Why not use C32 for the Zambezi desktop?

[trueblue]

I was perusing the C32 socket (single and dual) motherboards at supermicro and I saw a nice matx board. It got me to thinking.

Would it be better to introduce a new socket AM3+ for the desktop, or just use C32 for Zambezi on the desktop? This seems tom make more sense than AM3+. If we are going to have to change desktop sockets for Bulldozer anyway, why not C32?

I would like to hear other thoughts/opinions.

[Ivan N.]

IMO the main reason is that designing AM3+ socket from the scratch it can be retro compatible with AM3 processors and AM3 coolers and blocks (I’ve read in many places about de retro compatibility with AM3 cpus but I don’t know about coolers but it would be the smarter choice…)

[scorpidragon]

I for one wiill not be upgrading to AM3+.

[JF-AMD]

Zambezi is a single socket only, so giving it a dual socket capable socket will just push up your infrastructure cost unnecessarily.

[scorpidragon]

Zambezi is a single socket only, so giving it a dual socket capable socket will just push up your infrastructure cost unnecessarily.

That issue does not concern me at all If I want to spec the money then I will spend the money!

[zanzabar]

That issue does not concern me at all If I want to spec the money then I will spend the money!

what do u think would be better, the extra pins are for the cpu to cpu HT buss and there is no existing socketF ocing stuff that made it into the phenom realms.

[JF-AMD]

That issue does not concern me at all If I want to spec the money then I will spend the money!

So, you'd pay $40-50 more for a board where you got no additional benefit? I don't think most people would do that. Remember that every dollar at the cost level turns into a much larger number in the final product.

[FlanK3r]

im looking forward for AM3+ boards, think, we will se higher monsters than Crosshair IV Extreme, il go for it . I have one little dream-hope, AMD launch later 5-6-modul to AM3+ (10-12 cores)

[Oliverda]

I for one wiill not be upgrading to AM3+.

Ohhh...it's a disaster...

[Sn0wm@n]

im looking forward for AM3+ boards, think, we will se higher monsters than Crosshair IV Extreme, il go for it . I have one little dream-hope, AMD launch later 5-6-modul to AM3+ (10-12 cores)

4 modules is the maximum on all the desktop roadmap right now ... i dont think they will do it ...

[RaV[666]]

AMD needs worstation socket like intels 1366 or future 2011 that can take enthusiast parts as well xeons and is dual socket capable.
All this talk about server grade parts that SHOULD NOT be ocable by amd is piss poor.Intel does it, and theyre makin money on it.

[Sn0wm@n]

just because xs people ask for it doesnt mean there is proffit to be made ....

[JF-AMD]

AMD needs worstation socket like intels 1366 or future 2011 that can take enthusiast parts as well xeons and is dual socket capable.
All this talk about server grade parts that SHOULD NOT be ocable by amd is piss poor.Intel does it, and theyre makin money on it.

Just because intel is doing it does not mean they are profitable doing it.

[stangracin3]

So, you'd pay $40-50 more for a board where you got no additional benefit? I don't think most people would do that. Remember that every dollar at the cost level turns into a much larger number in the final product.

JF-AMD

you are trying to argue with someone that thinks quad channel ram is required for MS Word.

its like arguing with fanboy, you won't win even if he loses. he will think he still won.

all he is doing is screaming "INTEL HAS QUAD CHANNEL RAM, OMG THEY MUST BE BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[RaV[666]]

Just because intel is doing it does not mean they are profitable doing it.

Yes ofcourse, we all know how bad intel is at making profits.
Selling 200+ $ cpus only on 1366 socket must have had terrible profit margins for them, with those pesky cheap ass x58 chipsets on 200+$ mainboards.What a loss.
Thats probably the reason theyre making this ridicolous 2011 socket.
And i forgot about about this PR disaster that hit intel after it allowed 2 socket xeon based mainboard with OC capabilities.Market turned away from them after that for sure.
Stock plummeted.

right ?

[PatRaceTin]

my understanding they change to
AM3+ because it support graphic integrated cpu?

[Manicdan]

4 modules is the maximum on all the desktop roadmap right now ... i dont think they will do it ...

quad core PII was the limit for desktop on so many roadmaps, but we got x6 anyway

only time will tell what happens

[devguy]

my understanding they change to
AM3+ because it support graphic integrated cpu?

Nope. The high-end Bulldozer parts will be kept separate from the low-end/mainstream Ontario/Llano parts (a good idea IMHO). I believe AMD is shifting to AM3+ because the AM3 socket was holding back Bulldozer from its full potential. And having a reduced performance AM3 Bulldozer (in addition) would simply drive up costs for both; so it would a financial no-no.

