backtop

Hardware AMD 6-core "Thuban" CPU Confirmed
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - September 22, 2009 10:22 AM
Print 60 comment(s) - last by akse.. on Sep 24 at 1:25 AM
"Thuban" set to hit next year and will be backwards compatible with existing boards

MaximumPC reports that it has confirmed AMD will be delivering its new six-core Thuban CPU next year. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the new six-core beast is that the CPU will be backwards compatible with existing AM3 and AM2+ mainboards.

An AMD spokesman told MaximumPC, "We are all about platform longevity and long-lived upgrade paths.” The statement was a jab at Intel who often requires new sockets when it unleashes new CPUs onto the market.

The new six-core processor is believed to be a 364mm2 processor and have 904 million transistors. For comparison, the Phenom II X4 956 BE has 758 million transistors and the Core i7 965 from Intel has 731 million transistors.

MaximumPC reports that the Thuban CPU is believed to have 3MB of L2 cache, and 6MB of L3 cache. Clock speeds are unknown, but are expected to be lower than those of the quad core parts being offered from AMD because of the increased heat output of the extra pair of cores.

The new AMD processor is not expected to beat the Intel Gulftown to store shelves. Gulftown is expected to hit stores under the Core i9 name and fit existing LGA1366 mainboards. These processors are expected to be able to handle 12 threads at once with HyperThreading enabled.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
One UP!!
By R3T4rd on 9/22/2009 10:28:37 AM , Rating: 5
At least with AMD, I don't have to buy new Motherboards everytime a new CPU is released. I hope AMD sticks to thier words and keep a good mid range customer base.

+1 for AMD.




RE: One UP!!
By dastruch on 9/22/2009 10:44:04 AM , Rating: 2
Do you have any idea of Intel's socket LGA775 lifespan ?


RE: One UP!!
By DEredita on 9/22/2009 10:45:06 AM , Rating: 3
It was around for what felt like forever.


RE: One UP!!
By Hiravaxis on 9/22/2009 11:01:49 AM , Rating: 2
Yet, that's not the case with the current line of socket technology from Intel.
It's a significant advantage for ADM.


RE: One UP!!
By Ralos on 9/22/2009 11:58:09 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's a significant advantage for ADM.


On paper, yes.

I admit it's an advantage, but I personnally would file this more in the "minor" category. I'm running on my sixth desktop right now and the only time I have upgraded the CPU was with my first one, a 386. Replace de DX 25MHz with a replacement from Improve Technology or something.

Never has been even tempted for my last 5 ones. I keep them a long time and when I change, I change everything and often give away the old system.

I'm not saying this is useless, no, only that for the vast majority of the buyers, that's minor at best.


RE: One UP!!
By wempa on 9/22/2009 12:33:37 PM , Rating: 2
I agree totally. It seems that the new sockets come out when the are necessary. I had several P4 machines (Socket 478) for a long time and only recently upgraded 2 of them to LGA 775 for Core 2 Duo / Quad. OK, so I guess it was "replaced" more than "upgraded" since I had to buy a new motherboard. But personally, I found the change from AGP to PCI-E more annoying than the CPU socket change since I had upgraded video cards several times and most of the cards had moved to only PCI-E.


RE: One UP!!
By Jeffk464 on 9/22/2009 10:09:21 PM , Rating: 4
I always end up upgrading the guts(ram, cpu, graphics card) all at the same time, anything else seems like a mismatch.


RE: One UP!!
By DEredita on 9/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: One UP!!
By StevoLincolnite on 9/22/2009 10:56:29 AM , Rating: 3
It should be noted that despite this poster stating the "Pentium 4 2.66 -3.8ghz" processors are supported by socket 775, it doesn't take into account that there were also socket 478 processors (The Northwood) that also ranged in similar clock speeds, and the socket 775 series didn't come out till a fair while after.

You basically need a Presscott or newer iteration of the Netburst architecture to fit in the socket 775 socket.

The socket 775 platform has been around for about 5 years now, Where-as AM2 has been around for only 2 years.

The socket A was in existence for 5-6 years as well. (Which is a heck of a long time in the Technology industry!)


RE: One UP!!
By weskurtz0081 on 9/22/2009 11:05:03 AM , Rating: 5
Well, Wikipedia doesn't tell you the whole story.

