AMD: the world's first 12-core processor has begun shipping

[savantu]

12 DIMMs per socket.

I was unaware that there were 32 DIMM per socket configs for Beckton.

The most I have seen are 12 DIMMs per socket and max speed of 1066.

Do you have a link?

It is 16 like another poster pointed out; apparently my math skills failed me, sorry.

2 IMCs x 2 Buffers/IMC x 2 Channels per buffer x 2 Dimms / channel = 16 Dimms / socket.

[savantu]

Anyone know if those are actually TDPs, as opposed to AMD "ACP" numbers?

105W appears to be the SE "ACP" wattage for 6-core parts, which is why I ask.

I believe that is ACP.

That means the SE part is 140w TDP while max power even higher.

[InSanCen]

What are you thoughts on a higher performance core versus core count? I'm not sure what part of amd you work in, but I'm just curious if the market these guys are targeted at truly have applications that can take advantage of the core count to make up for a slower cores.

In the case I am looking at (~960x 12 cores for a renderfarm), these cores will be maxed out 24/7. In 3D animation, raw horsepower is still king, and people will always want more power to keep up with demands for yet higher levels of "Wow!" that are being placed on even small production houses that simply cannot purchase this kind of firepower. Outsourcing is increasingly popular.

For the people comparing these to various desktop parts, That is the target audience that AMD is looking at. Although a few guys here will no doubt pick these up (XS Crunchers mainly, I would love too assuming I had the disposable to do so), do you really think that the whole of XS's purchases of these processors will equal even that single sale? And this is XS, the leading edge of the Enthusiast market.

These chips are not comparable to the desktop parts, and were never designed to be.

[Movieman]

In the case I am looking at (~960x 12 cores for a renderfarm), these cores will be maxed out 24/7. In 3D animation, raw horsepower is still king, and people will always want more power to keep up with demands for yet higher levels of "Wow!" that are being placed on even small production houses that simply cannot purchase this kind of firepower. Outsourcing is increasingly popular.

For the people comparing these to various desktop parts, That is the target audience that AMD is looking at. Although a few guys here will no doubt pick these up (XS Crunchers mainly, I would love too assuming I had the disposable to do so), do you really think that the whole of XS's purchases of these processors will equal even that single sale? And this is XS, the leading edge of the Enthusiast market.

These chips are not comparable to the desktop parts, and were never designed to be.

I can tell you honestly that MANY people on this forum would be shocked if they leanred the actual numbers of dual socket systems that the members here own.
I have 4 duals and 2 singles at my house and I know a lot of guys here that have many more than I do..That's God's truth.

[Oliverda]

I believe that is ACP.

That means the SE part is 140w TDP while max power even higher.

AMD's TDP = max power

105W ACP = 137W TDP. It is the max TDP for the Opteron lineup.

[Chumbucket843]

I do a lot of FP crunching, and most FP workloads are not memory bandwidth constrained. It's just not an issue for over 99% of workloads, and is a non-factor for us crunchers. It's just raw SSE computational power that matters.

i am assuming that you are talking about F@H. its not floating point that requires BW, its what you are doing. physics solvers cant fit in cache so more BW is important.

In fp there will be no problems for MC Vs Westmere. Both 10h and i7 have same flops theoretically while i7 had an advantage of SMT (gives 0-30%) and DDR3. MC will answer this with much more cores ,2x more,at lower clocks but enough to exceed high clocked Westmere in throughput and with DDR3 support + qudchannel it will address the Westmere's 3-channel DDR3 controller. Simple yet very efficient.

edit: oh and the latest pricing of the MC posted at SA website is wrong too..

theoretical performance means nothing. sse is not implemented the same way in both architectures(see prescott v. conroe).

[SocketMan]

Some older pics:

[clo007]

I can tell you honestly that MANY people on this forum would be shocked if they leanred the actual numbers of dual socket systems that the members here own.
I have 4 duals and 2 singles at my house and I know a lot of guys here that have many more than I do..That's God's truth.

'raises hand' Dell Precision 650 SMP. Old? Yes! Dual cpu system? Yes!

[EniGmA1987]

yep I have a dual CPU system too. Dual Shanghai. Not the very latest, but still pretty beefy. I am probably going to try and get a dual socket system with these CPUs next year with my Christmas bonus. I just hope by then someone will have worked out a way to overclock the CPUs.

[SocketMan]

yep I have a dual CPU system too. Dual Shanghai. Not the very latest, but still pretty beefy. I am probably going to try and get a dual socket system with these CPUs next year with my Christmas bonus. I just hope by then someone will have worked out a way to overclock the CPUs.

What about 1P but with a bit of ACC

I keep thinking (for some reason) mini ITX,DFI and socket G34........

