Desktop die, server die, what is the difference? We start out with the same base design, for instance Shanghai was the same as Deneb (I think, again I don't know my desktop code names). The cores are identical.

The memory controllers are the same, you could support unbuffered or registered memory on the same controller (though not at the same time). It is the memory validation that drives the platform. Desktop would probably never validate for registered memory because a.) nobody would probably want that and b.) it eats up a lot of validation and support cycles (OEMS don't like it either because it causes more work for them.) We don't validate for unbuffered memory even though we could support it because nobody wants a server limited to 8GB of memory.

When it came to Istanbul, that was a server only design. Desktop never asked for a version, so when we did the design, all considerations were for server. We added things like APML and HT Assist that desktop would never use. It was, and it still is, a server-only design. Lisbon is the same way.

Thuban, as I understand it, is probably based on the same general design, they probably took out server features and added desktop features.

Once you punch out a wafer of Istabuls or Lisbons, you could put them in any package, but they would still be Istanbul or Lisbon. There is a feature set that makes them different from desktop. It's not a fusing recipe during APM that makes it a server die or a desktop die, it is the actual design.