[FlanK3r]

Sn0wm@n: i know it , but im talking about little future. Because example, about existing Thubans we knew maybe 3/4 years before launch, it was not planed firstly. In this time AMD working at x4 970/975 (i found it in some AMD documents ,-) ), but canceled it at new concept was heacores to desktop. So,if it necessary, can be launch 5-6modul for AM3+ (because Ivy Bridge...or SB 8c/16t-will se, if Intel canceled at finally SB 8c/12t)

[zanzabar]

Just because intel is doing it does not mean they are profitable doing it.

it just takes one board with one stable bios to have it (or for amd 2 boards, one g34 one c34(socketF))

but for a single socket i dont get why u would want it we dont need more cores or 2 dies like the mangy but then for crunchers u would have guarantied a few thousand boards if mangies would oc

but for a single cpu i dont see why u would want any other socket since u dont get a benefit from more than dual channel ram per die (atleast for now) and it keeps things nice and unified so u dont have to buy a $300 board

[trueblue]

I was perusing the C32 socket (single and dual) motherboards at supermicro and I saw a nice matx board. It got me to thinking.

Would it be better to introduce a new socket AM3+ for the desktop, or just use C32 for Zambezi on the desktop? This seems tom make more sense than AM3+. If we are going to have to change desktop sockets for Bulldozer anyway, why not C32?

I would like to hear other thoughts/opinions.

I think I need to clarify my question somewhat. The thread seems to be missing the essence of my question.

IF AM3+ does not do anything that C32 presently does (i.e. power management, etc) for Bulldozer cores, and IF we are going to have to change sockets anyway (which seems very likely), why not just use C32 for the next desktop socket?

First question: Will AM3+ offer any additional capabilities for the desktop that could not be offered with a desktop Zambezi on C32?

A C32 desktop motherboard does not have to cost as much as a C32 server board. I can go to Newegg and buy a single socket 1156 desktop board or a single socket 1156 server board. One just costs more than the other, but they are the same socket. You can run the server cpus in the desktop boards just fine, but not vice-versa. Just because it is both a server socket and a desktop socket doesn't mean that all boards have to be dual core. In fact, the whole reason this question came to my mind is that supermicro is offering single socket C32 micro-atx server boards. If that is not blurring the boundaries between server boards and desktop boards, then slap me silly

If C32 were used for Zambezi, then you could use a socket C32 Opteron to tide you over until Bulldozer is released.

Second question: WHEN will AM3+ be released? No one in their right mind would buy a new AM3 board today if it will be non-compatible with BD in about nine months.

Personally, I think the cost savings from using the same packaging for the desktop and one of the server variants would be worth it.

Third question: So other than the ability to use AM3 cpu's , what is the big incentive for AM3+ on the desktop? This "feature" rapidly diminishes in value the closer we get to BD release.

[JF-AMD]

Here's the bottom line: a C32 platform would be more expensive than an AM3+. Period. There is no benefit to using C32, it just pushes costs up. You don't need that many pins.

AM3+ gives you lower cost and the ability to use AM3 processors. C32 gives you higher costs and no ability to use AM3 processors. How is this a benefit?

There is no cost savings from using a C32 socket.

[scorpidragon]

Here's the bottom line: a C32 platform would be more expensive than an AM3+. Period. There is no benefit to using C32, it just pushes costs up. You don't need that many pins.

AM3+ gives you lower cost and the ability to use AM3 processors. C32 gives you higher costs and no ability to use AM3 processors. How is this a benefit?

There is no cost savings from using a C32 socket.

AM3+ = 8 CPU cores.
On Intel's 1155 socket it can support up to 12 CPU cores maybe even up to 16 CPU cores.

So if AM3+ does not support 12 CPU cores then people will be moving to Intel. So the clowns at AMD need to learn is that their is a demand for High-end/budget server boards and if AMD does not support that market then people will be moving to Intel therefore AMD will loose even more market share from the high-end market.

One other thing AMD should look at is running 4 cores at 3.2+ GHz and the rest at 2.5GHz.

[FlanK3r]

JF: is AM3+ socket good for more than 4 modules to the future? Or AM3+ is "pins limited" for 4 modules? Thx
scorpidragon: i have no fear with performance Zambezi, it will be better than 4c/8t SB (maybe simillary as 6C/12T SB)

[JF-AMD]

So people need to understand a few things:

1. Pins are irrelevant to cores. Package size matters for cores. You don't need more pins for more cores.
2. Adding more pins does not necessarily make things faster.
3. Moving a design from one socket to a larger socket doesn't do anything but add cost.
4. LGA and PGA are just packaging decisions, they don't impact performance or features. But they do impact price.