[JF-AMD]

What about 1P but with a bit of ACC

I keep thinking (for some reason) mini ITX,DFI and socket G34........

Will not happen, there will be no access to ACC on these, they are targeted at server apps, not overclockers.

I did have one of these in my hands today, had a bunch of customer meetings in our briefing center:




And we packaged up Magny Cours processors for all of the meeting attendees.

[Hawkeye4077]

yep I have a dual CPU system too. Dual Shanghai. Not the very latest, but still pretty beefy. I am probably going to try and get a dual socket system with these CPUs next year with my Christmas bonus. I just hope by then someone will have worked out a way to overclock the CPUs.

It's been done already. s7eph3n over in the AMD forum posted last year with some 3ghz+ MC goodness.

[SocketMan]

It's been done already. s7eph3n over in the AMD forum posted last year with some 3ghz+ MC goodness.

His (ES) chip,has an unlocked multiplier,won't be the case for the "regular"
cpus.

Will not happen, there will be no access to ACC on these, they are targeted at server apps, not over clockers.

I think it's safe to say that we've established the bold part already
However the actual performance (of any hardware) would not change
with different "target markets".
A 2.2ghz cpu will perform exactly the same for "Joe Blow
Over clocker" and the "Big Shot Enterprise".
Also the money from the 2 is identical - if AMD sells 2 cpus to Joe at 1000$
(each) they get 2000$.When AMD sells 2 cpus at 1000$ to the Enteprise
they still get 2000$,but there are more Joes then enteprises.


A pic below shows the number of people participating in WCG,our (XS) team
(1 out of many) has over 1000 active members.Globally there are hundreds
of thousands of PCs and the number is growing on the daily basis.


Almost everyone out of that 1000+ overclocks their machines,stability
is not an issue,it's a given - because no one wants to lose a Work Unit.
We have a new "market segment" that basically developed over the last ~5 years.This segment is way above the "Ultra Enthusiast" "needs"
(4-6 cpu cores according to some charts),but obviously below the
"ënteprise".

It's money (a lot of it,we're talking tens of thousands of people) laying
on the road,all AMD has to do is to pick it up.

The cpus don't have to be targeted they just have to perform.



Also the term "Overclock/er" has become to general,there are at least 2 groups in it:
The first one is the "record breakers" -these guys use the LN2,Dry Ice and run benchmarks faster and faster under very,very high gigahertz (for a few minutes )
That's were all the "fame" is.
Stability here is only needed to complete the benchmark run and take a
screen shot.I do not think this group is even interested in M.cores.

The second group runs their overcloked PCs 24/7/365 at full load (without crashing btw),but of course the clocks are much lower then the "records".

This (I think) is one of the best descriptions as to "why" we need the over clocking ability.Let the motherboard manufacturers do what they do best -
give us motherboards with the features we need.
AMD has done their job already - the cpus are made.
The philosophy has always been (something like):
"give users the ability to make a choice", and that is all we really need.No need to target us

Some of you have heard me pissing and moaning that I can't OC the gainestown rig. It isn't for ego or for that 5 minutes of glory showing huge benchmarks, it's for the additional amount of work I see it able to do that it can't when locked up as it is.
Computational power is the answer to the problem and the more we can throw at it the sooner this will be accomplished.

[Behemot]

I have to agree - think about good old 939 Opterons. There is huge market...and AMD should make money wherever possible.

[Dimitriman]

I agree overclocking is a non-issue at 4p and above.

But 2p and especially 1p motherboards would bring MORE customers to that segment if some overclocking features are added. You would certainly not lose any customers due to overclocking functions added though.

This would not be a bad move on your part JF, I'm both a Master in Marketing student and a PC enthusiast and I am just one of the thousands and thousands of people who would be interested in a 2p MC system running at 2.8ghz. Even if it costs me 800$ more than a Phenom II platform.

Extreme overclockers do also enjoy the realm of server hardware. I remember back when the 1 & 2 series Opterons came out and they also targeted at these users, which AMD referred to as the "Workstation" segment. It was a HUGE success, Opteron 1 & 2 series interested many enthusiasts and I can testify to this as I have myself assembled 4 systems at that time for people who chose that platform over Athlons and spent a good 50-100% more just to have Server hardware with overclocking capabilities.

Please you must bring that back..

Do not simply discard our opinion about overclocking as a consumer hardware niche segment thing. This website represents a sample of the population of PC users that AMD marketing dept really needs to pay attention to. Not only because everyone posting on this site has a general good to very good understanding of hardware, but also because most are early adapters. The very segment which will test and approve first hand any new technology which you bring to the market. This would be one of the best places you could collect information about what the informed customer wants, and as a marketing guy, I have a very good hunch that this is exactly the reason why you post in XS Forum JF. If I were in your position, I would do exactly the same.

