backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 82 comment(s) - last by ElJefe69.. on Feb 15 at 11:24 PM
AMD's native quad-core design picks up more steam

In a series of memos forwarded to DailyTech, industry insiders discussed the upcoming launch frequencies regarding AMD's next-generation architecture, previously dubbed K10 by AMD Executive Vice President Henri Richard.  Since then, AMD has generally referred to the next-generation chips as the Barcelona family, although Barcelona specifically denotes the high-performance quad-core server processor codename.

Some details of next-generation AMD desktop processors, the Stars family, were revealed late last year.

The desktop equivalent of Barcelona, codenamed Agena, is the 65nm flagship of AMD's next-generation desktop processors.  Launch frequencies were quoted at "2.4 - 2.6GHz." Previous roadmaps had indicated Agena would debut at 2.7 to 2.9 GHz.  Agena will have a 2MB L2 and 2MB L3 cache per CPU.  AMD's internal guidance denotes this as a 125W TDP processor. As the flagship, Agena will be the first next-generation desktop launch and is scheduled for Q3'07.

Kuma, the dual-core mainstream next-generation desktop processor was quoted as having launch frequencies of "2.0 - 2.9GHz."  Unlike the quad-core Agena processors, Kuma will feature 1MB of L2 and 2MB of shared L3 cache. Kuma will launch with both 89W and 65W TDP variants, but Energy Efficient models scheduled for 35W TDP will follow shortly after.

Rana, the next-generation Sempron successor codename, will launch with frequencies in the 2.1 to 2.3 GHz range.  The dual-core CPUs will feature 1MB of total L2 cache, but no L3 cache.  Rana's TDP is rated at 65W.  Rana will not launch with the Agena flagship; AMD roadmaps have the processor launching at the same time as the Energy Efficient Kuma processors, or approximately Q4'07 if the launch schedule holds together.

As previously reported on DailyTech, Stars processors will use AM2+ motherboards.  These processors can plug into existing AM2 motherboards today given the proper BIOS updates, but without the AM2+ sockets Stars processors will drop down to the HyperTransport 1.0 bus speeds.

AMD's Agena FX codename also appears to still exist on the roadmap.  The only difference at this point between Agena and Agena FX is that Agena FX will use the Socket 1207+ interface.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Not so obsolete
By Omega215D on 1/26/2007 10:00:36 AM , Rating: 2
People were so quick to jump on the "early death of socket AM2" bandwagon and it looks like that won't be the case: As previously reported on DailyTech, Stars processors will use AM2+ motherboards. These processors can plug into existing AM2 motherboards today given the proper BIOS updates, but without the AM2+ sockets Stars processors will drop down to the HyperTransport 1.0 bus speeds.

Now when these are available I trust Anandtech to post a review on whether dropping down to HT 1.0 will have any noticeable effect on app usage. This will be most interesting in terms of backward /forward compatibility.




RE: Not so obsolete
By SacredFist on 1/26/2007 10:39:10 AM , Rating: 2
True ... but AM2 seems obsolete to get because you kinda bought a not ... okay, better said, its like buyers remorse


RE: Not so obsolete
By The Arete on 1/26/2007 10:41:19 AM , Rating: 2
I'm curious as to the major differences between the two platforms. I had assumed, like many, that with the new architecture, my AM2 motherboard would become completely obsolete.

I wonder as to the specs of the new AM2+ boards, and whether it might behoove me, and others, to upgrade regardless.

Anyone know any major upgrades, excluding BIOS, that are going to come about with the new Architecture?


RE: Not so obsolete
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/26/2007 10:43:55 AM , Rating: 2
The only thing that's really been announced is HT3 support. Of course, if HT3 really doesn't make much difference over HT 1.0, there may be no reason to upgrade the motherboard.


RE: Not so obsolete
By Tsuwamono on 1/26/07, Rating: -1
RE: Not so obsolete
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/26/2007 12:38:40 PM , Rating: 3
You cannot upgrade your motherboard from AM2 to AM2+ with just a BIOS upgrade. The BIOS upgrade only adds support for the processor, you will not get features like HT3 from BIOS.


RE: Not so obsolete
By Tsuwamono on 1/26/2007 6:00:29 PM , Rating: 1
oh, i miss read the post. sorry


RE: Not so obsolete
By dandres87 on 1/26/2007 12:52:29 PM , Rating: 2
Remember how Intel released the Pentium D, it was double core, not true dual core. And remember how much the Athlon X2s stomped them? I think its going to happen all over. Now the strength of the C2D will compensate a bit in the QX's for being a double core(Quad core platforms that is) but when AMD's true quad core comes out it will assuredly give Intel a run if not annihilate. Then you have the price wars (as with the dual cores ) all over again.


