backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 45 comment(s) - last by coldpower27.. on May 6 at 10:41 PM

AMD prepares to launch four discrete graphics and three new IGP chipsets for Socket AM2+ and 1207+

AMD plans to release its K10-derived Stars-family desktop processors later this year. The new Stars-family processors take advantage of AMD’s Socket AM2+, an updated Socket AM2 platform that adds support for the faster Hyper Transport 3.0 bus. AMD’s latest roadmap divulges information on its upcoming Hyper Transport 3.0 compatible chipset family, arriving in Q3’2007.

The new AMD discrete graphics chipset family includes four new chipsets ranging from the entry-level RX740 to the flagship RD790. At the top of the discrete graphics lineup is the RD790, which replaces the current AMD 580X. The RD790 serves double duty in AMD’s chipset lineup, powering AMD’s Quad FX Socket 1207+ and Socket AM2 platforms.

AMD’s flagship packs plenty of PCI Express flexibility with up to four physical PCIe x16 slots. The four slots can electrically operate with four 8-lane slots, one 16-lane and three 8-lane, or two 16-lane slots. There are six additional PCIe lanes for additional expansion. The RD790 is fully PCIe 2.0 compatible. AMD plans to target RD790 towards the $150 plus market.

Taking place of the AMD 480X is the upcoming RD780. The new RD780 supports two physical PCIe x16 slots in dual eight-lane configurations. The two PCIe x16 slots are fully PCIe 2.0 compatible. Slotted below the RD780 is the RX780, which does away with CrossFire multi-GPU support. The RX780 supports a single PCIe 2.0 x16 slot. Both chipsets support AMD’s Hyper Transport 3.0 bus. RD780 will target the $70-100 price points while the RX780 takes on the $50-70 price points.

AMD also intends to offer more value conscious consumers the RX740. This chipset features support for AMD’s Socket AM2+, however, it only supports Hyper Transport 1.0. The RX740 does not support PCIe 2.0 either.RX740 will take on the same $50-70 price points as the RX780.

AMD RD780, RX780 and RX740 can also share the same motherboard design, simplifying the design process. The four new chipsets pair up with AMD’s existing SB600 south bridge, as the SB700 won’t be ready until Q4’2007.

The new chipsets will also feature a Windows-based tweaking utility – AMD System Utility. The AMD System Utility allows users to tweak memory settings, automatically overclock the processor, test system stability and benchmark the processor and memory.

AMD is also preparing its next-generation integrated graphics chipsets for Q1’2008 as well. The new IGP family includes the DirectX 10 compatible RS780 and RS780C. AMD’s upcoming RS780 has all the processing and connectivity goodies. RS780 is the first IGP chipset to feature AMD’s Universal Video Decoder, which debuts with the ATI Radeon HD 2000-family.

UVD provides hardware acceleration for H.264/AVC and VC-1 high-definition video formats up to 40Mbits. Joining the UVD is support for DVI, HDMI and DisplayPort output connectivity. Targeting the value market is the RS780C. RS780C does away with UVD and DisplayPort support. Nevertheless, RS780 and RS780C support PCIe 2.0 and Hyper Transport 3.0.

Slotting below the RS780C is the DirectX 9 compatible RS740. RS740 supports Socket AM2+, but is limited to Hyper Transport 1.0 like the RX740. It is limited to PCIe 1.0 as with the RX740. Nevertheless, RS740 supports DVI and HDMI video outputs. AMD plans to launch RS740 before the RS780 and RS780C in Q4’2007.

In addition to upcoming chipsets, AMD’s roadmap divulges HQV Benchmark scores for its RS780 and RS740 chipsets. AMD’s upcoming RS780 will score a perfect 130 points while the RS740 scores 105 points. The current AMD 690G scores 80 points while Intel’s G965 scores 48 points.

Unlike AMD’s discrete graphics chipsets, the IGP products pair up with the upcoming SB700 south bridge. SB700 delivers six SATA 3.0Gbps ports with RAID 0, 1, 10, 5 support, fourteen USB ports and NAND flash memory option.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By kelmerp on 5/3/2007 9:14:37 AM , Rating: 2
quad-core AMD Phenom chips would make quite an excellent Home Theater PC. This very well might be the upgrade I've been waiting for.




By Moishe on 5/3/2007 9:26:44 AM , Rating: 2
Quad Core Phenom would be overkill unless you have multiple HD tuners! Heck... It would be nice though to be able to record 2 HD streams AND play BF2142. Right now I can do one HD while playing BF2142 but it introduces small hiccups (I think it's because the same HDD is used for the recording and the game)


By Mitch101 on 5/3/2007 10:01:40 AM , Rating: 1
Thats actually the downfall of most PC's. CPU usage isnt bad its disk IO that needs a major boost.

Everyone I know screams about how they want faster and faster CPU's but my CPU usage is very low even when gaming. I pray for raid using more than 4 drives already for home. Would like to see SATA raid-6 in 6-8 drive configs for home already.

Raid 6 basically ensures that if you lose a second drive when rebuilding the array you can still recover. Raid 5 if you lose a second drive before the array recovers your dead. There is no real loss in performance for doing a Raid 6 till you get into a few TB's but that number can shift with the number of drives and speed of the drives.