[JF-AMD]

Let me try to put this in the right frame of reference.

We will make parts. They can be used anywhere you want. If you want to overclock, have at it, we won't stop you. If you want to use them for your desktop systems, fine with that. I use an Opteron 1389 in a cleint board (Gigabyte 780) and it works great.

The question is not "will it work" and more of "will you be marketing it that way."

The former is true, the latter is not.

It is a matter of focus and resources. Our main market is the server market. Our marketing efforts (positioning, messaging, benchmarking, advertising, promotion, customer engagement, etc.) will all be around the server market.

At the point where you start marketing "this is a great desktop", then your core customers start thinking "maybe that isn't what I want to run my enterprise database." Unfortunately part of marketing is targeting, and when you target, you are self-selecting the market down from everyone to a smaller group that is the target market. You can't be everything to everyone. There was an old Saturday Night Live skit about Shimmer "it's a floor wax AND a dessert topping."

When people try to be too much, you end up doing neither great. Camcorders also take still pictures, but they do a crappy job relative to a camera. And cameras can take video, but it is generally not great.

The markets that we are going at require us to focus and message at particular targets. We won't necessarily be a great selection for file/print sharing because you don't need 8 or 12 cores for that, but I can guarantee you that someone will buy us for that (based on the value that we will have). That to me, is a secondary market.

I am not saying that there will not be people using our systems for those tasks, but just that you won't see us making overt changes to the silicon to target those customers.

The real issue that I see is that we control the silicon, but it is the infrastructure vendors that will determine whether the product meets your needs, because the board choices will dictate whether you buy my processors. I don't make boards. I don't have influence on our partners (generally speaking.)

When we make silicon choices they will be focused on database, HPC, technical computing, virtualization, cloud/web, business apps (SAP, ERP, etc.) If those decisions also make my processor great for you, then, by all means buy it, because I think it is going to be a real winner.

[Dimitriman]

thank you for your reply

I understand your point of view and for all its worth I agree with pretty much everything you said.

My previous argumentation was based on the possibility that you have some form of control over what features the new platform will support. From all the previous arguments in this thread, I concluded that motherboard manufacturers would not be able to add any desktop features on their server boards because AMD would not endorse it implying some form of control.

From your last post this seems not to be the case

We will make parts. They can be used anywhere you want. If you want to overclock, have at it, we won't stop you. If you want to use them for your desktop systems, fine with that. I use an Opteron 1389 in a cleint board (Gigabyte 780) and it works great.

Does this mean that regardless of what you will market and target MC as, that platform manufacturers will still have the freedom to produce a "hybrid" server/client platform i.e. g34 with overclocking options?

But otherwise, it is understandable you do not want to blend some particular target segments, and that's fair.

[wuttz]

it is up to asus, gigabyte, supermicro, tyan, etc. to provide a G34 board with the features we like(overclocking).

if this sells more opterons, amd will NOT stop it, correct?

can amd give even just ONE board manufacturer a nudge/hint?

[JF-AMD]

Does this mean that regardless of what you will market and target MC as, that platform manufacturers will still have the freedom to produce a "hybrid" server/client platform i.e. g34 with overclocking options?

If someone wanted to create a board like that I would be fine with it. I want to fill sockets. I would not limit my partners from doing anything that they believe will drive more sales for me.

To that end we have seen servers with low end desktop parts in them from our partners. I'm not happy about that, but as long as AMD is getting the socket I support it.

[terrace215]

I wonder who at AMD is trying to peddle false rumors to the trade press?



http://www.techeye.net/chips/intels-...yed-says-rival

Here at TechEye, we hear odd rumours all the time. It’s par for the course in the dog-eat-dog world of billion dollar semis.

But once in a while we stumble across a rumour that is clearly the product of- if we’re being magnanimous - wishful thinking, or even more likely purposeful misinformation.

Of course, the firm involved chose to spread the info as “off the record” which leads to a rather interesting moral dilemma. Namely, if someone says something to a hack off-the-record and said hack discovers it's completely inaccurate, and maybe even purposeful misinformation, can one publish it anyway?

Our esteemed editor says yes. Drop AMD in it.

[...]

[Nedjo]

I wonder who at AMD is trying to peddle false rumors to the trade press?



http://www.techeye.net/chips/intels-...yed-says-rival

Here at TechEye, we hear odd rumours all the time. It’s par for the course in the dog-eat-dog world of billion dollar semis.

But once in a while we stumble across a rumour that is clearly the product of- if we’re being magnanimous - wishful thinking, or even more likely purposeful misinformation.

Of course, the firm involved chose to spread the info as “off the record” which leads to a rather interesting moral dilemma. Namely, if someone says something to a hack off-the-record and said hack discovers it's completely inaccurate, and maybe even purposeful misinformation, can one publish it anyway?

Our esteemed editor says yes. Drop AMD in it.

[...]

what was the point of that article and in what correlation is it with this thread??

[Hawkeye4077]

As a former member of the failed QuadFX platform, I would say it was ASUS's fault the platform failed. BUT AMD could have helped keep it going. The CPUs were already there, just renamed to FX series. Asus launched a board that had TONS of upswing if it had been maintained. Only 3 processors released for it.. 3.. And we paid what.. 299 apiece for them (FX70s here). When the quad cores came out, asus just let it fall apart. There was an AMD based chipset designed and built (at least one anyways) It never ever saw the light of day.
After much complaining by its customers Asus finally gave us a Quad Core capable motherboard in the form of the WS /B. It will run barcelonas, but not Shanghai's. Tyan gave us the -E series motherboards that run Quad and Hex cores now. Once again, Asus had the opportunity to latch on to some more market share. Let's call that board the KFN32-D SL /SH. Shanghai capable. ASUS even has a section for it on their website with a bios release.. but guess what we don't have.. a motherboard.

Even MSI has a couple boards out there that run Quads. The Speedster series. But MSI has given very limited support on them. The only reason the Speedster2 is in the US is because a member of 2CPU went to MSI directly and got boards imported over. But it is already EOL'd the day after it came out.

If AMD wanted us to have an enthusiast level 2S platform, we would have one already, made by somebody...
Intel made their own ie Skulltrail.

I have owned every AMD multicpu capable platform since the 760MPX days. I fear that Socket F will be my last at least through the G34 series. I am just not seeing any motherboards out there that would fit my requirement of multiple video cards. And SLI is dead on AMD workstation boards. That does not help either.

Bottom line: Until AMD asks it's board makers to come up with something for us, they wont. The new AMD SR chipsets are a goldmine. CrossfireX boards in an ATX size are easily doable.

[terrace215]

what was the point of that article and in what correlation is it with this thread??

You might have to read the whole article, not just the excerpt.

Unless I'm mistaken, this thread has many posts about Beckton vs Mangy.

And the correlation might be even stronger than that.

[Movieman]

~snip~

Also the term "Overclock/er" has become to general,there are at least 2 groups in it:
The first one is the "record breakers" -these guys use the LN2,Dry Ice and run benchmarks faster and faster under very,very high gigahertz (for a few minutes )
That's were all the "fame" is.
Stability here is only needed to complete the benchmark run and take a
screen shot.I do not think this group is even interested in M.cores.

The second group runs their overcloked PCs 24/7/365 at full load (without crashing btw),but of course the clocks are much lower then the "records".

This (I think) is one of the best descriptions as to "why" we need the over clocking ability.Let the motherboard manufacturers do what they do best -
give us motherboards with the features we need.
AMD has done their job already - the cpus are made.
The philosophy has always been (something like):
"give users the ability to make a choice", and that is all we really need.No need to target us

Thank you for this post. Well said and yes, I fall into this group..
I'd love to see a MC dual socket board with OC options in the bios like the new EVGA W555 board has for the Intel Westmere's.
Is it a risk for a company to commit the resources to try this? Definately.
Will it pay off? I don't know as I'm not aware of the numbers needed to turn a profit on a board like this but in my heart I say Congrats to EVGA for having the balls to try.
I think realistically only Asus or possibly Gigabyte could make that kind of board for the MC platform. The key is top parts and forget the cost.
The market for a board of that type isn't money limited.

[Nedjo]

You might have to read the whole article, not just the excerpt.

Unless I'm mistaken, this thread has many posts about Beckton vs Mangy.

And the correlation might be even stronger than that.

between Hexa-Core Gulftown and mission critical Tulsa (I hope I've hit codename), Beckton with it's special requirements for FB-DIMM 2, and complicated/expensive mobos is dead-end project of long ago departed Pat Gelsinger... only thing that's keeping him alive is the fact that Intel doesn't want to make another Larrabee announcement in such a short time-span!



Investing so much resources in a complete spin-off product like Beckton for disproportionately big 4-socket market is nonsense, that might have worked before Economy breakdown, but not anymore!

but who would no... if Intel is so desperate for 4S product... they just might do something so unreasonable as Beckton launch!

point is what ever they do, I don't see a reason for AMD to talk about it, or spread rumors 'cos MC and Maranello as a unified long term platform that can enable 1/2/4S is far more appealing, and affordable for server builders