Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nehalem memory controler

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 7, 2008 6:37:37 PM

whats up with thte triple channel memory controler? wouldn't quad channel be the next logical step?

and as it looks like we are going to need mamny more memory slots, whe not switch to So-Dimms for desk top memory too.

maybe AMD will try it an make up some ground.
July 7, 2008 6:45:27 PM

Interesting point about SO-Dimms. Seems like a great idea to me.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b } Memory
July 7, 2008 6:49:54 PM

Ok..... adding another channel of memory bandwidth.....and in terms of performance doubling it compared to current standards.....AMD has not even gone to DDR3 yet....and you are complaining?

Wow.......just Wow..... They will have Quad channel DDR3 for the servers.
Related resources
July 7, 2008 6:55:35 PM

Perhaps Quad is the next "logical" step, however I'm assuming due to space restraints Intel only put a tri-channel controller on their extreme versions. However my question to you, groo, is this, what are you doing that you need that much bandwidth?

More slots would be nice for more memory capacity, however currently 4gigs is the most people are going to be getting due to the physical limitations of 32-bit processing.

Finally, please stop trying to start a flame war. If AMD catches up, it catches up, if not, it doesn't. Buy your products based on your budget and your performance requirements.
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
July 7, 2008 7:09:22 PM

^Well said.
July 7, 2008 7:11:14 PM

nobody "needs" that much bandwidth, its just another way to get more performance.

I think 32 bit OSs are a thing of the past, and should have never made it to Vista, I hope they don't make it to windows 7 or whatever they end up calling it.

as far as starting a flame war, not my goal. there are 2 facts that are indisputable;
1. AMD has fallen behind Intel in performance.
2. consumers are best served by competition between producers.
so everyone should be hoping AMD gets some better products wether you prefere Intel of AMD. I was just pointing out an area of performance were I think Intel could have done a better job, and maybe AMD will use this opertunity to regain some lost ground.

besides. I don't like the idea of seeing memory packages in 1,2,3,4 and 6 per pack. 1,2,and 4 was bad enough.
July 7, 2008 7:17:59 PM

Windows 7 will be 32 and 64 bit (they've gone mad for sure)
July 7, 2008 8:04:52 PM

So-dimms suffer from higher latency, I believe. Also, check out Anandtech's gripes on the buffered memory of the Skulltrail platform. While performance was good, I think a tri-channel DDR3 will beat the so-dimm solution for most desktop uses (where you don't need 32GB of RAM).

Also, I think that increasing the memory bandwidth may begin to have tangible effects due to the integration of the memory controller, but only time will tell. I look forward to some actual benchmarks!
a c 126 à CPUs
a b } Memory
July 7, 2008 9:00:26 PM

No thats FB-DIMMS which is used in the server. But SO-DIMMS are not a good choice either.
July 7, 2008 9:22:33 PM

jonyb222 said:
Windows 7 will be 32 and 64 bit (they've gone mad for sure)


According to Bill Gates:

"We're hard at work, I would say, on the next version, which we call Windows 7. I'm very excited about the work being done there. The ability to be lower power, take less memory, be more efficient, and have lots more connections up to the mobile phone, so those scenarios connect up well to make it a great platform for the best gaming that can be done...."

It really seems to me like Windows 7 will just be Vista with some major improvements; alot of those improvements being in performance and memory. Perhaps in a few years a 32 bit system on Windows 7 will still be very plausable? I think so.
July 7, 2008 9:25:53 PM

@groo:

If AMD goes out the window, my money is on IBM to start producing x86-64 processors.

A second but less likely option is other architectures might become a more viable solution than x86-64s and people might start the transition over to say cell or sparc. Although windows is only x86 compatable (I think some alpha versions were released as well), linux and Mac OS can run on other architectures (Mac is limited to just Sparc, but its a start). With that said, take that as you will, its a not likely future, but it could happen.
a b à CPUs
July 7, 2008 9:30:57 PM

i am fairly certain IBM does not have an x86 license
July 7, 2008 9:48:54 PM

I believe the next version of Windows is just a Vista update.

Looks like MS wants to do the tick tock as well.

Tock 98
Tick ME
Tock 2k Pro
Tick XP
Tock Vista
Tick Windows 7
Tock [unknown] <--- I suspect this version will be a 64-bit OS that will be backwards compatable with 32-bit apps.
July 7, 2008 10:09:31 PM

BadTrip said:
i am fairly certain IBM does not have an x86 license


x86 licensing is a murkey area - so many old cross licensing deals... There are a number of license holders out there that IBM could buy up if it really required.
July 7, 2008 10:12:52 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I believe the next version of Windows is just a Vista update.

Looks like MS wants to do the tick tock as well.

Tock 98
Tick ME
Tock 2k Pro
Tick XP
Tock Vista
Tick Windows 7
Tock [unknown] <--- I suspect this version will be a 64-bit OS that will be backwards compatable with 32-bit apps.