Just because it was the "same socket" doesn't mean every CPU would work with every chipset.

As the CPU architecture changed, so did the voltage requirements, and with that change, the VRM had to be changed. So, for many people, when you went from a P4 to a PD, you needed a different motherboard. Or, when you went from a PD to a Core 2, you needed a different motherboard.

Just because the socket didn't change, doesn't mean you weren't forced to buy a new motherboard. So, that list is pretty much useless in this context.


RE: One UP!!
By bertomatic on 9/22/2009 12:04:38 PM , Rating: 4
A Pentium D socket 775 will NOT take any CORE based cpu's. Even thought its the same socket, you have to replace the motherboard to upgrade. I have like 50 machines that are now due for replacement, only because of this. Had I gone with AMD 4 years ago, i would only be swapping out CPU's, not entire machines.


RE: One UP!!
By Captain Orgazmo on 9/22/2009 7:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Had I gone with AMD 4 years ago, i would only be swapping out CPU's, not entire machines.


Really? With which new socket 939/754 processor? Socket AM2 came out in 2006.


RE: One UP!!
By fake01 on 9/23/2009 10:57:17 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, he was off by 1 year.


RE: One UP!!
By akse on 9/24/2009 1:25:26 AM , Rating: 2
I bought this Asus P5K-E with E6600 core 2 duo in 2007. A month ago I upgraded my CPU to Q9550, I think it was fun to do that kind of upgrade since I have always had to upgrade the whole thing before(ram, mobo, cpu).

But now that I think of i7 and i5 I really don't know which one to take and looking at the prices I will probably just skip them and wait for the 32nm since this q9550 should do very well for 2 years. If these two cpu models would work with same motherboards it would be an easier choice, I would probably take some budjet i5 first and wait till the i7 prices drop even more (well 920 isn't that expensive but the higher end ones are) and then upgrade that cpu to the same motherboard.

If I had AMD it I could probably upgrade my cpu more often, but yeah that really isn't necessary at least not for me.

Anyways looking forward to what the Thuban can do, but I doubt they'll do very good.


RE: One UP!!
By FITCamaro on 9/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: One UP!!
By werfu on 9/22/2009 1:00:09 PM , Rating: 4
No Pentium Dual core were rebranded Core Duo, not Netburst-based Pentium D.


RE: One UP!!
By BSMonitor on 9/22/2009 1:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
A) Pentium D - Netburst
B) Pentium Dual Core - Conroe with much less L2 cache than Core 2 Duo
C) Core Duo - Mobile only chip! Brought about the Intel Mac's. Successor to Pentium M - Banias chip designed in Israel.


RE: One UP!!
By Amiga500 on 9/22/2009 10:52:35 AM , Rating: 5
Yes...

... and do you have any idea of how many different chipsets were not compatible with different processors?


RE: One UP!!
By strikeback03 on 9/22/2009 11:06:45 AM , Rating: 2
Right. Just because they kept the same socket forever doesn't mean everyone (or anyone) introduced BIOS updates to get new processors into old motherboards. So you could keep your S775 heatsink; otherwise it might as well be a new socket.


RE: One UP!!
By HostileEffect on 9/22/2009 11:05:40 AM , Rating: 2
Take that new 8 phase power thing, whatever it was, into account. Motherboards with 775 without the spiffy new power management didn't get to have 45Nm chips.


RE: One UP!!
By R3T4rd on 9/22/2009 12:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
"by Amiga500 on September 22, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Yes...

... and do you have any idea of how many different chipsets were not compatible with different processors? "

I guess I should have been clearer. As Amiga500 said.


RE: One UP!!
By Yawgm0th on 9/22/2009 12:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have any idea how many different incompatible chipsets, processor architectures, and even RAM slots that were incompatible with the previous generation regardless of the motherboard? I think it was four, four, and three, off the top of my head. That's over what, a four year period? LGA775 had virtually no forwards compatibility.

Honestly, I think forwards compatibility on a motherboard beyond a year or so out is overrated anyway, but at least post an argument that supports your point if you're going to enter the great processor flamewar.


