Quad Core Opteron "taped out"

[mullet]

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTE0OCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

[a12ctic]

looks very impressive, im hoping to jump from single core to quad core sometime next year.

[shabby]

Just like the kentsfield these quad cores are probably gonna hover near the g-note, not really my idea of a desktop part.

[a12ctic]

what are you talking about, once they code applications for dual core, theyll be able to take advantage for any amount of cores. within a few years, all processors will probobly be quad core.

[shabby]

Im not saying quad core sucks, just the price of one.

[a12ctic]

i can see amd selling the low-end quadcore for 400$

[hemmy]

the majority of pc owners buy CPUs that are 200 or < (including poor ole me)

[a12ctic]

the majority of pc owners buy CPUs that are 200 or < (including poor ole me)
ya, well then you wait a few months for the prices to come down

im a budget buyer as well ;)

[Heinz68]

i can see amd selling the low-end quadcore for 400$And how did you figure out that price? Another one of your famous crystal ball prediction.

Anyway the Quad-Core Opteron is for servers.
If you read the article, you find out AMD has yet to announce Quad-Core for desktop and it's going to be
the Athlon 64 FX.
AMD has yet to price any FX processor cheap, just look at the crazy price off the FX-60 and FX-62 at about $800 USD
I say crazy since Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 at about $350 USD outperforms the above FX's

So you can bet the Athlon 64 FX Quad-Core is going to be at least $1000 USD especially if it performs well.

[nekrosoft13]

plus, this CPU is not comming out this year, or even early next year.

while intel quad will be out this year, and its a desktop CPU

[a12ctic]

except for intel isnt making a real quad core, there just gluing 2 processors together.

the fx series are desktop chips... once the fx series has been out for a few weeks/months, theyll release a series of chips.

[Zelda_fan]

except for intel isnt making a real quad core, there just gluing 2 processors together.

the fx series are desktop chips... once the fx series has been out for a few weeks/months, theyll release a series of chips.

AMD isn't making a real quad core. They're just gluing two processors together. WTF is a real quad core anyway? It's a cpu with FOUR CORES! If you glue two procs together, that's the same damn thing as any quad core.

[superklye]

AMD isn't making a real quad core. They're just gluing two processors together. WTF is a real quad core anyway? It's a cpu with FOUR CORES! If you glue two procs together, that's the same damn thing as any quad core.
That's like saying two single-barrel shotguns taped together is really a double-barrel shotgun.

[Zelda_fan]

That's like saying two single-barrel shotguns taped together is really a double-barrel shotgun.

Four cores is four cores no matter what way you spin it. It's more about how the software takes advantage of it rather than how the architecture connects them together.

[superklye]

And I go back to my previous statement: Two barrels is two barrels. It’s more about how the shooter takes advantage of both guns than how the architecture connects them together.



See the faulty logic? It’d be same as saying that two 4 cylinder engines are an 8 cylinder engine. No…it’s two separate 4 cyls that may or may not work together instead of 8 cyls constantly working together.

And if two cores is two cores is two cores (or 4), then why is it that the Athlon 64 X2 chips embarrassed the Prescott dual cores? Architecture DOES matter, and that’s a blatant example of showing how inefficient “duct tape” design is really, really ****ty.

[Zelda_fan]

And I go back to my previous statement: Two barrels is two barrels. It’s more about how the shooter takes advantage of both guns than how the architecture connects them together.



See the faulty logic? It’d be same as saying that two 4 cylinder engines are an 8 cylinder engine. No…it’s two separate 4 cyls that may or may not work together instead of 8 cyls constantly working together.

And if two cores is two cores is two cores (or 4), then why is it that the Athlon 64 X2 chips embarrassed the Prescott dual cores? Architecture DOES matter, and that’s a blatant example of showing how inefficient “duct tape” design is really, really ****ty.

becasue the netburst architecture sucked. AMD chips had always embarassed the P4, so why would it be any different with dual core? You do realize that their are server motherboards that allow you to physically use two chips. This is pretty much the same as the "duct tape" method, and it performs just fine.

[superklye]

becasue the netburst architecture sucked. AMD chips had always embarassed the P4, so why would it be any different with dual core? You do realize that their are server motherboards that allow you to physically use two chips. This is pretty much the same as the "duct tape" method, and it performs just fine.
I always forget that you're never wrong, even when you are, and that trying to have any debate with you is futile.

[Zelda_fan]

I always forget that you're never wrong, even when you are, and that trying to have any debate with you is futile.

I love how you argue. You present analogies of "shotguns" and "car engines," consider that as "proof," and then make the conclusions that PCs work the exact same way.

[superklye]

I love how you argue. You present analogies of "shotguns" and "car engines," consider that as "proof," and then make the conclusions that PCs work the exact same way.
You really don’t understand logic at all, do you? Please, refute my analogies. I'd love to see how my application of your idea doesn't apply. You said four cores is four cores. So, if I wanted to build an 8 cylinder car engine, by your logic, I could just take two 4 cylinder engines and put them together. There’s 8 cylinders there, so bam. I’m done.

Take a class in logic. Really.

Perhaps in a situation where there are two separate programs running, each on their own processor, the differences between Intel and AMD's approaches to multi-core design would be negligible, but in a situation where the processors have to interact with one another to share information for the same program, having two independent cores connected only by transferring data via the FSB instead of the core interconnect is GOING to be slower.

Here’s another analogy that you won’t understand:
You’re the Intel dual core in this case and you want to go to your neighbor’s house to talk to him in person about a deck you’re going to help him build. He lives directly behind your house on the other side of the block. But you’ve got a big wooden fence surrounding your yard and no way to cross between the two backyards, so you have to walk out the front door, down the block and around the corner to talk to him.

Not very efficient.

Now I want to do the same thing and also have a fence separating mine and my neighbor’s yards, however, I have a gate that opens up directly into his backyard so I can go straight across and talk to him.

Very efficient.


TRUE multi-core processors should be able interact DIRECTLY with one another without having to go via the front-side bus or some other outside connection. That is why people don’t consider Intel’s approach TRUE multi-core. And why you shouldn’t consider two 4-cylinder engines put together to be an 8 cylinder engine or two single-barrel shotguns taped together to be a double-barrel shotgun.

[hemmy]

superkyle just stop talking

2 cores in 1 processor = dual core processor

DUAL=2 that can work independently or together

[superklye]

superkyle just stop talking

2 cores in 1 processor = dual core processor

DUAL=2 that can work independently or together
Gosh thanks. I couldn't quite grasp what "dual core" meant. :rolleyes2


EDIT:
Look, when I am saying that this isn’t “true multi-core,” I mean is that it IS multi-core, but only in the most superficial sense of the term – being that there are multiple cores on a single CPU. The initial Intel dual cores were not built to BE dual cores. They were simply two single core processors “glued” together to be dual core.

No one is saying a CPU with two/four cores isn’t dual/quad core.

Just that the design wasn’t for the CPU to be dual core from the beginning. It was a duct tape mod to shoddily meet demand instead of being a true multi-core solution to provide optimal efficiency when cores are talking to each other…like how AMD does their dual core CPUs.

Just like how two single-barrel shotguns taped together are effectively a double barrel and two 4-cylinder engines are effectively an 8-cylinder...the shotgun wasn’t built from the ground up to be two barrels and the engine wasn’t built from the ground up to be an 8-cylinder. Those are last-ditch efforts to meet a need.

Is that so hard to understand?

[mullet]

All this talk about shotguns and quad corezz, got me thinking about a quake 2 mod, man those were the good times. I think all of this dual quad stuff it just silly, kinda like XP 64 haha. I just wish the SOFTWARE folks would get off there a$$'s and catch up with the hardware.:p ;)

[tweaked]

superkyle has a really good point, part of the reason why the core 2's scream with mulithreaded apps is the shared l2 cache.

the close coupling of cpus is a FAR more efficient design.

if it wasnt, intel would still be bolting 2 seperate cores together because the yeilds on single cores are much higher and easier to achieve.

why make a true dual core like the core2 unless there is a performance benefit?

when a cpu is designed for dual or quad from the ground up it shares data amongst the cores far more effiently. it removes a bottleneck.

if you cant understand this relatively simple reasoning something in your brain is broken.


now, that being said, does this mean that AMDs true quad will be better than Intels 2 cores bolted together?

thats a tough one, the core2 is a mean mofo and it will take something even meaner to dethrone it.

[ToxicTaZ]

By the way AMD K8L is not vs Intel Kentsfield! i dont know why people keep thinking that it does? By the time AMD K8L tech is out Q4 2007 Intel Kentsfield is one year old and is ready for Intel's second gen Quad-Core!

The road map looks more like this:

Q4 2007
AMD AM3 (Motherbored)
AMD K8L (65nm SOI)

vs

Q4 2007
Intel Bearlake-X/G+ (Motherbored)
Intel Wolfdale 45nm Dual-Core 3MB 1333MHz FSB
Intel Ridgefield 45nm Dual-Core 6MB 1333MHz FSB

Q1 2008
Intel Bearlake-X/G+ (Motherbored)
Intel Bloomsfield 45nm Monolithic Quad-Core 6MB 1333MHz FSB (vs AMD K8L Tech)

Q2 2008
Intel Bearlake-X/G+ (Motherbored)
Intel Yorkfield 45nm Octal-Core 12MB 1333MHz FSB (multi-die)

Q3 2008
Intel Core 3 Duo/Quattro/Octal (Nehalem)

I see AMD K8L vs Intel Bloomfield!

[nrdstrm]

By the way AMD K8L is not vs Intel Kentsfield! i dont know why people keep thinking that it does? By the time AMD K8L tech is out Q4 2007 Intel Kentsfield is one year old and is ready for Intel's second gen Quad-Core!

The road map looks more like this:

Q4 2007
AMD AM3 (Motherbored)
AMD K8L (65nm SOI)

vs

Q4 2007
Intel Bearlake-X/G+ (Motherbored)
Intel Wolfdale 45nm Dual-Core 3MB 1333MHz FSB
Intel Ridgefield 45nm Dual-Core 6MB 1333MHz FSB

Q1 2008
Intel Bearlake-X/G+ (Motherbored)
Intel Bloomsfield 45nm Monolithic Quad-Core 6MB 1333MHz FSB (vs AMD K8L Tech)

Q2 2008
Intel Bearlake-X/G+ (Motherbored)
Intel Yorkfield 45nm Octal-Core 12MB 1333MHz FSB (multi-die)

Q3 2008
Intel Core 3 Duo/Quattro/Octal (Nehalem)

I see AMD K8L vs Intel Bloomfield!

I thought K8L was to be released early next year. If this is NOT the case, then yes, AMD might be in trouble. It really depends on the K8L architechture. If they do thinks "similar" or "better" than intel with the core design, then they have a real chance to take the performance lead. Thing is, none of us REALLY know what K8 is capable of. What we do no is that Quad Core Monolithic Intel CPU's will kick ass. Will they kick enough ass to best K8L? We have to wait and see.

BTW, why is AMD even doing 4X4 and Intel doing Kentsfield? Is it just that multi core apps will be able to access them? Because IMO 4X4 and Kentsfield are basically the same thing, thus they are just adding cores, not revamping architecture...Intel will still win this battle (4x4 vs Kentsfield). K8L vs. Bloomsfield is an entirely different story...