Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Thuban, the worlds fastest desktop cpu coming soon from AMD.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a c 211 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 22, 2010 12:47:34 AM

We dont know if it will be faster than an i7, the i7s have the advantage of significantly higher IPCs, turbo boost, and hyper threading. Hyper threading only provides about a 40% boost but that still puts an i7 930 at about the same level as a PII x6, and a 975 above that level. I am an amd fan myself, but intel got itself a good lead so its best not to count AMDs chickens before they hatch. Im hoping for the best but im not betting on it.
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2010 12:47:49 AM

$295, nice....., would have though a little more than that

might have to pick one up to do some crypto programming on

EDIT: though i don't know about fastest (it is for my board at least)
March 22, 2010 1:06:42 AM

Oh please, stop the useless polemic.

Anyway, if those specs and prices are correct I am probably going to grab one. Almost too sweet to be true.
March 22, 2010 1:16:35 AM

aaaaaagh! i want to buy one, but i dont know if i should wait till Bulldozer to upgrade :sweat: 
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2010 1:18:51 AM

Any i7 with Hyper threading will beat it, game over, get a life, move on.
March 22, 2010 1:23:42 AM

Whoa look at the 1055T: 6 cores at 2.8ghz for $199. Not good for the i5.
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2010 1:35:31 AM

just the pricerange i was looking 4ward 2, 1035t = $150
March 22, 2010 1:38:03 AM

Wow and I was about to get a Phenom ii x4 955... maybe I should wait lol.
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2010 2:03:59 AM

daship said:
Any i7 with Hyper threading will beat it, game over, get a life, move on.


lol. :D 
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2010 2:05:51 AM

yannifb said:
Whoa look at the 1055T: 6 cores at 2.8ghz for $199. Not good for the i5.


Hmm I didn't really think about that, but yeah you're right the i5 can't compete with this.
March 22, 2010 2:12:53 AM

I wonder what is the release date...
March 22, 2010 2:17:47 AM

jennyh said:
Hmm I didn't really think about that, but yeah you're right the i5 can't compete with this.


It also looks like SOI did some good for AMD, as even though Thuban has 6 cores and still is at 3.2Ghz, it has a tdp of 125 watts.
March 22, 2010 2:22:29 AM

blaze200 said:
I wonder what is the release date...

26th
March 22, 2010 2:32:26 AM

1898 said:
26th


Thanks. =B
March 22, 2010 2:47:13 AM

1898 said:
26th


26th of March?
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2010 3:01:16 AM

yannifb said:
26th of March?


Nope - April !!
March 22, 2010 3:23:51 AM

JDFan said:
Nope - April !!

Ooooh crap i was pleasantly surprised for a second :na: 
March 22, 2010 3:34:02 AM

yannifb said:
Ooooh crap i was pleasantly surprised for a second :na: 


They would get massively overshadowed by the release of Fermi if they were released on March 26th.
March 22, 2010 3:50:50 AM

jrocks84 said:
They would get massively overshadowed by the release of Fermi if they were released on March 26th.


Fermis been pushed too april 6th though.
March 22, 2010 4:18:25 AM

I'll wait for AMD 8 or 12 core.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 22, 2010 4:24:22 AM

Huh. Adding two cores and yet it comes out pretty damn cheap.

AMD must be cutting it close to their profit margins to do this.

We will have to see how the actual CPU holds up to its specs. Need reviews.
March 22, 2010 4:46:53 AM

yannifb said:
Fermis been pushed too april 6th though.


I think the NDA ends on March 26th, while products will launch on April 6th. Paper Launch FTW!

Edit:

Is jennyh the new Thunderman? The post title says, "Thuban, the worlds fasted desktop cpu coming soon from AMD." Then she says in the post the 980X is the only one that's faster. So is it the fastest or not? Which one is it, jennyh?
March 22, 2010 5:25:00 AM

I Think Thuban Wont be More powerful than I7 940, however if the price specs are accurate its super value for money.
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2010 6:49:28 AM

another fanboi comment from the op..

the proof in the pudding is when we get real world benchmarks.

in theory 6 core amd should be good but then again so was the phenom and look how that turned out.

AMD have known to dissapoint as much as Intel has..

It would be good to see a kick ass processor from AMD at a low price and then make Intel drop its prices too.

But then again AMD needs a good profit margin cpu to succeed its 2 yearly losses which in my eyes should not of gone on for that long.

when will people wake up and smell the coffee that amd problems were down really to how the company was run as apposed to what crappier technology sold more than the better one.


next we will be told a quad core is a disabled 6 core..