RE: One UP!!
By mmatis on 9/22/2009 5:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
But you could always unsolder the old LGA775 socket from your old motherboard and solder it into a new one that would work with your new CPU. If you were skilled at soldering, that is...
}:-]


RE: One UP!!
By invidious on 9/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: One UP!!
By omnicronx on 9/22/2009 1:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
Are you dense? LGA775 is a socket not a chipset, they have not been using the same chipset for the past 5 years. And believe me there was no set upgrade path, from personal experience I found that few motherboards for the 775 P4's worked with Cd2's.. and even if you could many times it would only run lower end Cd2's.

With AM2+/3 it should be a dropin with maybe a bios upgrade, for almost all users.

That being said, up until AM2/AM2+/AM3, their upgrade paths were terrible. I bought 3 motherboards in 4 years.


RE: One UP!!
By omnicronx on 9/22/2009 2:16:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That being said, up until AM2/AM2+/AM3, their upgrade paths were terrible. I bought 3 motherboards in 4 years.
Ok I take that back, during the entire 939/940/754 fiasco their upgrade paths were terrible, previously they were great. Heck at least AMD can keep using one socket with the same CPU. The P3 was both Slot 1 and 370 with no real additional features. (at least with 939 to AM2 we got DDR2)


RE: One UP!!
By Targon on 9/22/2009 2:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
The Intel socket may have stayed the same, but you needed a new chipset to handle the new processors anyway, so keeping the same socket did nothing to avoid the need for a new motherboard.


RE: One UP!!
By Fox5 on 9/22/2009 2:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
It was around for a while, but frequently had incompatibilities from one gen of processors to the next. A mobo from the p4 times has a good chance of not supporting core 2 duos, a mobo from the initial 65nm core 2 duos has a good chance of not working with 45 nm core 2 duos, and obviously i7 made a clean break.

On the other hand, an am2 mobo has a good chance of working with current processors, an am2+ is almost guaranteed, and the new processors work on both the new socket and the old sockets.


RE: One UP!!
By Omega215D on 9/22/2009 8:30:26 PM , Rating: 2
With the new Lynnfield CPUs another socket comes out and is meant for the Mainstream. PCIe 16x (only) is integrated on the CPU and Intel says that if you want full dual 16x PCI-e you should get the older Core i7 motherboards. I hate that it boils down to: do you want to spend less and still get good performance but somewhat limited in upgradeability or do you want to spend more and get more upgradeability (6 core i7 will only work with the older LGA 1366).

At least with AMD we get the choice of decent backward compatibility though that might change with AMD's Bulldozer.

Sorry, I just got my new issue of MaxPC...


RE: One UP!!
By Belard on 9/22/2009 8:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you have any idea of Intel's socket LGA775 lifespan ?


That doesn't matter... Not all LGA775 boards support all LGA CPUs. Intel has always been bad about that. Even AMD has done simular with the Socket 940. but they warned that 939 would replace 940 soon.

There are 3 different P4 sockets. Early LGA775 are not Core2 friendly. Even when intel came out with a new P4, sometimes a new mobo was required because of voltage changes. Some latest 775 boards won't work with the oldest CPUs.

AMD did very well with their Socket-A, which retired supporting the slowest 800mhz T-Birds to the final XP-3200.
The AMD 939 is about the same age as 775, it too supported oldest to latest 939 CPUs, even when going to dual core.

A person buying an AMD system during the past year with the 700 series chipsets can allow the owner to use any 1~6 core CPUs. A BIOS update from the manufacture is the only requirement.

A person with a P4x or P3x board are at the end of the line. No more Core2 advancements.

And worse... intel isn't exactly clear with their model numbers. You can have an i7 CPU on two different sockets... and if someone doesn't have an LGA 1366 and later wants to upgrade to a better i7 or i9 - they are SOL.

The i5s are a good deal... faster than Core2, cheaper than Core2 & i7 CPU/LGA1366 setups, etc. But upgrading will ALWAYS be an issue. So safest is to spend an extra $200+ for an i7 setup... but we'll see if current boards will support i9s.

- - - -
I have a Core2Quad. I bought it because the price was right and AMDs quads were JUNK, power hungry, etc. But had I bought a 770 or 780 board with a $120 X2 CPU, I could have upgraded to a modern X4 CPU, while usingthe same mobo and memory. I wish I had gone AMD.