RE: Not so obsolete
By Adonlude on 1/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: Not so obsolete
By fxyefx on 1/26/2007 1:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
You are right, but I would not be so quick to say that AMD will fall back to business mediocrity so soon, especially in light of these recent news articles. : D It is very difficult to predict what the future will hold, especially with the switch to "fusion" between GPUs and CPUs, and the possibility of nvidia becoming competitive in the same market as AMD and Intel.


RE: Not so obsolete
By The Max on 1/26/2007 3:22:32 PM , Rating: 1
I Was under the impression Motorola invented the microprocessor , 8088a , the size of a house brick but never the less the 8086 process of logic gates progressed from a calculator chip to cpu which IBM and others developed , i guess AMD and INTEL must have invented the wheel too , similar in fact to Xerox and Apple were not the ones to blame for initiating icons , xerox in 72 and apple later , even my memory seems to be on the blink . Weird !


RE: Not so obsolete
By Hoser McMoose on 1/26/2007 4:05:35 PM , Rating: 3
The Intel 4004 processor is generally recognized as the first single-chip microprocessor. Before that there were other processor designs, but they were based on several independent chips working together. Bringing all the processor functionality into a single chip is really what allowed for the development of microcomputers and eventually the desktops and laptops we know today.

It perhaps should be noted though that Intel was really just the first to reach a fairly obvious finish line. TI and Motorola (and maybe others?) were also working towards the same goal and had their own microprocessors out shortly after Intel released the 4004.


RE: Not so obsolete
By Tom Tom on 1/26/2007 6:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
I believe Fairchild Semi invented the first microprocessor.


RE: Not so obsolete
By Viditor on 1/26/2007 8:10:04 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I believe Fairchild Semi invented the first microprocessor

Correct...
Also, both Intel and AMD were founded by people from Fairchild Semi...


RE: Not so obsolete
By Phynaz on 1/26/2007 1:45:28 PM , Rating: 2
Ponder this:

Since current AMD chips use seperate caches, they would fall into the double-core catagory as you have defined it, and not into the true dual-core catagory.


RE: Not so obsolete
By fxyefx on 1/26/2007 2:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think dandres87 mentioned anything about cache sharing, nor did he define his idea of double-core versus dual -core...


RE: Not so obsolete
By ADDAvenger on 1/26/2007 7:58:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, and on top of that everything but the Sempron replacements will have shared L3.


RE: Not so obsolete
By coldpower27 on 1/31/2007 9:02:39 PM , Rating: 2
There will be low end K8L Dual Core which lack the 2MB of LV3 Shared cache. They will probably go against the Pentium E2xxx Series to the Core 2 Duo E4xxx sequence.


RE: Not so obsolete
By Viditor on 1/26/2007 8:18:37 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Since current AMD chips use seperate caches, they would fall into the double-core catagory as you have defined it, and not into the true dual-core catagory

Not quite...the AMD caches are directly connected to each other and don't require a FSB to negotiate through.

In other words, the MCM (Intel's dual-dual) is operationally identical to having 2 dual core sockets, though it has the advantage of being only one which keeps software licensing cheaper.
AMD's quad core will be 4 cores directly connected to one another on the die...this should improve trace speeds to be equal with Intel's shared cache.


RE: Not so obsolete
By coldpower27 on 1/31/2007 9:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
I simply disagree Viditor, I thought you learned your lesson before, the current definition for a "true" Dual Core processor is that all the cores are on a Single Socket. This has been established already by the Server environment. The monolithic vs MCM nature has no effect of whether it is true or not. It is either a MCM or a Native implementation but it remains all the others words you have described are only used by AMD fanboys to incite flamebait in others, and are completely redundant not to mention waste alot of other peoples time.

AMD is touting their Native Dual Core advantage, however we will actually have to see if it's an advantage or not and see how the scaling is from AMD's Altair Quad Core to the Antares Dual Core at the same clock frequency in multi-threaded applications. This would have to be compared to a Intel Kentsfield and Conroe each of the same clock frequency.

There is currently no data to indicate that scaling is any worse on Intel's current implementation with MCM vs AMD's implementation with Native. At this point this is only a theoretical advantage, nothing more.

The other issue at this point is that there is a rumor belief, incited mainly by AMD fans, that Kentsfield is bandwidth limited, AND that this factor is affecting performance in a significant detrimental way. If that was the case there should be significant performance gain when the FSB is increased holding the clock speed constant as that provides more bandwidth assuming the Memory used is Dual Channel DDR2-800 in this case, to the processors but the data available shows that the processors don't gain very much if any due to the increase bandwidth which makes sense, as Core Architecture is designed so that bandwidth is not a significant requirement for performance.