Keep on pioneering AMD and ill keep on selling. Just make a chipset that will be as reliable as Intel. ( yet to be totally proven on AMD / ATI front )
March 22, 2010 8:26:36 AM

I've read somewhere that it might be released earlier. 19th of April has been mentioned.
a c 172 à CPUs
March 22, 2010 9:07:11 AM

"Thuban, the worlds fastest affordable 6 core desktop cpu coming soon from AMD."
There. Fixed it. :) 

March 22, 2010 12:18:19 PM

Gulftown has 12MB cache, it won't beat it
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2010 1:58:34 PM

^+1
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2010 4:27:13 PM

LOL - actually if you look at the Xbitlabs article, where they compare 6-core Istanbuls (2.6GHz & 2.4GHz) to both an Intel i7-920 and an AMD P2-965 quad core, the Istanbul loses rather badly in most of the benchmarks :p .

So, mods please change the title to "Thuban - world's slowest desktop coming" in the interest of accuracy :D .
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2010 4:31:04 PM

^ PS - this would explain the low, low pricing, seeing as how Thuban must have close to the humongous 346 mm^2 die size for Istanbul..
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2010 4:34:40 PM

Thuban is worth it if you can utilize those cores. But for most of us it'll be faster quad ftw. I don't see i5 having any trouble. Anyone who is buying a cpu for those tasks is going to have i7 already over i5.
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2010 4:50:16 PM

^ Agreed. Also I'd expect a lot of comparisons out when AMD lifts the NDA. Which they may not do anytime soon if Thuban indeed sucks eggs.
March 22, 2010 5:02:03 PM

Very interesting price point though. For the cost, I would imagine they will sell a bunch to folks who really don't need them to begin with.
March 22, 2010 5:02:33 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
LOL - actually if you look at the Xbitlabs article, where they compare 6-core Istanbuls (2.6GHz & 2.4GHz) to both an Intel i7-920 and an AMD P2-965 quad core, the Istanbul loses rather badly in most of the benchmarks :p .

So, mods please change the title to "Thuban - world's slowest desktop coming" in the interest of accuracy :D .


Thuban will be clocked up to 3.0 GHz and will have some form of turbo, so those benches aren't that accurate.
March 22, 2010 5:30:39 PM

jennyh said:
$295 for Thuban or $1140 for Gulftown?


AMD clearly need to sack their entire marketing department if they have 'the fastest desktop CPU' but are planning to sell it for a quarter as much as their competition would.
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2010 5:37:10 PM

roofus said:
Very interesting price point though. For the cost, I would imagine they will sell a bunch to folks who really don't need them to begin with.


Very true, if these OC decently these chips could sell quite well at this price point.

The power usage doesn't seem too high to warrant saving power with a quad (when compared to ph2 BE x4) either so we shall see.
March 22, 2010 5:38:45 PM

MarkG said:
AMD clearly need to sack their entire marketing department if they have 'the fastest desktop CPU' but are planning to sell it for a quarter as much as their competition would.



My thoughts for the entire life span of the Phenom 2 line. They could easily command more money from their chips but would rather flirt with the thin margins to gain marketshare.
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2010 5:54:58 PM

In anycase...


if we cant get games to use a 4 core processor let alone a 6 core processor then whats the point.


no game has really taken real advantage of more than two cores appart from FSX and thats not really how to work them.

Microsoft have already admitted that the kernal of Windows would have to be different..

Windows 8 will sort that i assume.

Windows 7 has multi core processors in mind but so do i have with a porsche but im not going to get or be able to use one.

Its all a con... Were not ready for 4 core let alone 6, 8 or 100 core. Its all about the OS.

the C2Q was so good it was a dual core doubled up. This will suite most needs for the foreseable future.
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 22, 2010 6:11:07 PM

Hellboy said:
In anycase...


if we cant get games to use a 4 core processor let alone a 6 core processor then whats the point.


no game has really taken real advantage of more than two cores appart from FSX and thats not really how to work them.

Microsoft have already admitted that the kernal of Windows would have to be different..

Windows 8 will sort that i assume.

Windows 7 has multi core processors in mind but so do i have with a porsche but im not going to get or be able to use one.

Its all a con... Were not ready for 4 core let alone 6, 8 or 100 core. Its all about the OS.

the C2Q was so good it was a dual core doubled up. This will suite most needs for the foreseable future.


