Dual Core AMD

[Stewie007]

http://www.informationweek.com/story...cleID=60402975

Well folks, I figured I'd break the news to anyone who hasn't heard this one. Probably not meany in here. Like, what kinda AMD geek hasn't heard?

AMD is in production of dual core processors clocked at 2.4GHz. I was expecting to see a speed decrease. But nope. They're starting where they left off at 2.4GHz. God I wonder what the FX dual cores will be like.....

[agenda2005]

If Dual 2GHz A64 = 3.5GHz A64 ~ 5.5GHz Prescot, the Dual 2.4GHz will kick serious a$$.

[jjcom]

nope, it doesn't work like that...but a dual core 2.4ghz...man that'd be nice. Think of the cans that would get done...D2OL

jjcom

[HKPolice]

They also 'claim' that it'll work with current S939 mobos.....
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21387

[jjcom]

it should hopefully, its not like AMD is making processor that suck more power than what the motherboards were designed for. So lets hope it works out well

jjcom

[shadowing]

Actually, it should. A BIOS update would probably be needed though. That way it can work.

[Skip]

amd has it on their website that it will work with current 939 motherboards.

[blueworm]

All we really need is software (GAMES!!) that can take advantage of the 2 CPU's.
Otherwise all its going to be good for is doing 2 cpu intense processes at a time.

[Magnj]

D20l and Farcry at the same time lol

[agenda2005]

nope, it doesn't work like that...but a dual core 2.4ghz...man that'd be nice. Think of the cans that would get done...D2OL

jjcom

I'm not saying it will always work that way, but for a well tuned multithreaded program with a total 256KB L1 and 2MB L2 cahce on A64 at hand Prescott will have a hard time coping. This is even more so when running well optimized or compiler optimized parrallel code.

[MrQ3W]

AFAIK, you won't be getting any multithreading under Windows XP 64-bits for quite some time, and not even the games that are currently under development will be likely to use multithreading(with the exception of DNF, ofcourse). It will take months, possibly years, before the technology is put to use for gamers. I'd rather sit on a single-core meanwhile, probably faster until AMD, Microsoft and the boys get it worked out for real.
I'm probably wrong though so don't take my word for it.

[bacon]

sorry for not being well knowledged on this subject but may i ask how this works?

the total chip runs at 2.4ghz right, so are we talking 2 x 2.4ghz chips under one roof?

or is much mroe complex than that, say 1 chip but with 2 cores, 1 set of cache etc

Sorry for sounding dumb but i havent looked in multi cpu systems before, especially not dual core


thanks

[HARDCORECLOCKER]

Waiting for first benchmarks here.........., good to know if it beats a FX-55 / FX-57 !!!

[blueworm]

I'll correct myself before somebody else does.
I found this http://icculus.org/lgfaq/#smp

Q: How do I turn SMP on in these games?

A: Most games don't require you to do anything; Tribes 2 and Unreal Tournament 2003 ALWAYS run sound in a different thread, so if your kernel supports it, you'll gain an SMP advantage wihtout doing anything.
A: Quake3 requires you to run a different binary (quake3-smp) since version 1.32b. Note that you probably won't see much of a speed up on modern smp hardware, it may even be slower. See CHANGES-1.32.txt for more information.

Ryan(icculus)Gordon is like a supreme bieng in the linux community. He does alot of the ports for linux and Mac OSX.

[saratoga]

AFAIK, you won't be getting any multithreading under Windows XP 64-bits for quite some time, and not even the games that are currently under development will be likely to use multithreading(with the exception of DNF, ofcourse). It will take months, possibly years, before the technology is put to use for gamers. I'd rather sit on a single-core meanwhile, probably faster until AMD, Microsoft and the boys get it worked out for real.
I'm probably wrong though so don't take my word for it.

Theres tons of multithreaded stuff for Windows, just its mostly workstation type apps or scientific stuff. For people who do this stuff dual core will be amazing.

For the rest of us, it'll make windows seem a lot faster since you won't have one thread slowing the whole system when things crash or when playing games, etc. Given that it looks like dual core will be only a little more expensive then single core, I think most people will enjoy it.

[Gogeta]

But the question is...how does it bench vs. an FX

[Orthogonal]

So, if it is still using s939, the two chips will be sharing the same memory controller correct? So would each CPU have dual-channel, or would each CPU get it's own channel on the dual-channel bus?

[Sheik]

Dual Core will not blow away an FX55 or FX57. It is designed with multi tasking in mind. The first chips were rumoured to run at 1.6 GHz, but that seems to have changed. Most current benchmarking apps are still only going to see one CPU. So don't expect any fireworks guys.

[HARDCORECLOCKER]

Dual Core will not blow away an FX55 or FX57. It is designed with multi tasking in mind. The first chips were rumoured to run at 1.6 GHz, but that seems to have changed. Most current benchmarking apps are still only going to see one CPU. So don't expect any fireworks guys.

Nice info so - will keep on saving money for FX-57 then......

[Sheik]

Here check this read out.

http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1774/

I dont see any reason to put off that FX57 purchase just yet. Unless it's a Dual Core FX57

[saratoga]

So, if it is still using s939, the two chips will be sharing the same memory controller correct? So would each CPU have dual-channel, or would each CPU get it's own channel on the dual-channel bus?

Theres a queue setup, so each CPU fires a request, and its serviced as soon as the controller is available. That way if theres only one memory bound thread, it gets both channels, and if theres 2, then they split the available bandwidth on a first come, first serve (FIFO) basis.

[jinu117]

Honestly, I see #1 benefit coming from this move is muti media centric home theatre PCs. If to be used for it's full potential, and user experiences, it becomes obvious that we don't want to wait while flipping channels recording some other channel or viewing pre-recorded one while recording another, etc. As for actual PC running smooth, most of us won't know difference till we get used to it again. In fact, it is surprising to see even technologically challenged personal to shut down application to smoothen out their user experience in windows (these are the people that I wonder if they can even use internet explorer at times). We've all been trained by limitation... ;P

[Orthogonal]

Theres a queue setup, so each CPU fires a request, and its serviced as soon as the controller is available. That way if theres only one memory bound thread, it gets both channels, and if theres 2, then they split the available bandwidth on a first come, first serve (FIFO) basis.

Interesting, that makes sense... Let's hope the Memory controller is fast enough to not bottleneck performance then eh? Kinda defeats the purpose of having 2 cores if they're accessing memory half as much as one would if it had the bus all to itself.

[jjcom]

yeah, but at least the A64 still preformans pretty good with single channel. So Thats good...wonder how AMD will rate these things...

jjcom

[Stewie007]

I'd like to reserve my speculation on just how well it will perform until it actually comes out.

I don't know how you can claim to know what it will be capable of before release. I think it'll be somewhere in the middle of expectations.