Print 79 comment(s) - last by PrezWeezy.. on Apr 3 at 1:57 PM

"Torrenza" systems will accept both multi-core, accelerators, or "Fusion" processors
AMD sheds more light on accelerated processing projects

This week at CeBIT 2007, AMD revealed more details about its "accelerated computing" platform, codenamed Torrenza. AMD's goal behind Torrenza is to create a platform where application-specific processors can interact cost effectively and offer better performance than a general purpose CPU, while remaining compatible with off the shelf platforms.

AMD guidance revealed this week that future processors will also have integrated "accelerators" embedded into them. A Torrenza system will have at least two sockets, and both will accept accelerators and accelerated CPUs.

One accelerated-processor project on AMD plate, slated for 2008 under the codename Fusion, and combines a dedicated GPU or GPU accelerator onto the same package or even the same silicon die as the main CPU. AMD has already set the ground-work for Fusion processing with its Stream Computing initiative -- utilizing ATI-based graphics adaptors for heavy number crunching. 

Other Torrenza ready projects are also coming to light.  Clearspeed announced its CSX600 math-coprocessor plug-in last year, with the stated intention of creating a socket plugin version for Torrenza.  Los Alamos National Labs is currently building the world's fastest supercomputer, Roadrunner, with Opteron and Cell processors on the Torrenza platform.

Torrenza is not just locked within the compounds of the CPU sockets. According to AMD, Torrenza systems will accept accelerators in a PCI-Express interface too, allow for multiple application specific accelerators to access system memory and processor functions directly.  Mercury systems announced a PCIe plug-in accelerator late last year.

While Torrenza is well on its way to seeing daylight, Intel is also working on its own open architecture platform. Notorious for keeping its CPU platform a closely guarded technology, Intel indicated that it was working on a competitive technology to AMD's HyperTransport, dubbed CSI, allowing direct CPU and memory access.

Intel guidance suggests the company will announce its Torrenza competitor sometime in mid-2008.

Comments     Threshold

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

By just4U on 3/18/2007 2:36:48 PM , Rating: 2
I have a question. Amd has been able to license Intel instructions and such over the years right? IF HT is a open standard can't Intel just use that eventually? Why complicate things further by creating your own thing when there is already a standard in place?

Just curious here!

By Darkskypoet on 3/18/07, Rating: 0
By Darkskypoet on 3/18/2007 7:27:22 PM , Rating: 5
No its not.

Seriously, Intel has a lot of its 'mojo' from its design / implementation prowess. Taking tech from an 'inferior' firm after downplaying pretty much every tech brought forward from said 'inferior' firm hurts that image.

However not having any response to the currently available, and shipping HT tech (allowing for other firms to create chips to drop onto Opteron boards) leaves Intel out of a new and growing market. Thats not fanaticism!

I am saying the question is which does more damage: Waiting for another year plus to have a standard to bring to market, thus letting HT gain mind share and development dollars. Or, simply adopting the HT spec, thus giving AMD more legitimacy.

Neither is desirable vs Intel having had a competing standard 2 years ago.

(I am starting to become amused by your consistent down rating of decent posts. You really ought to stop attaching fanboyism / fanaticism to any post you for some reason do not seem to like)

Intel has lost ground, this is not speculation. Or are you unaware that AMD server market share has been growing? Especially in terms of 4 and >4 socket implementations.

Are you also unaware at the industry support now behind AMD HT, something that even 4 years ago would have been almost impossible due to AMD's lack of Server penetration. Sigh.

zsdersw please do not read any Intel is dying, etc. crap into my posts. Relative change in position between the two companies has been favoring AMD.

This necessarily shows Intel as losing some of the immense power it had relative to AMD in the past. HT, is part of this. Or are you saying it is not?

By zsdersw on 3/18/2007 7:40:24 PM , Rating: 1
First, I cannot rate your posts down because I've participated in this story's comment section.

Second, I am not addressing the question of image. I was addressing your apparent belief that Intel will necessarily lose market share whether they use HT or their own technology; that there is no hope for Intel to either increase market share or hold what they have.

Third, don't raise issues that I'm not arguing with you about.

