SPOILERS: This is supposed to be a highly technical Thread, be sure that you're aware of OPN deciphering or got interesing AMD Technical Documents before posting useless or redundant data
Until now, I was aware of the existence of the following three physically different Cores with a DDR-II IMC (This PDF proves this):
DH-F2 Orleans/Manila: Single Core, 512 KB Cache L2 (Venices were DH-E3/E6)
BH-F2 Windsor: Dual Core, 512 KB * 2 Cache L2 (Manchesters were BH-E4)
JH-F2 Windsor: Dual Core, 1 MB * 2 Cache L2 (Toledo were JH-E6)
I'm partially aware of the following OPN surfixes in Socket M2 Processors:
CS: JH-F2 Windsor. 100% sure as it is in 1 MB * 2 Dual Cores and 512 KB * 2 ones where half of the Cache L2 is disabled
CU: BH-F2 Windsor. 100% sure as it is only in Dual Cores models with only 512 KB * 2 Cache L2
CN: DH-F2 Orleans/Manila. Not completely sure, it is in most A64 and Semprons models
CW: Completely unsure, it should be either a BH-F2 or/and JH-F2 with an entire Core disabled and Cache L2 too (Available on one A64 and several Semprons models)
If anyone can confirm me what is the full Revision from Socket M2 Processors with the CW OPN surfix, I will be thankful as right now I don't know and I'm curious to know what is the physical Core that they uses. Up to this point, everything should be understandable... ...Now, lets the Revisions attack begins
Anyone that checked AMD Compare should have noticed that besides the new Revision G1 (That, as now, is incomplete, but probabily belongs to the BH family as all them got 512 KB * 2 Cache L2) there is a new Rev. F3 that is used only by the new Socket F A64FXs for the 4x4 platform (The OPN surfix for them is DI, but this is useless as no Socket shares the same OPN surfixes for any of its Processors with any other). However, I can't find an AMD Technical Document that states anything about this new Revision.
Going further than this, I finded in another new AsRock BIOS upgrade some new OPNs that many would like to know...
ADA5000IAA5CZ
ADA5200IAA6CZ
ADA5400IAA5CZ
ADA5600IAA6CZ
The shining new CZ surfix that is stated to be Rev. F3, and considering than two of these models got 1 MB Cache L2 * 2, then it should probabily belong to the JH family (Call it JH-F3). Pretty interesing, thanks AsRock for OPN leaks, you did it with 65nm ones too
However, furthen than that, I tried to searching for JH-F3 Athlon in Google, and I found this extremely weird Source Code for Linux. Scrolling down to the end of it is this:
Plus many never seen Revisions from previous K8s that were probabily only used for Engineering Samples. However, we also got the DH-F3 Core there and we still didn't saw that one, and considering that JH-F3 is just being released, then the DH-F3 Core may see the light from day in the time to come (Remember that AMD sayed that they will be fully converted to 65nm around halfway 2007, so during 6 more months there will be 90nm K8s production).{ X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x40f50 }, /* SH-F0 Socket F (1207): Opteron */
{ X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x40f70 }, /* AM2: Athlon64/Athlon64 FX */
{ X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x40f40 }, /* S1g1: Mobile Athlon64 */
{ X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x40f11 }, /* JH-F1 Socket F (1207): Opteron Dual Core */
{ X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x40f31 }, /* AM2: Athlon64 x2/Athlon64 FX Dual Core */
{ X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x40f01 }, /* S1g1: Mobile Athlon64 */
{ X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x40f12 }, /* JH-F2 Socket F (1207): Opteron Dual Core */
{ X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x40f32 }, /* AM2 : Opteron Dual Core/Athlon64 x2/ Athlon64 FX Dual Core */
{ X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x40fb2 }, /* BH-F2 Socket AM2:Athlon64 x2/ Mobile Athlon64 x2 */
{ X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x40f82 }, /* S1g1:Turion64 x2 */
{ X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x40ff2 }, /* DH-F2 Socket AM2: Athlon64 */
{ X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x50ff2 }, /* DH-F2 Socket AM2: Athlon64 */
{ X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x40fc2 }, /* S1g1:Turion64 */
{ X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x40f13 }, /* JH-F3 Socket F (1207): Opteron Dual Core */
{ X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x40f33 }, /* AM2 : Opteron Dual Core/Athlon64 x2/ Athlon64 FX Dual Core */
{ X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0xc0f13 }, /* AM2 : Athlon64 FX*/
{ X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x50ff3 }, /* DH-F3 Socket AM2: Athlon64 */
Sure, the document may be completely unoficial and coming from some obscure place in Google, but the data there seems to be pretty consistent (And done by someone with access to a lot of AMD Engineering Samples, it seems), so I believe in it. Wonderful that 65nm being officially released still don't show in stores yet 90nm is far from dead, right?
Bookmarks