By sxr7171 on 5/3/2007 12:54:42 PM , Rating: 2
Good point, but I don't see Raid as the answer except for data protection. We need a good mix of fast Flash memory for random reads + faster seeks and transfers on HDDs for everything else. It happening. Slowly.


By ObscureCaucasian on 5/3/2007 6:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
The 2900 doesn't seem to be the product that will kick nVidia's @%%.


By Justin Case on 5/3/2007 2:55:57 PM , Rating: 4
RAID won't save your data from a fire or a flood or an earthquake. It's noisy, it's expensive and it's hot. Most people don't need RAID, they just need regular backups, kept somewhere safe. If a home user loses 1 or 2 days reinstalling from backups that won't cost him much.

Regarding the advantages of RAID-6 (over RAID-5), the chances of losing a drive during the array rebuild process are extremely low. I wouldn't use RAID-6 for any array with less than 12 drives. It's slightly slower and you lose more space (n-2 vs. n-1). Of course, between RAID-5 with one hot spare and RAID-6 with no hot spares, I'd take the RAID-6.

Anyway, anyone who wants RAID-6 can have it, for "home" or anywhere else. You just buy the controller, buy the drives, and set it up. It's not as if the shop will refuse to sell it if you say it's "for home".

In any case, RAID does not replace a good (preferably off-site) backup policy, as many people have found (usually the hard way).


By Justin Case on 5/3/2007 2:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
Have you tried setting affinity manually? I've found that Windows XP still tends to treat multi-core CPUs as hyperthreading CPUs, meaning it gives priority to even cores (0, 2, etc.).

This means that if you have a dual-core system and the first core (core 0) is only being used at 90%, Windows will tend to assign new threads to that core, although the second core is just sitting there doing nothing. When it hits 100%, then Windows moves it to the second core. But then the first core drops back to 90%, and Windows brings it back. It's this constant context switching that causes hiccups.

I notice this a lot on my quad-core system (two dual-core Opterons) because I have some background processes configured to use precisely 90% of available CPU cycles (they slow down automatically if another process needs more cycles). Assigning those process directly to the "even" cores (1 and 3), either using Task Manager or imagecfg.exe, solves the problem.

Your game shouldn't need to access the disk during normal gameplay (or, even if it does, that shouldn't interfere with rendering). The only exception is if you don't have enough RAM, and Windows is hitting the pagefile.

Quad-core is definitely overkill for a HTPC, especially if your tuner card(s) have built-in encoding acceleration (which most of the high-end models do). A low-voltage dual-core CPU will do the job just fine, eat less power, and release less heat. Remember that AMD's TDP is usually stated for an entire family (so that the CPU can be upgraded at any time). So although dual-core and quad-core CPUs might have the same TDP, the dual-core is likely to use 25-40% less power.


By Shintai on 5/3/2007 10:06:45 AM , Rating: 2
45W quadcore K10? I hope you mean 45nm. Else for 45W you end with a singlecore 65nm or a dualcore EE chip.


By Dactyl on 5/3/2007 12:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
Intel has 45W dual core and 45W quads coming soon.


By Shintai on 5/3/2007 1:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
Intel already got 50W quads...but no 45Ws, not in sight either.


By mars777 on 5/3/2007 2:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but Intel counts the TDP as a tipical usage scenario power draw while AMD uses the maximum dissipated power.

So while being named TDP on both sides you still have to read reviews, and I personally hate that.

It would be great if they got on the same wagon regarding TDP.


By Justin Case on 5/3/2007 3:02:10 PM , Rating: 4
AMD lists the maximum TDP per CPU family, so that you can buy a system and safely upgrade it later. Intel had relly nasty heat problems the Netburst days, so they started measuring it per CPU model, and even then, just the "typical" (not maximum) value. That's why AMD systems often consume less power than Intel Intel systems, despite having a higher TDP on paper.

Also, remember that Intel CPUs don't have a built-in memory controller (and that eats power, too), while AMD's do (and their TDP already includes that).

Always look at the system's total power consumption (or at least CPUs + motherboard), not at TDP numbers. Those are really just meant for OEMs, so they know what kind of cooling to use on each component.


By Shintai on 5/3/2007 6:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
A memory controller is about 2W or less. And before you say anything about the Northbridge. Rememeber what else it contains.

And Intel actually had ondie memory trollers 20 years ago with the 386SL and 486SL for laptops.


By Justin Case on 5/3/2007 7:39:22 PM , Rating: 1
So did Sinclair on the ZX-81. And DEC had 64-bit instructions in the Alpha. Your point...? Why should we be comparing current CPUs with a 25 MHz 386SL from 1988...?

BTW, what modern (x86, DDR2, dual-channel) memory controller uses "2 watts or less"...?


By defter on 5/4/2007 2:10:47 AM , Rating: 2
What do you mean by "x86" memory controller? BTW, NVidia made a 128bit DDR1 "memory controller" on 0.18um that consumed 9W, and it also had a T&L unit and 4 rendering pipelines :)


By Justin Case on 5/4/2007 10:59:08 AM , Rating: 1
I mean a memory controller for present day x86 / AMD64 CPUs. What did you think I meant? What else would make sense in regard to this discussion?

I'm sure the memory controller on my cellphone consumes less than two watts, but that's not exactly relevant to the TDP comparison of high-end x86 multi-core desktop chips, is it...?