By Darkskypoet on 3/18/2007 10:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
Well then, as I am new here, I apologize. As I am not a neophyte, I also realize the existence of multiple accounts per IP is allowed, so I am not going to pursue that any further.

Secondly, I am not saying will, or won't. I am saying have, and is still happening. Nor am I saying that they cannot take back market share, or that there is no hope. Please, quote the no hope wording from the post. I am saying that they are losing, and are behind in this venture because they have nothing comparable out.

I am saying quite clearly that to adopt HT after maligning AMD tech so much is bad for image, and secondly that coming to market so late hurts the initial uptake of this technology by other CoPU vendors.

Either way, adopting late, or coming to market late hurts market share. This should be elementary. I fail to see how "no hope" is read from that statement.

There is a reason AMD is losing enthusiast market share, because Barcelona is late. If I, aparently an AMD fanatic, am building C2Ds for myself, and clients, (left, right and center) obviously in the market in which I dwell, C2D is the leading chip. However, if AMD had Barcelona right now, it would be a much more difficult choice.

Since it isn't; we can see what happens when you come to market late with a competitive technology. You lose market share. Thankfully in this case for AMD, it is much simpler to create a CPU that doesn't rely on massive industry support for success. Whereas a new platform (like an HT competitor) requires such support, and as such needs more lead time to again become competitive, and to be developed for.

(For your benefit, more lead time, and more time in general does not equate to "no hope". Just wanted to clarify that)

By Viditor on 3/19/2007 9:17:07 AM , Rating: 2
When your posts are absent of any balancing good news on the Intel front, the tone of your posts quickly becomes one of anti-Intel, pro-AMD

Or it a post that is correct...often times there IS no balanced good news from Intel or AMD (that we know of...).

By zsdersw on 3/19/2007 10:13:47 AM , Rating: 1
There's always a way to balance it out.

By gonchuki on 3/19/2007 12:30:22 PM , Rating: 3
may be it's me, but i see it balanced taking into account that he states and remarks AMD's fault for being late in the market with Barcelona.
You are just trying to obscure things and point your own fanatiscism with those comments.

By zsdersw on 3/19/2007 2:39:08 PM , Rating: 1
That is the only example of balance.

By Yawgm0th on 3/18/2007 3:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
Using a technology developed by your main competitor isn't a great PR move, especially with fanboys waiting to jump on a little piece of information like that.

By Darkskypoet on 3/18/2007 7:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly... However, my post pointing such out was moderated down... Sigh. So I replied with gusto :)

I always thought the posts that were moderated down, were full of AMD is L33t & Intel Sux0rs... but it seems otherwise intelligent posts share that fate as well on this board. Sigh.

By zsdersw on 3/18/2007 8:02:30 PM , Rating: 1
A fancily-worded version of fanaticism is just as likely to get voted down just as much as a less eloquent version.

By Darkskypoet on 3/18/2007 9:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
So somehow pointing out the surprisingly obvious fact that AMD has been / is taking server market share from Intel, and part of that is due to HT and the working consortium behind it, is fanaticism? That is rather funny. I think your down moderating of intelligent factual posts is more akin to fanaticism, then my noting fairly obvious trends.

You disagree then that Intel adopting HT, late, will do no harm to their 'superior' mind share? Also, that by being a late adopter they would then have more ground to cover development wise in a shorter time frame?

Or that the delay in adopting a new point to point, somewhat open standard for interconnect has done no harm to their higher end server platforms?

Really? Let us know what you think about this. I mean it is one thing to call out 'fanaticism!!', and yet another to post an alternative for the readers to evaluate.

By Viditor on 3/19/2007 9:19:34 AM , Rating: 2
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with you about anything

But you are most certainly taking him to task over something you supposedly have no opinion about...

By coldpower27 on 3/19/2007 3:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
That's the thing you keep calling it "Intel adopting HT" but Intel isn't adopting a standard AMD had a hand in developing, they are working on their own solution aka CSI. It may do some of the things and in some of the same ways, but it's Intel standard and they have control on what they wish to do with it.