RE: One UP!!
By wetwareinterface on 9/23/2009 1:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
so what?
early era 775 motherboards could not handle middle era cpus.
middle era 775 socket motherboards could not handle later series cpus.

the socket is only a small part of the problem, when intel releases a new cpu they want to sell you a new chipset to go with it as they make more money that way. the early p4 based 775 motherboards could not handle core or core 2 cpus because of voltage differences. core cpu chipset 775 boards might support core 2 cpus depending on the vendor's implementation of power circuitry. etc...

socket 775 was just that the socket. intel has a track record of a new motherboard being needed every 1-2 years. i can take a socket am2 motherboard and stick in a am2+ or am3 cpu in it as long as the bios gets an update to support it. no need for physical hardware upgrades just a bios flash. intel is another story entirely.


RE: One UP!!
By defter on 9/22/2009 11:25:40 AM , Rating: 2
You also don't need to buy a new motherboard for 6-core Gulftown.

Reason for backwards compability is simple, the CPU has the same 45nm Phenom core and the same socket. There is not reason why it wouldn't be backwards compatible. Basically, this CPU is Istanbul with DDR3 memory support.


RE: One UP!!
By SPOOFE on 9/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: One UP!!
By Targon on 9/22/2009 2:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
I think you missed the point here. AMD has pretty much allowed people to use the same motherboard for all processors that use that socket.

So, a socket AM2 motherboard with a BIOS update can generally handle even the newest Phenom 2 processors, as long as the motherboard isn't cheap without the ability to handle 125 or 140 watt processors. The move to socket AM2+ added several features that allowed more flexibility for this upgrade as well.

With Intel, there is a long pattern of needing a new motherboard for every generation of processor that comes out, even if the socket has remained the same. If you wanted a new Pentium 4(back in those days), chances are you had to get a new motherboard, because the old chipset wouldn't support the new processors. Even into the Core 2 generation, can a two year old motherboard handle the latest Core 2 processors(prior to the i7 release)? Do you think a current motherboard that supports the i7 support a processor being released next year, even if the socket remains the same?

Don't confuse wanting to keep the same motherboard just for a CPU upgrade with needing a new motherboard just to do a CPU upgrade. There is a big difference.

I've done a nice upgrade from an Athlon 64 X2 5600+ to a Phenom 2 940 on the same motherboard, and the most I had to do was update the firmware before swapping processors.


RE: One UP!!
By swaaye on 9/22/2009 3:31:53 PM , Rating: 1
There are plenty of AM2 mobos that can't run Phenom.

There are also plenty of Intel 945 mobos that can run Core 2. Some even support the 45nm chips unofficially I believe. That's a 4 year old chipset now. Oh and Socket 7 was around for half a decade!

Socket longevity is a dumb argument because neither side is going to cripple a new CPU just to run on an old platform. They build a new socket when they see a need to. New electrical demands/needs, new data demands, whatever.


RE: One UP!!
By kroker on 9/22/2009 6:20:47 PM , Rating: 2
What about Socket A, Socket 754, Socket 939, Socket 940, Socket AM2, Socket AM2+, Socket AM3? That's a lot of sockets (granted, the last three were compatible from what I know; I stopped following AMD after Socket AM2 was released when they stopped supporting Sk939).

Intel, on the other hand, didn't change the socket for a long time (LGA 775), but they might as well have, because they changed the chipset each time and usually older MBs could not support newer processors. If they had changed the socket to indicate incompatibility, they could have avoided a lot of confusion for the consumers. What's the point for a newer MB to have support for older processors anyway? It's the other way around that's usually what a user wants.

That being said, I've got a Core 2 Q6600 which I bought back in 2007 after the big price reduction, and I don't plan to ever upgrade it. The whole system will be replaced in a few years when affordable platforms will be available which are at least twice as fast (compared to Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz), and which consume less power. I really have a tough time understanding people who spend a lot of money to upgrade to something which is just 10-25% faster on average, sometimes not even that, just so that they can stay on the cutting edge. With some overclock, the Q6600 is still comparable to the best Phenom IIs out there. AMD needed a triple core to catch a dual core from Intel, and now they need a six-core to catch a quad-core. Not to mention that 4 cores is already more than enough, 6 cores will be useless for the average user. And how many years can you keep the same MB anyway? USB 3.0, SATA 6Gbps, DDR 3, PCIe 3.0, the world moves on - you should do too.

So the upgrading part is not really that much of an argument in favor of AMD... AMD changed a lot of sockets too, now it was simply Intel's turn.