There are a large number of games that can use more than 2 threads and show performance gains doing so, this isn't 2007 anymore. It is true that no game requires more than a fast dual core yet, but there is clearly performance gains going to 4 cores, however you are right that 6 are usesless and that can be seen with the gulftown benchmarks. Speak for yourself having no use for the cores, some of us do.
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2010 6:20:58 PM

roofus said:
My thoughts for the entire life span of the Phenom 2 line. They could easily command more money from their chips but would rather flirt with the thin margins to gain marketshare.

They DID (had no choice) lower prices to compete. Prior to the P55's ,i5 750~i7 860, the 965 was 240.00 and the 955 was 200.00.
edit: The 6 core chip ,clocked at 3.2 is interesting. Anything lower would not really be competitive. I like the move, it should bring about a Intel competitor.
March 22, 2010 6:37:01 PM

Does it matter how many cores you have if the OS or software apps don't take advantage of them?

I'm thinking of a new build and I'm wondering that over the course of the computer's 2 or 3 year life, is there any point in building anything other than an i7 right now from a cost benefit basis. Over the course of 2 or 3 years, I don't know if a couple of hundred dollars matters. It works out to pennies a day.

I mostly do online stock and currency trading with multiple monitors. Speed is important in currency trading, the market moves very quickly.

What AMD CPU's will be viable years down the line? How about Intel C2 quads, i5's, etc.

Thanks all for your opinions and knowledge and recommendations.
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2010 6:54:52 PM

Even I have to take issue with the title, but jsc sure did provide what it should have been :D . Anyway, it seems nice and all, but I don't plan to upgrade my CPU till Bulldozer comes out. I want cores with a higher IPC, not just more of the cores I already have.
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2010 7:21:09 PM

loneninja said:
There are a large number of games that can use more than 2 threads and show performance gains doing so, this isn't 2007 anymore. It is true that no game requires more than a fast dual core yet, but there is clearly performance gains going to 4 cores, however you are right that 6 are usesless and that can be seen with the gulftown benchmarks. Speak for yourself having no use for the cores, some of us do.




the limitation is the os...

i personally have upgraded from a 9550 to a i920 and the performance increase was minimal.

so i got a virutal 8 core processor with no virtual 8 core apps to run on it..

yeah photo editing and video conversion etc is quicker but then again a 9550 was no slouch either... but all the games were playable on a 9550, not one struggled on it..


Its far to soon to jump on the 6 core processor in my eyes, but some will feel happy that they got on in their ali box with a heatsink the size of notre dam and a fan the size of a windmill keeping it cool.

Lets use the current tech to proper use. A faster processor means more sloppy programming as the processor can do it anyway.
March 22, 2010 7:41:18 PM

Hellboy said:
the limitation is the os...


Windows must be a lousy OS if it can't handle eight cores...
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2010 7:58:34 PM

The assessment that the OS is the limitation is not correct. The OS handles the cores just fine. i.e. It can see and utilize whichever cores of my processor - whether on the fly or assigned through pinning an app. And though it is true that Vista and Win 7 are both more efficient than XP as far as multicore/thread usage, even XP is perfectly capable of simple load balancing and proper scheduling among all of the available (real or virtual) processor cores. And it makes that hardware resource available to any and all applications which may be running. And in a manner that is perfectly transparent to those applications. (Meaning *nobody* has to code what parts of what app run on which core and when. That is all handled by the OS's scheduler. All the app/programmer knows/cares is that it's passing a call to be processed. The details are completely irrelevant) So it's not an issue with the OS.

The limitation is that, with a few exceptions, application programmers don't/haven't written applications that take proper advantage of that kind of hardware enviroment. Why not??? Because writing highly threaded code is Really F*cking Hard To Do, and takes orders of magnitude more effort and better tools than have been necessary to date. Not to mention there is also cause to argue that writing truely multithreaded applications isn't necessarily good design practice, either. And while there are clearly heavier duty apps that are a good fit, there are also many (most!?!?) cases where tearing the whole thing apart to change it doesn't deliver any added value to the user.

The Hardware platform is there. The operating system is capable of the necessary load balancing and scheduling. But the apps don't exist to utilize it. So it's not the fault of the OS. Unless, of course, someone writes an OS that can deconstruct single/poorly threaded programming and somehow rewrite it on the fly to be efficient in a multithreaded environment...