Tick 95
Tock 98
(umm f*** up) ME - same kernal as 95 / 98 - just taken too far
Tick 2k Pro
Tock XP
Tick Vista
Tock Windows 7
July 7, 2008 10:23:37 PM

BadTrip said:
i am fairly certain IBM does not have an x86 license


Errrr.

x86 is just a set of instructions a processor has to conform to...I doubt you need a license.

PLUS this whole thread is irrelevant because they obviously aren't going to give the same memory controller to both servers and desktops because then people are less likely to shell out for server grade hardware.

Apart from being smaller, do SO-Dimms have any advantage at all?

PLUS lulz at flamewar-ending at the top.
July 7, 2008 10:26:00 PM

This tick tock business is getting silly, however i agree with:

Tick 95
Tock 98
(umm f*** up) ME - same kernal as 95 / 98 - just taken too far
Tick 2k Pro
Tock XP
Tick Vista
Tock Windows 7
July 7, 2008 10:26:21 PM

and by silly i mean funny
July 8, 2008 12:10:54 AM

dragabain said:
Perhaps Quad is the next "logical" step, however I'm assuming due to space restraints Intel only put a tri-channel controller on their extreme versions. However my question to you, groo, is this, what are you doing that you need that much bandwidth?

More slots would be nice for more memory capacity, however currently 4gigs is the most people are going to be getting due to the physical limitations of 32-bit processing.

Finally, please stop trying to start a flame war. If AMD catches up, it catches up, if not, it doesn't. Buy your products based on your budget and your performance requirements.



Study the term "undermining" and you will become aware of AMD's strategy.
July 8, 2008 12:11:14 AM

jamesgoddard said:
x86 licensing is a murkey area - so many old cross licensing deals... There are a number of license holders out there that IBM could buy up if it really required.

IBM had an x86 chip the 586.
July 8, 2008 10:12:22 AM

Plus do you actually need an x86 license? I don't think so? If you do, IBM already evidently have it.


Didn't IBM create x86, or was that Intel?
July 8, 2008 10:13:25 AM

No, it was IBM. My mistake.

But it's just an instruction set. Like driving on the right/left hand side of the road, you don't have to, but it's a good idea to.
July 8, 2008 10:58:07 AM

dragabain said:
Perhaps Quad is the next "logical" step, however I'm assuming due to space restraints Intel only put a tri-channel controller on their extreme versions. However my question to you, groo, is this, what are you doing that you need that much bandwidth?

More slots would be nice for more memory capacity, however currently 4gigs is the most people are going to be getting due to the physical limitations of 32-bit processing.

Finally, please stop trying to start a flame war. If AMD catches up, it catches up, if not, it doesn't. Buy your products based on your budget and your performance requirements.


Thank you, let us all take a good look at this and learn.
July 8, 2008 11:01:54 AM

^+2343

Thread closed.
a b à CPUs
July 8, 2008 1:05:02 PM

i dont have time to look for it right now but i will be back with a link
July 8, 2008 1:12:29 PM

jonisginger said:
Plus do you actually need an x86 license? I don't think so? If you do, IBM already evidently have it.


Didn't IBM create x86, or was that Intel?


Yes you do its a defined intellectual property, as for x86 it was Intel's child bastard as it is. As for IBM haveing a x86 licence I do not beleive they do.

Word, Playa.
July 8, 2008 1:25:18 PM

Then why do AMD have it?
July 8, 2008 1:30:21 PM

jonisginger said:
Then why do AMD have it?
'

Well at one point AMD made clones of Intel processors to keep up with demand. Intel finally had the Fabs to do it on its own and tried to cut off AMD entirely. Courts ruled in AMD favor but required a cross licensing agreement in place. Essentially x86 and all extensions to the ISA are under that agreement for a set price, the exact amount is unknown and the deal runs roughly 10-15 years before they rehash a new one.

Word, Playa.
July 8, 2008 2:38:37 PM

spud said:
'

Well at one point AMD made clones of Intel processors to keep up with demand. Intel finally had the Fabs to do it on its own and tried to cut off AMD entirely. Courts ruled in AMD favor but required a cross licensing agreement in place. Essentially x86 and all extensions to the ISA are under that agreement for a set price, the exact amount is unknown and the deal runs roughly 10-15 years before they rehash a new one.

Word, Playa.


Mostly right. Originally AMD had a clone license that allowed them to produce clones of Intel processors to assist Intel in keeping up with demand. They were doing this up until the 286 I think, I'd have to reread the whole thing about the cross license again. At that point Intel had enough of their own fabs to produce on there own. They tried to end the license with AMD. AMD in turn acquired several Intel (was either 286 or 386) processors and reverse engineered them to be able to continue to produce x86 processors of the current generation. Intel sued AMD over patent infringement, but due to anti monopoly laws, the supreme court forced intel to continue to renew the license. The license was renewed but Intel continuously refused to release technical specs on it's current generation procs, causing amd to again have to reverse engineer the 486. Also, around that time, the Patent office also deemed that you couldn't patent something that used a number for its name, 5x86 for example. Which is why the 5x86 from Intel was named the Pentium. That turn made things more difficult for AMD. If I remember correctly at that point, there were some court battles fought. Don't remember the rulings, but I know they allowed AMD to continue producing the 4x86 and then the 5x86 processors. Also note around the 4x86 time is when the 5-7 year rolling cross license agreement began between Intel and AMD. The 5-7 year rolling license is what covers both companies modern microprocessor designs. That license also includes the ability for both companies to use all instruction code extension IP that exists at the time of renewal. But, neither company can use any of the stuff that comes out between renewals until the next time the license is renewed. As we know Intel is very strongly against using anything that AMD designs, which is why you won't see intel procs with 3d Now or other instructions that AMD designed. But the license does cover the use of such IP, mmx, sse#, x86-64, etc. This is why AMD processor will have a few years lag between adopting new Intel instruction extensions, will probably be about another year or so before then can use SSE4 and 4.1 for example. The cost is AMD has to pay Intel a % based royalty for the use of said instruction extensions.

As far as active x86 licenses go, Cyrix still has an active license. IBM I believe has one but doesn't use it, since they seem to have departed from x86. On a note, the Cell processor will run Windows and Linux, there is a way to make a ps3 run windows for example. Gotta remember, ever since the Xbox came out, the consoles have more or less evolved into bleeding edge/budget computer systems. All the Xbox was, was a 900mhz p3 with a modified, geforce 3 graphics processor originally, then they later switched to a modified radeon. I kinda wish Sony had taken the 128bit emotion engine processor they had used for the ps2 and updated it for modern times instead of using a cell processor in the ps3 though.
a b à CPUs
July 8, 2008 7:58:18 PM

Thanks Mathos you saved me a ton of time
July 9, 2008 2:35:48 AM

BadTrip said:
Thanks Mathos you saved me a ton of time


The scary part is I've actually read most of the the Intel/AMD cross license agreement. I'd say all of it, but there are sections that aren't available for public viewing.

It also mentions that neither company can be bought out or merge with another company without the license being nullified. The only way around that is if in the most likely case, AMD knew they were going under and couldn't recover. They could work with IBM or whoever, and plan a buyout or merger to happen. Then AMD would have to say they were leaving the x86 processor market, at which point they could give/transfer the license to another company. After that IBM could have the current, and renewable license to make x86 architecture processors. At that point IBM would then buy AMD to acquire all if it's IP and patents.
July 9, 2008 4:00:31 AM

Mathos said:
Originally AMD had a clone license that allowed them to produce clones of Intel processors to assist Intel in keeping up with demand. They were doing this up until the 286 I think, I'd have to reread the whole thing about the cross license again. At that point Intel had enough of their own fabs to produce on there own. They tried to end the license with AMD. AMD in turn acquired several Intel (was either 286 or 386) processors and reverse engineered them to be able to continue to produce x86 processors of the current generation.


The issue became somewhat murky with the introduction of the 386 chips. There are two sides to the story and it is difficult to discern which one holds more truth since little information is currently available from direct sources since this all went down over 15 years ago. One side of the story is that Intel decided that they no longer needed second source partners and tried to kill the relationship so they wouldn't have to share profits.

The other side of the story is that AMD's variant of the 386 architecture was vastly superior to Intel's and Intel wanted to prevent them from releasing it for fear of losing sales. In reality the AM386 was far superior to the i386 and was cheaper as well. For that matter, AMD's 286 variants also typically wiped the floor with their Intel cousins. Whether or not this was the true reason for Intel trying to kill the license is open for debate and I doubt if we'll ever know the whole story.
July 9, 2008 4:10:53 AM

Mathos said:
The scary part is I've actually read most of the the Intel/AMD cross license agreement. I'd say all of it, but there are sections that aren't available for public viewing.

It also mentions that neither company can be bought out or merge with another company without the license being nullified. The only way around that is if in the most likely case, AMD knew they were going under and couldn't recover. They could work with IBM or whoever, and plan a buyout or merger to happen. Then AMD would have to say they were leaving the x86 processor market, at which point they could give/transfer the license to another company. After that IBM could have the current, and renewable license to make x86 architecture processors. At that point IBM would then buy AMD to acquire all if it's IP and patents.


Never happen Intel's legal machine would drag it out over years resulting in the termination of the agreement, there would be likely be an immediate nullification of the deal coming from higher courts, Intel’s money ensures they don’t get jerked around like that. AMD has survived before on less, they will have private investors the will keep them afloat, and hopefully the Spanish fellow will be removed.

Word, Playa.
!