RE: One UP!!
By Major HooHaa on 9/23/2009 2:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
When I went from my aging single core AMD Athlon to a Quad Core Intel P.C, I was happy to upgrade my motherboard at the same time.


By DEredita on 9/22/2009 10:41:29 AM , Rating: 3
I have read that AMD plans on a 12-core Opteron CPU by Q2 2010. It's too bad that they couldn't leap frog over Intel and go for the throat by releasing desktop and server 12-core CPUs simultaneously. I am sure there would be a market for a $400 12-core 2.6 GHz CPU if AMD released it. Make an AMD AM3 Extreme motherboard which is basically a rebadged server motherboard with two AM3 sockets on it and 8 ram slots.
24 cores, 16GB DDR3 ram, and two 5870x2 in crossfire - drool!!!

But, I will gladly take a 3.0+ GHz six-core AMD Processor for $245. Maybe by Q2 2010, the prices for 4GB modules of DDR3 memory will have dropped significantly.




By HotFoot on 9/22/2009 10:49:33 AM , Rating: 3
How big is the market for that many cores in a desktop? The only reason I can see going for that many outside of the server/hpc space is for video encoding. I'm still trying to find a reason to upgrade from my dual-core Penryn, but I'm not finding it out there.

If AMD is packing on so many cores, given how much of a GHz hit they're taking to maintain a reasonable TDP, I sure hope they adopt some kind of Lynnfield-like frequency management system, and soon!


By DEredita on 9/22/2009 11:03:24 AM , Rating: 1
I feel the GHz race is dead. I feel that 3.5 GHz is the barrier. While there might be some CPUs out that will be released faster than 3.5 GHz, I think it's going to stay around 2.5 GHz as more and more cores are added to CPU. I think the next arms race between AMD and Intel will be in terms of how many cores they can shoehorn onto CPUs.


By invidious on 9/22/2009 1:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
As far as the "barrier" you speak of it is really just that it's not practical from a heat perspective to keep increasing clock rate on metalic semiconductors that we use. There is certainly room for engineering with better heat dissipation or voltage reduction, both of which have become more popular sense this percieved barrier has been reached.

I don't see multiple cores as an acceptable path to increasing CPU performance for home PC market. At least not as long as the software to utilitize multiple cores is lagging so far behind. Until the day when a 2 ghz qual core cpu is approximately equal to a 4 ghz dual core cpu arrives, I do not want a quad core. For the vast majority of personal computing applications there is minimal difference between quad and dual cores right now. The only sector that should be getting more cores is servers.

What I am hopeful for is the emerging optic computing technology which produces no heat and virtually instant signal propagation. It is still a while away but if they can work out the kinks it would surely revolutionize the market in terms of speed and power consumption.

Until then I suggest home users look for a high clock rate dual core with the good cache and memory interface.


By Parhel on 9/22/2009 11:03:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm still trying to find a reason to upgrade from my dual-core Penryn, but I'm not finding it out there.


Me too. My Penryn is OC'ed to 3.8Ghz / 1600Mhz FSB, and honestly there isn't anything out there that beats it by a wide enough margin for me to justify a new mobo, CPU and RAM.

When I finally do another build, it will probably be USB 3.0, SATA 6GB/sec, and affordable SSD's that convince me rather than CPU horsepower.

On the other hand, 24 cores in an affordable server could be very useful.


By DEredita on 9/22/2009 11:26:17 AM , Rating: 2
To be fair, my primary computer right now is a Macbook with a 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB of DDR2 ram, integrated Intel GMA950 graphics, and a 320GB hard drive. It's slow as hell, and I keep holding out, because I want some monster 4+ core machine with a minimum of 8GB of ram, and a minimum of a 2GB 4890 video card (preferably a 2GB 5870 video card).


By StevoLincolnite on 9/22/2009 11:35:26 AM , Rating: 2
Why a Radeon 4890 when the Radeon 5850/5870 will be available in a matter of days/weeks?
Here they are expecting shipments of the Radeon 5850/5870 in a couple of days, but we also got the core i5 chips a month before the USA did.


By bupkus on 9/22/2009 11:43:14 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sitting with an e6300 Conroe oc'd to 2.8 GHz and just don't need the upgrade. Considering my current needs I'd rather save on power usage than an expensive performance boost.