Of course, if were to opine an OS exists which can do that, I'd suppose they also have a nice bridge in Sonora to sell...
a c 104 à CPUs
March 22, 2010 8:10:46 PM

I'll take 2 if we can get a dual socket motherboard, but you can't with AM3. :( 
a c 100 à CPUs
March 22, 2010 8:48:15 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
LOL - actually if you look at the Xbitlabs article, where they compare 6-core Istanbuls (2.6GHz & 2.4GHz) to both an Intel i7-920 and an AMD P2-965 quad core, the Istanbul loses rather badly in most of the benchmarks :p .


The Xbit article was pretty awful. There are a multitude of problems with it:

- The title of the first page is wrong. The Istanbul is not a "Server Processor with Desktop Genealogy" by a long shot. AMD K8s and later were initially designed as server chips, initially released as server chips, and then only later released as desktop CPUs. The Istanbul's die is currently only available in server-only Socket F packages for crying out loud!
- The KN9U Speedster is very old. Xbitlabs did at least note that in the article, to their credit.
- They used slower-than-supported RAM with all of the AMD systems, which hinders their performance relative to the Core i7. The Istanbul can take DDR2-800; the Phenom IIs DDR2-1066/DDR3-1333. Registered DDR2-800 server RAM is quite a bit more expensive than DDR2-667, so I can see why they used it. Using the same-spec unbuffered DDR2-667 in the Phenom IIs makes sense to compare those two chip generations. It doesn't make sense when comparing versus the Core i7 line, since it does not allow the AMD CPUs to perform to full potential. Humorously, the i7 920 actually has to downclock the RAM they gave it- the i7 920 only runs its IMC at DDR3-1066 at stock.
- They don't say if they used the DDR2-667 or the DDR2-800 with the Phenom IIs in the benchmarks except for the X4 910 vs. Opteron 2435 page.
- Using their Istanbul setup to try to predict how well Thuban will perform is silly as Thuban has far higher memory bandwidth, lower memory latency (the Istanbul uses registered ECC DIMMs for crying out loud!), and is rumored to have a Turbo Boost-like feature that Istanbuls do not have. All of those affect performance in desktop benchmarks.

Quote:
So, mods please change the title to "Thuban - world's slowest desktop coming" in the interest of accuracy :D .


If anybody is going to change anything, it should be Xbit reworking their article to make it worth half a damn.
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2010 9:15:55 PM

Scotteq said:
The assessment that the OS is the limitation is not correct. The OS handles the cores just fine. i.e. It can see and utilize whichever cores of my processor - whether on the fly or assigned through pinning an app. And though it is true that Vista and Win 7 are both more efficient than XP as far as multicore/thread usage, even XP is perfectly capable of simple load balancing and proper scheduling among all of the available (real or virtual) processor cores. And it makes that hardware resource available to any and all applications which may be running. And in a manner that is perfectly transparent to those applications. (Meaning *nobody* has to code what parts of what app run on which core and when. That is all handled by the OS's scheduler. All the app/programmer knows/cares is that it's passing a call to be processed. The details are completely irrelevant) So it's not an issue with the OS.

The limitation is that, with a few exceptions, application programmers don't/haven't written applications that take proper advantage of that kind of hardware enviroment. Why not??? Because writing highly threaded code is Really F*cking Hard To Do, and takes orders of magnitude more effort and better tools than have been necessary to date. Not to mention there is also cause to argue that writing truely multithreaded applications isn't necessarily good design practice, either. And while there are clearly heavier duty apps that are a good fit, there are also many (most!?!?) cases where tearing the whole thing apart to change it doesn't deliver any added value to the user.

The Hardware platform is there. The operating system is capable of the necessary load balancing and scheduling. But the apps don't exist to utilize it. So it's not the fault of the OS. Unless, of course, someone writes an OS that can deconstruct single/poorly threaded programming and somehow rewrite it on the fly to be efficient in a multithreaded environment...

Of course, if were to opine an OS exists which can do that, I'd suppose they also have a nice bridge in Sonora to sell...


But the OS will need the kernal re writen ( which will be a new os ) to really take advantage of multi processing cores.

Yeah sure theres performance gains but not as they should be - with a true 4 or 6 core processor Windows should be instantaneous.

But their is still drag and slowdowns within Windows... So please dont preach that the OS is truly a fully fledged multi core OS...

Multi core processing needs new ways of tapping in to the power -

This is the words from a top Microsoft Project Management guy

http://hothardware.com/News/True-MultiCore-Optimization...

will we finally get the OS we deserve in Windows 8 or will we get this in a Service Pack... If we get this in a service pack then who knows what the compatability consequences will be.
    • 1 / 9
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!