AMD starts Tape-out of the first dual-core Opteron [dual core] [amd]
Q: There is not much info and we will not see the chips next year, but interesting nonetheless.
http: / / www.) ($ MySite / cpu / showdoc.html? I = 2081
Core feng Shui
Re:Originally posted by: guy
will the duel core cpu's work with the upcoming socket 939 motherboards? or will it need a more upgraded socket 939 for it to work? becuase i'm assuming that since the new mobos coming out soon arent exactly designed for duel core cpu's.
Current generation 939 and 940 motherboards should work fine with the dual core. It just needs a BIOS upgrade to do the CPUID stuff correctly, supposadly. AMD has been saying that since day one (they annonced the dual core cpu quite a while ago).
The K8 setup was designed from the get go to do this, I guess, and AMD was planning this all along.
Knowing how motherboard manufactures love to cut corners on design, though, I would expect that you would have some problems with the cheaper stuff… Won't know for sure on all motherboards until people start trying to do it.
Remember a lot of the functionality that used to be kept inside the motherboard's northbridge is now located in the CPU itself.
Is their any motherboard manufacturer that currently advertises support of the future dual core CPU?
Core Power For Baseball
Re:will the duel core cpu's work with the upcoming socket 939 motherboards? or will it need a more upgraded socket 939 for it to work? becuase i'm assuming that since the new mobos coming out soon arent exactly designed for duel core cpu's.
Unique and super effective core training, build a strong core fast!
Re:Originally posted by: guy
The reason AMD will put this chip on S939 and S940 is to take advantage of the dual-channel memory. It would be absurd to produce a dual-core chip and limit it to single channel memory. Realize, the memory bus now has to feed two chips, not just one. To cut the size of that bus in half AGAIN by implementing this chip for single-channel systems would be disasterous. Why on Earth would they cripple an already saturated memory bus this way? Also, this is going to be their new "big dog" server and workstation chip, so producing it for the "budget" socket makes no sense from a marketing standpoint.
This using a single memory bus is what every Xeon/Pentium/Althon MP SMP setup does in the world right now.
And also these chips are not due out for over a year from now, and we have DDR-2 coming along soon to compliment these chips.
So I guess with DDR-2 + Dual channel + Dual core you can get quite a screamer of a system going.
Lots of D's.
Combat Core Strength – Advanced Torso Training Strategies
Re:The reason AMD will put this chip on S939 and S940 is to take advantage of the dual-channel memory. It would be absurd to produce a dual-core chip and limit it to single channel memory. Realize, the memory bus now has to feed two chips, not just one. To cut the size of that bus in half AGAIN by implementing this chip for single-channel systems would be disasterous. Why on Earth would they cripple an already saturated memory bus this way? Also, this is going to be their new "big dog" server and workstation chip, so producing it for the "budget" socket makes no sense from a marketing standpoint.
Personal Training Secrets To Lose Belly Fat and Get a Flat Stomach
Re:Originally posted by: PorBleemo
Originally posted by: guy
I think it says that existing mobos (S939, S940) will support them with just a bios upgrade 
Perhaps it does something resembling what Hyperthreading does, except with two physical CPUs.
Probably pretty much. The AMD 64 was designed specificly for SMP operation with it's hyper transport whatever.
Probably helps explain why AMD felt that it should have the 939 rather then just the 754 socket.
Core Animation Training
Re:Originally posted by: guy
I think it says that existing mobos (S939, S940) will support them with just a bios upgrade
Perhaps it does something resembling what Hyperthreading does, except with two physical CPUs.
Core Stabilization Training For Muscular Imbalances
Re:Apparently AMD has already run some test wafers through on the dual core…
Don't ask how I know.
Affordable Webinar Course!
Re:Originally posted by: guy
I guess my point was that this new dual-core strategy is not going to be as effeective as clock-speed ramping in maintain performance increases. This is largely because most poeple do not use their PC's to multitask. Most poeple (mom, dad, little Nathaniel) only do one thing at once. Given this situation, to what extent will SINGLE applications benefit from dual cores? I suspect not very much. This technology seems fantastic for workstation and server platforms where space/power are at a premium and most of the procssing requires multitasking/multithreading. But for desktop users, I see only a small group of people who will tangibly benefit from this. Of course, it will be a long time before these chips become mainstream, and by then e wil have an OS that helps optimize for this dual-core capability. Nevertheless, in the short-to-medium term, this doesn't look like a major leap forward for the dektop community. I mean, let's cut to the chase: how will this affect my FPS in Doom 3?
Your right. For normal desktop users, this shouldn't mean a whole lot.
For your Doom 3 your probably only going to be able to get 115-125% the performance of a Single CPU of the same speed.
So if a single core CPU that is significantly faster (in mhz) is aviable for the same price as the dual core CPU, then it would be advantages for you to get the single core faster cpu.
But don't underestimate the perceived performance increase you get from have Dual CPU's on a desktop.
Under heavy load the enviroment will be significantly faster, and will respond much more quickly. You web browser will render pages quicker, your music/media player will continue playing without any slowdown or hiccups even if one CPU is under 100% load from another application. You could encode 100's of megs of mp3 music files with having very little impact with what your doing on the desktop. etc etc.
Multibox your PC Games – Play 5+ games at once!
Re:I guess my point was that this new dual-core strategy is not going to be as effective as clock-speed ramping in maintain performance increases in the desktopmarket. This is largely because most poeple do not use their desktop PC's to multitask. Most poeple (mom, dad, little Nathaniel) only do one thing at a time, and even the most common multitasking (listening to MP3's while typing a papr is MS Word) is easily handled by todya's single-core chips.
Given this situation, to what extent will SINGLE applications and general desktop PC use benefit from dual cores?
I suspect not very much.
This technology seems fantastic for workstation and server platforms where space/power are at a premium and most of the procssing requires multitasking/multithreading. But for desktop users, I see only a small group of people who will tangibly benefit from this.
Of course, it will be a long time before these chips become mainstream, and by then we will (hopefully) have an OS that helps optimize for this dual-core capability. Nevertheless, in the short-to-medium term, this doesn't look like a major leap forward for the dektop community. I mean, let's cut to the chase: how will this affect my FPS in Doom 3?
Now, give me a dual-core X800 and we have a whole different story…!
Pilates Power System.
Re:Originally posted by: guy
so the duel core fx, for example the fx-53, will run just as well as a duel opteron 250? if its that way, then will there ever be a point in running duel processors wtih duel cores? seems a bit overkill to me, but i like!
Dual. not duel
It will better OR not as well. Depending on the motherboard.
With regular x86-32 you have 1 northbridge that controls the memory, so If you have 2 cpu's they have to share the same bandwidth as 1 cpu. So that hurts overall performance.
However in Opterons the memory controller is built right into the CPU.
So on cheaper SMP Opteron motherboards they only have 1 memory pathway so that you only use the memory controller in one CPU. So effectively your sharing the memory like on a Xeon or a Althon MP. And that sucks.
On nicer SMP Opteron boards you have one memory bank/path dedicated for each CPU. So you have 2 memory pathways, so you have full memory bandwidth for both CPU's which is a good thing.
A dual core will be inbetween those 2. It will be faster then the cheap boards because the memory interconnects will be faster because it doesn't have to go thru the trace lines in the motherboard. But it will be slower then the nice boards because the memory will still have to be shared between the 2 cpus.
So what the stategy for the Dual core setup is that 4-way boards are prohibitively expensive for the normal x86 market, so they are pretty rare.
So by using Dual core CPU's with Dual SMP board you have effectively a 4-way SMP computer.
Do the samething on a 4-way board and you have a 8-way computer.
As I understand it, this means that those applications which most utilize the dual cores will also be most affected by the reduced bandwidth. Any comments about this would be appreciated…
the vast majority of applications are single threaded. So they can't take advantage of the multiple CPU's.
However multiple single threaded apps running at the same time can still take advantage of dual CPUs.
So if you like to have a computer were you can do multiple things at once you want a SMP setup if you can get one.
If for instance you want to rip DVDs WHILE editing photographs in Photoshop in order to save time you will have a much better time doing it in a SMP machine then a single CPU machine, even when the single CPU machine is normally much faster at doing individual things, like running FPS benchmarks in video games.
Remember that a Single CPU can only do one thing at a time, and it's cache is only usefull for holding so much data. In order to do multitasking it has to continously switch back and forth between the many different programs your are running.
And the memory bandwidth issue will cause performance drop off vs having a Dual board that can handle multiple memory pathways, but it's still going to have a significant memory advantage over the normal SMP setups you get from x86-32.
Plus when you take cost into account this performance penalty may be worth it. A good SMP Opteron board costs over 400 dollars. 2 CPU's cost twice as much as a single CPU, and you have to have a more powerfull PSU to give them power.
If a Dual core CPU isn't significantly more expensive then a single core version, then it would definately be worth it.
Re:AMD Begins Tape-Out of first dual core Opteron
As I understand it, "tape-out" is a single event – not a process (it isn't something you'd "begin"). "Tape out" is when the design is done, you have layout, everything is verified, and you send the data to the fab (back in the day, the data was sent on a tape, so you'd get the tape out to the factory).
Re:The dual-core chips will work with current socket technology in motherboards that are rated for the specifications of the dual-core chips, Weber said. A BIOS change will be required, but otherwise the chips will work in the same sockets as single-core Opterons, he said.
Well according to that the boards have to be spec'd for dual core chips. What exactly does that mean, and are all current socket 940/939 motherboards spec'd for dual core chips?
Re:This dual core strategy is being touted as the solution to increased CPU performance without a ramp in clock speed. But as I understand it, only certain applications that are written to take advantage of multi-threading show significant performance increases in dual-processor systems. Is this no longer the case? I am curious about the projected real-world performance increase going from a single core to a dual-core, especially considering that the dual-core chip wiill have only one memory controller for both chips to share. Certainly it will be easier to multitask (watch a DVD while playing Far Cry on your dual-monitor setup), but for just playing a single game, or encoding some media (which is what most people do with their systems) I am clueless about the possible performance gains.
As I understand it, this means that those applications which most utilize the dual cores will also be most affected by the reduced bandwidth. Any comments about this would be appreciated…
Re:I think it says that existing mobos (S939, S940) will support them with just a bios upgrade
Re:Okay so they will work on current sockets, thats a good thing, but does anybody have any ideas what motherboards will support them?
Re:So how many more years until we get AI?
Re:AMD clarifies dual-core processor strategy (http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/06/14/HNamddual_1.html)
Re:so the duel core fx, for example the fx-53, will run just as well as a duel opteron 250? if its that way, then will there ever be a point in running duel processors wtih duel cores? seems a bit overkill to me, but i like!
Re:Looking at the roadmap, this will give the FX something over the vanilla AMD64's, as the FX's are shown going dual in 05, while the FX look to be continuing as is, with just a ramp in clock speed.
Sounds like a good plan.
Re:AMD press release (http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~86455,00.html)
Re:and so it begins
dual core in 2004! nothing like a little optomism ehh?
Related posts
Tags: amd, dual core