Outside of a motherboard failure, Clarkdale may be my next build.

Nope, the Atom 330 would be too much of a performance downgrade.


By hyvonen on 9/22/2009 12:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
Amen, brother. I'm looking forward to building a Clarkdale rig with <20W idle; that'll keep me happy for years. I might even make it fanless.

It's hard to find an efficient PSU with <200W max, though... I mean, what's the point of having a 80 Plus Gold >85% efficient PSU if it's rated for 1000W.


By HotFoot on 9/22/2009 1:39:29 PM , Rating: 3
For such a lightweight machine you'll probably do well with a 450W 80+% PSU. My htpc runs on an OCZ model from a couple years ago, which I think they're still making. At idle the wall power draw is 60W for the whole thing. I think the PSU was $60 and it stays very cool and is quiet to boot.

Anyway, dipping below 80% efficiency doesn't matter so much when you're drawing 100W or less from the wall. Efficiency matters a lot more when you're on a screaming gaming rig and actually pulling 500 Watts.

For reference, the last I measured my gaming rig, monitor and speakers included, it took 170 Watts from the wall while gaming. That's with an E8500 at 3.6 GHz, a 3870 at stock, and a raptor spinning away. Looking at my system, from a gaming performance perspective, my first upgrade will be to a SSD. Then, sometime after the 5xxx cards launch, a new video card is in order.

I'm not seeing how having 6 or 12 cores in anyone's system right now is going to give you any kind of frame rate advantage over a Penryn at 3.6-3.8 GHz running the same graphics and storage. I'd love to justify getting a Lynnfield and turn some folding@home competitors green with envy but I'm not looking to spend money on something until I'm actually going to feel the difference.

Say hello SSD, say hello new graphics. CPU, please inspire me!


By BurnItDwn on 9/22/2009 11:08:46 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
An AMD spokesman told MaximumPC, "We are all about platform longevity and long-lived upgrade paths.”


As an owner of a socket 939 and 754 system, I completely disagree with this statement. In the past, socket A lasted a decent amount of time, but not even close to Socket 7, or even Slot 1 for that matter....




By PAPutzback on 9/22/2009 11:24:38 AM , Rating: 2
I'll agree that the 939 wasn't about longevity. It was a race to 64bits. But anyone who kept up with AMD knew the 754 was a temporary board for enthusiasts with money to blow. I sat on my Socket A AGP system until AM2 was out, it wasn't easy but AMD told us it was coming. And now I can still put any AM3 processor <= 125 watts in there. My plan is to put a low watt cpu in it and make it a WHS box.


By DEredita on 9/22/2009 11:29:03 AM , Rating: 2
At one point, I was bitter at the short lifespan of the 939 motherboard and the ultra limited upgrade options I had. It didn't bother me for long, because a faulty PSU decided to put that motherboard out of its misery.


By BurnItDwn on 9/22/2009 12:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
OK, about 754, I'll concede :)
About 939, AMD indeed was talking about a new socket, but until later on, and even then, I think most people didn't think they would pretty much stop releasing faster X2's to the 939 platform as soon as AM2 came out ....

Anyhow .... I've got an AM2+ with a Phenom X4 right now, when I feel a need to upgrade, I'll seriously consider this new 6 core CPU (though will probably wind up with a phenom II x4 running at a much higher clock than my 1st gen Phenom.) I'm just a bit bitter about 939, and I think that AMD shouldn't claim to be all about longevity if they are somewhat frequently not about it. Cheers!


By swaaye on 9/22/2009 3:37:00 PM , Rating: 2
You could have your 64-bits with Socket 754 way before 939.

939 was dead the moment Intel left DDR1 behind. Without the huge sales volume, DDR1 was obsolete in more ways than just technology. DDR2 prices would plummet per capacity both because it was superior tech and because so many companies were working on it to supply for the huge demand. So AMD had to move on.

Aside from Phenom, 939 isn't exactly limited in CPU options compared to AM2 anyway. You can the full A64 range for it.


By omnicronx on 9/22/2009 2:11:17 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree with your statement too, aside from the 939/940 hiccup which was a direct result of moving to 64 bit, AMD pretty much has held true to this statement. In the end they've really only had 4 mainstream sockets in the last 20 years (Socket 7, Socket A, 939 and AM2/+/3 (different name but same socket)) Excluding 939/754 thats 5 years minimum for each socket.

Compare that with intel over the years, Socket 7, Slot A , Socket 370, Socket 423, Socket 478, and now LGA 775. Thats 6 sockets, and of those 6 sockets there were multiple CPU's, most of which were never compatible with older motherboards, even though they had the same socket.

The big difference comes when you look at compatibility between said sockets. Socket A mobos that ran thunderbird parts could upgrade to A-XP chips. AM2 boards can run AM2+ chips, AM2+ boards can run AM3 chips etc etc.. Only a handful of CD2 chips worked with previous P4 mobos running LGA775, it was a pain in the ass for me to find an upgrade path and I ended up just buying a new motherboard instead. There was also backwards compatibility, for example Super socket 7 boards could run socket 7 chips. AXP designed boards could run Thunderbird chips, etc etc..

p.s you can't really include 754, it was never a high end socket, and AMD always said it would be discontinued pretty quick. That being said, if I remember they did end up up selling sempron chips on 754 long after hey migrated to 939 as some users were not too pleased and AMD responded. I'm pretty sure well see pigs fly before we see something like that happen with Intel.


By swaaye on 9/22/2009 3:44:54 PM , Rating: 2
Slot 1 you mean. Slot A is the original Athlon slot.

Don't forget that there are lots of AM2 mobos that don't support Phenom. Some Socket A mobos can't run even Palominos, let alone TBred/Barton. Maybe there are more such cases.

Socket 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 were AMD's friends for many years so that's not a valid point for any such argument. AMD made 8088s, 286s and 386s too, using Intel sockets.

So I don't see either company as having some sort of "upgrader friendly" socket plan. That doesn't make any sense. The vast majority of owners don't upgrade CPUs. So I say that if a new CPU can benefit in any way from a better-designed socket, they'd better make one.


By omnicronx on 9/23/2009 12:07:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Slot 1 you mean.
Yes I meant Slot 1
quote:
Don't forget that there are lots of AM2 mobos that don't support Phenom. Some Socket A mobos can't run even Palominos, let alone TBred/Barton. Maybe there are more such cases.
But thats a third party manufacturer issue, not because they are incompatible. By design AM2+ chips i.e Phenom could be supported on AM2 boards should the manufacturer decide to support it. Same goes with your second statement. Intel on the otherhand being the creator of a large portion of motherboards for intel based cpu's can make no such argument.


Nice picture of Intel
By Hieyeck on 9/22/2009 12:08:31 PM , Rating: 3
How very appropriate... Not.

This is beyond whining about proofreading. This is plain absurdity.




Phenom II X4 956 BE?
By DEredita on 9/22/2009 10:34:18 AM , Rating: 2
I think you mean "Phenom II X4 965 BE"




I really wished....
By swizeus on 9/22/2009 12:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
AMD processors have huge L2 cache, and there it goes... and after reading the article, i really wonder how it compare to intel.

Perhaps another thing i want to see is new invention to compete against the new Hyper-threading from intel. Just to make things even




Seems like a dumb move
By Comdrpopnfresh on 9/22/2009 12:57:42 PM , Rating: 2
By adding two more processing cores and all the links, cache, and controllers that come along with that; wouldn't it be a lot more efficient to revamp the power/voltage planes on the chip? Is that something that can be done with firmware? It seems you're pinned to whatever hardware exists on the socket. So lower clock speeds, and no downward momentum on the power consumption or heat generation. They'll likely have to lower the bar on the HTT speeds too- which means the additional cache is just to save face.




Need turbo mode
By nafhan on 9/22/2009 1:12:02 PM , Rating: 2
AMD really needs to add some improved power gating to their processors, especially as they move to six cores. As it is, a 6 core AMD processor is only going to be competetive at the most highly threaded work loads, and fall even further behind on anything using less than six threads.




"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone



Latest Headlines
2/10/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 10, 2012, 5:50 PM
2/9/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 9, 2012, 11:54 AM
2/8/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 8, 2012, 1:11 PM
Ex-Acer CEO Slapped With Lawsuit for Joining Lenovo
February 7, 2012, 5:38 PM
2/7/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 7, 2012, 12:23 PM
2/6/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews -- Intel 520 240GB SSD Edition
February 6, 2012, 12:04 PM
botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki