Socket F to debut in July, AMD balances on power tightrope

[rettihSlluB]

I don't know if this has been posted yet but I'll do it anyhow:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31787

THE TIME OF Rev. F is approaching rapidly. Since Intel used the last two weeks to invite highly-ranked journalists to test WoodCrest processors in a secret bunker in Oregon, AMD hasn't been sleeping lightly.
The performance level of WoodCrest may be putting the smiles back on the faces of Intellers, but those smiles tend to disappear when you mention four or eight-socket platforms. WoodCrest has a ticket to ride in the single and dual-socket arena, but anything more than that ends in tears and bottlenecked system bus, which just can't keep up with coherent HyperTransport links in-between the cores.

This other article talks about balances on power performance. It's worth a read.
http://theinquirer.net/?article=31762

AMD'S CHUCK MOORE kicked off the Spring Processor Forum with a talk about power and balanced system design. The concept was simple. Power matters, and performance needs to take power into account. System performance used to be about ramping MHz to get performance from a single core. That is no longer the case, there are literally dozens of things to take into account now.
The speed trend is now old news. CPUs got faster and faster, sucked more and more power, and in general, ran dead on into a wall. Because Moore's law gave them more transistors to work with, but faster wasn't the solution. This lead wider, and that to complexity, which grows at a staggeringly fast rate. If you make the CPU wider, the work it takes to accomplish this grows geometrically.

 

[Action_Man]

As jake said to your sock puppet, stop posting in all caps.

 

[spud]

As jake said to your sock puppet, stop posting in all caps.

Word.

 

[rettihSlluB]

Wait, how do you know Jake told 9-Inch to stop post in caps??? :roll:

 

[Action_Man]

Damn, you're stupider then I give you credit for!

Jake:

2. As we've discussed in PM's - it is considered bad Netiquette to type thread titles or any comments in all caps. I gave you that information. The article you are quoting from does not use all caps.

From this thread.

Link.

 

[BigRat]

The first paste was sort of ok but the 2nd one seems a bit vague with phrases like "a little bit of this, a little of that". What's your take on this? I don't get what's the point of pasting something here without offering your opinion.

Also I believe a moderator told 9-inch to not copy entire articles.

 

[ltcommander_data]

AMD'S CHUCK MOORE kicked off the Spring Processor Forum with a talk about power and balanced system design. The concept was simple. Power matters, and performance needs to take power into account.

Thankfully, Intel is taking that advise to heart. A 3GHz, 1333Mhz FSB Woodcrest reportedly now has a TDP of 65W versus the originally planned 80W. A 23% reduction for the same performance is quite a nice improvement.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31789

 

[rettihSlluB]

Damn, you're stupider then I give you credit for!

Jake:

2. As we've discussed in PM's - it is considered bad Netiquette to type thread titles or any comments in all caps. I gave you that information. The article you are quoting from does not use all caps.

From this thread.

Link.

Thanks for nothing edit. I didn't saw that thread because 9-inch posts in caps. I'll guess once he sees that he'll restore it like it was before.

 

[Legenic]

anyways, like ltcommander said, intel it looks like will drop woodcrest's tdp from 80w to 65w. this is pretty huge imo. hopefully it's truthful and not just inquirer craziness. this is good because it looks like K8L is going to be a very good chip, so there'll be some good competition from both manufacturers.

also, I wonder if core 2 will get a drop in tdp since woodcrest did? lower than 65w would be pretty damn good.

 

[rettihSlluB]

also, I wonder if core 2 will get a drop in tdp since woodcrest did? lower than 65w would be pretty damn good.

They could if they should have used SOI instead of bulk CMOS.

 

[Legenic]

also, I wonder if core 2 will get a drop in tdp since woodcrest did? lower than 65w would be pretty damn good.

They could if they should have used SOI instead of bulk CMOS.

:roll:

 

[Action_Man]

You made some mistakes. I'll correct them for you.

I didn't saw that thread because 9-inch posts in caps.

It should be.

I didn't saw that thread because my sock puppets and I posts in caps.

I'll guess once he sees that he'll restore it like it was before.

It should be.

I'll guess once jake leaves I'll sign into my sock puppets account and change it back and will probably get banned

Moron.

 

[K8MAN]

Groundwork

 

[Action_Man]

:lol: Reminds of pokemon except they're sock puppets. Go 9-inch use generic insult attack! :lol: This thread will get locked as well.

 

[theaxemaster]

I'm disappointed, action man's was the first reply and there's no keyboard there...

That said, I'm no electrical engineer, but I don't really see where they can go from here. More cores aren't really the solution. more IPC? full 64 bit would be the next logical step, but Vista isn't 64 bit by default. So it'll be at least 3 years before another OS. Lets face it, apps aren't going to go 64 bit until MS forces them to. Intel's 64 bit support is a step in the right direction, so maybe the windows after that will be full 64 bit. But as far as processor architecture, I have no idea what they might do to speed things up.