backtop


Print 73 comment(s) - last by Calin.. on Jul 27 at 4:05 AM

Native quad-core en route

Yesterday during AMD's Q2'06 earnings conference call, AMD's President and Chief Operating Officer Dirk Meyer recapped the long term plans for the company.  Although the bulk of his comments were already stated in during the June AMD Analyst's Day, Meyer also added the tidbit that the company plans "to demonstration our next-generation processor core, in a native quad-core implementation, before the end of the year."  Earlier this year, AMD's Executive Vice President Henri Richard claimed this native-quad core processor would be called K8L.

Earlier AMD roadmaps have revealed that quad-core production CPUs would not utilize a native quad-core design until late 2007 or 2008. To put that into perspective AMD demonstrated the first dual-core Opteron samples in August 2004, with the processor tape out in June 2004.  The official launch of dual-core Opteron occurred on April 21, 2005.  On the same call Meyer announced that that the native quad-core would launch in the middle of 2007 -- suggesting the non-native quad-core Deerhound designs may come earlier than expected or not at all.

Just this past Wednesday, Intel one-upped K8L plans by announcing quad-core Kentsfield and Clovertown will ship this year, as opposed to Q1'07 originally slated by the company. 


Comments     Threshold


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

By plewis00 on 7/22/2006 3:16:02 AM , Rating: 2
What a load of crap. Agreed, Intel made some bad moves in their time but Pentium 4 crap from the start? It was onto a winner during the Athlon XP days. Tricks?! So making your processors complete ops faster is a trick is it? News to me, perhaps we should just go back to the old days of simple processors and no optimization at all... all these extensions allow better processing speeds, Hyperthreading gave an advantage in many applications and caches are used everywhere and I'd still bet the 2mb cache on the smaller Conroe will do its job well. So by your reckoning AMD's 64-bit extensions (which, I'll add, are less used than SSE, et al) and memory controllers are tricks? Because it would seem that way when a processor (Core 2) without an on-die controller trounces the Athlon 64. No, Conroe doesn't correct Pentium 4, it redresses a lot of things and then some. You sound just like Sharikou, all mouth and no substance. You know NOTHING about K8L (as do most people as it's relatively undocumented) and yet you bang on about how great it is. Remember Intel with how great Prescott was on paper, and when it came out it was crap? Maybe K8L won't be, but there is a chance it won't be the saviour you expect. What are you, an AMD shareholder? Conroe isn't a glued processor, it was designed as dual-core from the start so I don't know where you get 'GLUED' from. Prescott/Cedar Mill cores are 'glued' but then, so are Athlon 64 cores, the only reason they work better is the HT link between them. As for the best processor, well, for the consumer it's the fastest and cheapest and then that would be Core 2 Duo. If AMD is so fantastic why are they offering 50% price cuts on their CPUs? Not bad chips by any means but no longer the best. Maybe they won't be running at a loss but when was cutting 50% of your sell price on your product good for profits? I like how you referred to the great conspiracy theory of Intel paying companies not to sell AMD, care to back that one up or did you hear about Dell and decide it was an industry-wide practice?


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

Related Articles













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