&postcount=95

Cheers

[The Ghost]

1. I believe AMD has not yet revealed any roadmaps for its notebook processors beyond 2007. Correct me if I am wrong though.

phil hester said so in his last interview with zdnet
http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/...83795-2,00.htm
Are there changes that you're planning to make to the core for the mobile space?
One of the areas we need to work on as a company is the mobile space. And that's where the biggest win comes, from being able to integrate the graphics.


Integration in the microprocessor itself or integration in the chipset?
Integration of the CPU and the GPU. Assuming the transaction closes on time, we would target a merged design in the 45nanometre time frame.


Which is 2008?
Yeah. Another thing happening in the graphics space is that there's more and more programmability. It used to be that it was just polygon rendering. That's what graphics was, but now developers are doing so much programming.


The next generation of gaming is really making things more dynamic. It's not making the surface look realistic, but making it behave realistically. We've crossed the point where the GPU can do real programs of a significant size.


It may seem like 2008 is a long way away, but that's a major design cycle. ATI also has very good business, in the handset and set-top box DTV area.

4. As I said before, co-processors will be better, but requires very specific software support.

co-processors work with the software that is out there already , ati could be one of those co-processors

[mesyn191]

1. Intel has the lead over AMD in x86 CPU for ages.

Meh, the whole ages comment seems overblown unless you're referring to ages ago. They've been trading the lead since the K7 intro. with things working out more in favor of AMD as far as performance goes...

2. Netburst was a tragic mistake that Intel used for the past 6 years.

Yea, only good thing about it was it gave them the lead again over the at the time aging AthlonXP's til' A64 came out, still sold like hotcakes though. :/

3. Intel's product development cycle is much shorter now with their new strategy. There's only a slim chance for AMD to keep up.

Isn't this assuming perfect execution on the design and process side? Haven't they already had some minor delays for the intro of thier 45nm process? You cut Intel this slack but won't do the same for AMD? What gives?

FWIW I'd say they're both going to be trading the lead back and forth a whole lot the next 4-6yr. or so assuming that niether makes any major screw ups.

4. The best part of AMD's business will now be its GPU, aside from its digital TV and cellphone coprocessors.

This seems unreasonable (completely disregards any and all of AMD's future CPUs) and way to specualtive (we have no idea how AMD's on die/package GPU strategy will pan out or what they plan on doing exactly for high end GPU products...). You're also completely disregarding any attempt at them working on chipsets too...

WTH happened vitc? I know you got a AMD system spec in your sig and all but are you getting paid by Intel to say this stuff or you just feeling pessimisstic or what?

[vitaminc]

Ghost,

GPU on CPU in general if you quote it out of context, but GPU on mobile CPU if you read the paragraph above and below. I would still argue vision and concrete roadmaps are two different things.

Mesyn,

If you look at the history of both AMD and Intel, Intel has the lead in significantly portion of the time in processor designs and has always been the leader in process/manufacturing technologies (unless you want to argue about apm vs. copy exact).

Not sure where you get the words on Intel's 45nm delays. They are finishing up 1 fab and building 2 extra ones to copy exact, as per IDF. Care to elaborate?

ATI's digital TV and cellphone multimedia coprocessors are the market leaders in their respective market. And those 2 markets are growing helluva fast. Desktop PC are in a decline as people switching to notebooks, thus AMD's attempt to get its own platform to battle Centrino.
I believe that big screen LCD/plasma TV will grow faster than PC for the next few years and people will always change cellphone faster than they change computers, thus my speculation that AMD's crown jewel will be in those 2 markets (if they don't mess up). :p
Unless you believe that PC growth will be faster than big screen LCD/plasma TV, or people changing

I could diss Intel all day long (like its bureacracy, FSBrenza, IGP), but that's not related to Altair. :p

[The Ghost]

GPU on CPU in general if you quote it out of context, but GPU on mobile CPU if you read the paragraph above and below. I would still argue vision and concrete roadmaps are two different things.

roadmaps and visions are the same thing , there is no such thing as a concrete roadmap , we have seen things that have been on amd roadmaps that never came too , and we have seen things on intels roadmaps that never came too

also if you have seen some roadmaps , and have listened to members from amd , you would have noticed that they are also going to use mobile cpu's on low end desktops , so yes we can end up with desktop with intergrated gpu in to a cpu , companies like sell would jump all over something like this , where they are not worried about high end graphics

[vitaminc]

roadmaps and visions are the same thing , there is no such thing as a concrete roadmap , we have seen things that have been on amd roadmaps that never came too , and we have seen things on intels roadmaps that never came too

also if you have seen some roadmaps , and have listened to members from amd , you would have noticed that they are also going to use mobile cpu's on low end desktops , so yes we can end up with desktop with intergrated gpu in to a cpu , companies like sell would jump all over something like this , where they are not worried about high end graphics

They are different things. Vision is what the executives/marketing people envisioning their future products, such as 10GHz CPU hot wet dream by Intel.

Roadmaps is what companies release to their customers as a product release schedule promise so their customers can better manage inventories and software venders can anticipate the hardware changes.

Mobile on desktop has nothing to do with GPU on CPU. Apple/Shuttle and various other venders already have mobile on desktop PC out on market and those PC tends to use IGP instead of discrete graphics.

There are more engineering concerns in implimenting GPU on CPU for mobile. TDP, die size, pin count, and fan out are the most obvious ones.

[arisythila]

That is because they are GPU bound. If we are talking RAW CPU performance here, C2D has a 20% edge over K8.

It's not Intel and AMD's fault the GPU companies can't keep up w/ the need for higher pixel fill rates.

I dont think its the GPU market either.. its the software companies. They need to come out with software that will utilize an X1950XTX, or 7950GX2.... From the looks of the new 8900GTX Nvidia's card will be about 2x's faster than the 7950GX2... I highly doubt any game will stress that.

~Mike

[vitaminc]

I dont think its the GPU market either.. its the software companies. They need to come out with software that will utilize an X1950XTX, or 7950GX2.... From the looks of the new 8900GTX Nvidia's card will be about 2x's faster than the 7950GX2... I highly doubt any game will stress that.

~Mike

At the same time microsoft will need better optimized DX9/10 compilers, Nvidia and ATI need better drivers, and game software companies need to multithread certain loads to CPU.

[The Ghost]

Roadmaps is what companies release to their customers as a product release schedule promise so their customers can better manage inventories and software vendors can anticipate the hardware changes.

do you remember the amd mustang ? wasn't it on a roadmap ??

AMD's Mustang processor was supposed to have support for up to 4MB of L2 cache on the chip die with tweaks to the Athlon Thunderbird core to allow for the addition of more L2 cache on chip, possibly with more pipeline stages, enabling higher clock speeds.
http://www.geek.com/procspec/amd/k7mustang.htm

now do i really need to go down the list of Intel cpus that was on the roadmap and was canceled ??

road maps are company visions , and neither is set in concrete

i know the difference between wet dreams and roadmaps

Mobile on desktop has nothing to do with GPU on CPU. Apple/Shuttle and various other vendors already have mobile on desktop PC out on market and those PC tends to use IGP instead of discrete graphics.

low end desktops are going to use mobile cpu , so yes it has something to do with gpu on CPU , that is a fact , even Intel is trying to do the same thing

i already provided the link that Phil Hester said it would happen , there have been others before him that have said the same thing

[mesyn191]

Mesyn,

If you look at the history of both AMD and Intel, Intel has the lead in significantly portion of the time in processor designs and has always been the leader in process/manufacturing technologies (unless you want to argue about apm vs. copy exact).

I was referring to performance, but Intel usually has the process lead.

Not sure where you get the words on Intel's 45nm delays. They are finishing up 1 fab and building 2 extra ones to copy exact, as per IDF. Care to elaborate?

From this article: http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/rss...leID=192501516

Perhaps something else has changed that they don't know about because Intel roadmaps show QC 45nm chips available by Q3 2007, though they quote Intel as thier source for thier info...

ATI's digital TV and cellphone multimedia coprocessors are the market leaders in their respective market. And those 2 markets are growing helluva fast.

What? While growing fast aren't these markets niche as all hell? Hasn't it already been shown that most people don't really play games and stuff on thier cell phones, its just a gimmick? You can't run a 300mm 65nm or for that matter 45nm fab off of profits from this market alone, or for that matter even keep one busy.

Desktop PC are in a decline as people switching to notebooks, thus AMD's attempt to get its own platform to battle Centrino.

They're still a significant chunk of business though, and they aren't going away any time soon either, you don't see Intel cancelling its desktop chips do you? AMD's efforts to get a competitive platform as a alternative to Centrino is an effort to improve profit margins, not a make or break issue.

I believe that big screen LCD/plasma TV will grow faster than PC for the next few years and people will always change cellphone faster than they change computers, thus my speculation that AMD's crown jewel will be in those 2 markets (if they don't mess up). :p
Unless you believe that PC growth will be faster than big screen LCD/plasma TV, or people changing

While cellphones are ubiquitos and have a relatively high turn over rate you can't justify the costs of running a high end fab with production for them, I don't see digital TV growth growing massivly either. In fact I think you're gonna see a decline in general sales/profits across the boards for the next few years, the US is heading for a major recession though I don't think you'll see signs of it til' about Q2/3 2007.

I could diss Intel all day long (like its bureacracy, FSBrenza, IGP), but that's not related to Altair. :p

Well neither is alot of the other stuff you're talking about, you seem to be more interested in how AMD will do financially than about CPU's in general.