backtop


Print 44 comment(s) - last by Viditor.. on Mar 16 at 2:52 AM

In a recent interview, AMD's next generation CPU architecture gets a name and a socket

Digitimes has a follow up to its interview with AMD's Henri Richard.  We covered the first interview here yesterday. Digitimes tried to squeeze a few more details out of Richard about the upcoming K8L platform architecture.  In the first interview, Richard would not comment on K8L. 

That's not to say we're going to present K8L at Computex – don't get me wrong – but I think that that would be a good time to start to disclose more about the future because one of the strong attributes of our roadmap, both in 2006 and 2007, is socket compatibility. The nice thing we're going to do is to deliver to customers. Whatever improvements K8L will provide, they will be applicable to some of the sockets we will be introducing. Therefore, there's a certain logic, to my mind, in disclosing more at that time.

In the first interview, Richard referred to the new architecture as "8KL" instead, but Digitimes reporters did not get back to us about this idiosyncrasy.  The three sockets AMD has on the roadmap are the 1207 pin LGA Socket F for servers, Socket AM2 for the desktop and Socket S1 for mobile devices.  All three are expected to have working samples on June 6th, 2006 according to AMD's most recent roadmap. 

In response to the approach AMD will take with K8L, Richard previously claimed that future AMD micro-architectures are strictly evolutionary and not revolutionary.  In yesterday's interview, he also claimed that AMD will arrive at better performance by improving clock speeds and increasing cache sizes, but that future core technologies will have increased integer and floating-point performance.  Seeing as K8L is the only technology on the AMD roadmap for the next year or so after AM2, we can only speculate as to what Richard means by that statement. 

Update 03/15/2006: Chris Hall from Digitimes has confirmed with us that the "8KL" reference was a misquote and that Richard was really referring to K8L.



Comments     Threshold


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

Die size
By nrb on 3/15/2006 6:20:00 AM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I'm wrong (like I need to say that!!!) but the die size for Conroe is really quite a lot smaller than the die size for the Athlon 64 at the moment, isn't it? That suggests to me that it may be quite difficult for AMD to add lots more L2 cache to the chip without putting the price up to the point where it's hard to compete.

That, presumably, will change as soon as AMD moves to a 65nm process, and especially if they manage to move from 200mm to 300mm silicon wafers as well. But the switch-over to 65nm is likely to be at least Q4/06, possibly even Q1/07. If they are to come up with something to rival Conroe at the time Conroe actually launches I don't think extra cache is an option. 3-6 months later, yes, but not at launch.

Hopefully they'll come up with something else. :-) Lack of competition is bad all round....




RE: Die size
By coldpower27 on 3/15/2006 7:36:23 AM , Rating: 2
Well the die size, of Conroe is about the same size as a Manchester Core Athlon 64x2, which is indeed quite a bit smaller then 199mm2 Toledo, not to mention the 220mm2 Windsor core.

Even if they shrink their processor to the 65nm process Windsor would still be larger then the 2MB Allendale Core Architecture processor, but it would be a tad smaller then 4MB Conroe as it should be as Windsor still has 2x1MB of cache. This is not factoring into the fact that AMD's 65nm process is more expensive due to AMD adding SiGe and already having SOI.

The 65nm Desktop Brisbane Athlon 64x2 isnt slated till H1 2007, hopefully though AMD has some 65nm products out in other market segments by then.




RE: Die size
By Viditor on 3/15/2006 8:29:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the die size for Conroe is really quite a lot smaller than the die size for the Athlon 64 at the moment, isn't it?

I have yet to see a die size number from Intel on the various Conroe chips, but:
X2 @ 1MB cache 90nm = 147 mm2
X2 @ 2MB cache 90nm = 199 mm2
Pressler @ 4MB cache 65nm = 140 mm2
Pentium D @ 2MB cache 90nm = 213mm2

As a WAG, I'd bet that Conroe will be around 140 mm2 for the 4MB as well, and ~105 mm2 for the 2MB variety.

Intel currently gets better density than AMD does on their L2, but AMD signed a license in Dec for a new type of cache memory called Z-Ram, which increases density up to five times their current density. It only works on SOI chips, but one of the cool things about it is that it requires just a fraction of the power that current types of cache use.


RE: Die size
By coldpower27 on 3/15/2006 2:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
No not quite on the Die size on the Pentium D's.

Smithfield = Monolithic 206mm2 die. 2x1MB
Presler = Dual Die 2x81mm2 dice. 2x2MB

What should be noted is that:
Manchester = 147mm2 2x512kb S939
Toledo = 199mm2 2x1MB S939
Windsor = 220mm2 2x1MB SAM2


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles
AMD Turion 64 X2 Prototypes
March 8, 2006, 9:15 PM
AMD's Next-gen Socket F Revealed
February 23, 2006, 5:02 PM
AMD Socket AM2 Roadmap Shakeup
February 16, 2006, 10:30 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki