Dual core Opterons... A64's later.

[Mendel]

Read from Anand about AMD's dual core plans for Opteron, and Athlon 64 processors.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2081

I kind of got stuck in the pincount question. How are they supposed to pull of a dual core processor with 940 pins? Let alone less for a64. I mean, all those pins are there for a reason! Something must be left out, would it be dual channel memory controller or what?

On another note, the combined core size will surely be far from optimal, right?

What kind of performance increase would you expect? Same as actual dual processor system? Faster? Slower? Why?

Is this the only answer AMD has for Intel's HT?

edit: I think I did something wrong with the url tags

 

[I.S.T.]

You put a space inbetween the last part of the url and the second url tag.


http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2081

Same code, just without the space.

 

[Althornin]

Read from Anand about AMD's dual core plans for Opteron, and Athlon 64 processors.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2081

I kind of got stuck in the pincount question. How are they supposed to pull of a dual core processor with 940 pins? Let alone less for a64. I mean, all those pins are there for a reason! Something must be left out, would it be dual channel memory controller or what?

On another note, the combined core size will surely be far from optimal, right?

What kind of performance increase would you expect? Same as actual dual processor system? Faster? Slower? Why?

Is this the only answer AMD has for Intel's HT?

edit: I think I did something wrong with the url tags

i dont get the "pincount" question.
Why is a larger pincount needed?
Sun has done just fine with the same pincount moving from UltraSparc 3 to UltraSparc4 (which is just a dual core ultrasparc3)

 

[Mendel]

Well especially if they integrate another memory controller, i guess they would need more pins, right?

Well, look at the bottom of current Opterons, its just full of pins... Now if they effectively double everything in the processor, it would be logical to assume they would need more power and therefore pins too. Intel was about to give up pins in their socket T because they can't transfer enough power, maybe AMD will seek similar solution?

But maybe I'm just totally out of my ballpark.

 

[Althornin]

Well especially if they integrate another memory controller, i guess they would need more pins, right?

Well, look at the bottom of current Opterons, its just full of pins... Now if they effectively double everything in the processor, it would be logical to assume they would need more power and therefore pins too. Intel was about to give up pins in their socket T because they can't transfer enough power, maybe AMD will seek similar solution?

But maybe I'm just totally out of my ballpark.

yeah, pretty much.
they arent gonna double the memory interfaces, it will remain at two.
If they planned right, power wont be a concern.

 

[T2k]

They will be pin compatible, they'll be S940 chips with dual core.

 

[Althornin]

They will be pin compatible, they'll be S940 chips with dual core.

why 940, and not 939?
got link?

 

[Tim]

They will be pin compatible, they'll be S940 chips with dual core.

why 940, and not 939?
got link?

There will be dual core FXs for s939.

 

[T2k]

They will be pin compatible, they'll be S940 chips with dual core.

why 940, and not 939?
got link?

Got word from somebody pretty high at AMD.

 

[T2k]

They will be pin compatible, they'll be S940 chips with dual core.

why 940, and not 939?
got link?

There will be dual core FXs for s939.

Dunno but I haven't heard anything about it but it could be due to the fact we were talking about Opterons only, namely how far can I go with our current dual Opterons by the next year.

 

[ANova]

The dual core Opterons will be coming first, thus 940. AMD will be releasing dual core A64s in 939 some months after.