Companies buy products that perform, the purpose of a point to point connection such as HyperTransport or CSI, is to alleviate a potential bottleneck in processor to processor communication as well as to the main memory.

Intel made a choice, which would harm them more, giving props to AMD by developing and using HyperTransport, essentially saying they accept AMD as an actual equal OR hold out till they can develop their own solution that achieves the same goal with the con of having reduced performance on their high end server platforms?

Intel chose the latter decision and we will have to see if it hurts very much as what was pointed out 4P+ Servers aren't majority of systems sold.

What AMD did though with HyperTransport by releasing it as an open-standard is indeed a good decision for AMD and comes with it's own set of advantages. But AMD did this only because it believes in the long run this will do more good then harm to themselves.

And you have no evidence as to whom is down moderating your posts, just because someone has the ability to fire a gun, doesn't mean they are the ones that did.

By Locutus465 on 3/18/2007 10:17:44 PM , Rating: 2
My guess is partial pride, as far as to do so would be to admit that AMD matters. Another part is fear that it might put them at AMD's mercy... You are right though, it would make life better for consumers.

By Samus on 3/19/2007 10:28:31 AM , Rating: 1
Intel is too proud to license AMD technology. AMD is practical enough, and knows it must, license Intel technology to survive.

Intel is like an American auto manufacturer. They're too proud to look at their competition and see that the direction they're going in is the correct one, and they should just 'stay the course' and keep with their old habbits.

We've all seen what 'staying the course' has gotten us recently.

By zsdersw on 3/19/2007 10:52:45 AM , Rating: 2
The likening to American auto manufacturers is not a very good analogy.. and neither is "staying the course" (i.e., Iraq).

By ZmaxDP on 3/20/2007 2:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
An analogy is only as good as it's intent. If the purpose of the analogy was to compare the insular business practices of Intel to GM for instance, it is a fine analogy. If he was trying to compare the manufacturing process of C2D microprocessors to a Suburban, then it was a pretty bad one. However, I think he meant the former. Most analogies hold only as far as their intent.

As for "staying the course," the effectiveness of such an analogy is that it makes a complex situation more understandable to people who aren't as familiar with it by using a much more familiar situation. I'm not familiar enough with Intel's mentality to claim the analogy is accurate. But, it is effective. If you're claiming it is inaccurate, please give us some reasons rather than just rejecting it. Anyone can say "you're wrong." It takes intelligence to say why. I like posts that take the time to give reasons rather than just make rejections.

So, I would claim that your entire post was "not very good." I would also say the same of your previous posts in response to DarkSkyPoet. Since the original post was moderated, I can't really say whether your claims of "fanboyism" are justified. However, from reading the remainder of the posts he comes off looking opinionated but somewhat informed. You come off looking contrary and vindictive.

If all you come here for is to tell other people that they're wrong, don't bother. You're acting like opinions are static, and you treat the people who have them like they are wrong (or like something is wrong with them = you're a fanboy). Most people understand that an opinion is not static, and changes as we gather more information about a topic. The entire purpose of Anandtech, Dailytech, and most forums in general is to EDUCATE and INFORM people. People are supposed to post on these forums to SHARE information. DarkSkyPoet was at least doing that. Whether is it commonly known or not is a moot point in my OPINION. All you've proven capable of so far is telling people they're wrong.

According to the U.S. Census bureau, there are roughly 6,583,491,227 people living on the planet earth. Every single one of them could have said what you've said so far. In the future, try to add some value to your posts beyond what 6,583,491,227 other people could add.

That's all...

By coldpower27 on 3/19/2007 7:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
That's the luxury of being the top dog, they can afford to wait until they develop their own solution.

The "correct" one? What AMD has done with their HyperTransport is a good thing, but it isn't the only means of getting to the finish line. Intel can get there using it's own methods.

“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs
Related Articles
IBM's Next-Generation Supercomputer
February 28, 2007, 1:52 AM
AMD Reveals More "Fusion" Details
November 17, 2006, 10:01 AM
Intel Responds to AMD's "Torrenza"
September 27, 2006, 9:30 PM

Most Popular ArticlesTop 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM
Free Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki