Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

dual-core, dual-socket PM@2.3Ghz - validation NOW

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 14, 2004 11:29:32 AM

....If <A HREF="http://www.x86-secret.com/pics/news/q404/sossaman.gif" target="_new">this slide</A> is to be believed in. Using a 667Mhz FSB and starting at around ~2.3Ghz. TDP: 31W standard SKUs, 16W LV SKUs....

<A HREF="http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecont..." target="_new">Full news story here.</A>
November 14, 2004 3:23:38 PM

Thanks for the link. Looks good. Plus thats the time frame 06 for my next upgrade. Can't wait to see what's coming out with dual core and 64 bit. :smile:
November 14, 2004 3:30:40 PM

I think it's intended as a workstation part, not a desktop one, hardwareboss... but I'd love to have one of those in my bedroom as well.

Maybe I'll actually manage that, because I'll be doing some heavy mathematical stuff which might really use 4 logical processors.

Can you actually imagine how that would be like? 4 logical processors within maybe 15-18 months from now?... wow.... Up to now, quad-processor rigs were all very, very expensive... It's either Xeon MP, or Opteron 8xx series...
Related resources
November 15, 2004 4:49:52 PM

Cant wait to see those on upcomming laptops and how it will effect battery life.

<i><font color=red>Only an overclocker can make a computer into a convectional oven.</i></font color=red>
November 16, 2004 12:42:51 AM

well um most of this we all thought was true, dont see what is being validated. maybe the launch date of Q1 06 lol, but thats about it.

now when they say ~2.3ghz in speed, I can only assume they mena in total, split across the two cores. i mean this doesnt make me anymore excited aobut it, but its nice to see some possible official info on the core lol.
November 16, 2004 9:38:12 AM

Link only work in explorer...

Signature (up to 200 characters). You may use <font color=blue><b>Markup</b></font color=blue> in your signature
November 16, 2004 9:39:11 AM

Quote:
I can only assume they mena in total, split across the two cores.

Why?

My reasoning tells me they'd never dream of doing that! By that time, they'll have 2.26Ghz single-core dothans out! Why launch a dual 1.1Ghz or whatver?
November 17, 2004 5:22:52 PM

then why dont they say that. you cant base your assumption on some feeling or what you want to see, im going by what they SAID. and they did not say anything about 2.3ghz per core, but instead 2.3ghz for the dual core chip, now how do you infer that means per core?

if you know of other evidence pointing to 2.3ghz per core, then by all means, share it, im just going by what ive seen so far and this new info.
November 17, 2004 6:30:28 PM

It's actually been semi-common knowledge since the news of the future dual-core processors that the designated speed of the processor would be the speed of a single core (and of course there would be two cores at that speed in the processor).

Both AMD and Intel do not plan on releasing dual core chips at the same clocks as their top single core chip, but both promise (and to a small degree have shown) that the performance of them will be exactly equal to or upto 90+% better than a single core chip at the same speed. If you compare a <i>Digital</i> X40 (Intel's 3.2GHz dual core chip based off two Prescott cores) to a P4 3.2E and NEVER get worse performance and often get 40+% boost, how do you figure that there will be two 1.6GHz cores in there?!

In addition, there's simply no way that these would sell with 3/5ths of the performance at the same clocks (yet a higher price). Don't even let me get into the whole issue of a shared memory bus (lack of bandwidth, the latency, etc.) and what that would mean to performance of two slow cores compared to one core at twice the clocks....

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
November 17, 2004 7:48:02 PM

i've never seen anyone (official reps from intel or AMD) refer to speed of a dualcore as the sum of both individual cores. referring to a dualcore set up as 2.3Ghz where each individual core is 1.15Ghz would be just as ridiculous as referring to Xeon dp system as 7.2 GHz because each processor run at 3.6Ghz.
November 17, 2004 11:31:11 PM

By 06, 2.3 may not be fast enough. I would expect opterons to be at ,or at least close to 2.6. The odmc may leave the dothan in it's dust.
November 18, 2004 12:35:01 AM

I don't see how they could only plan on hitting 2.3GHz, either. Current Dothans hit 2.6GHz with relative ease, and putting two next to each other will not change their ability to hit those clocks (Dothan is far from thermally limited from what I can tell). Maybe Intel is afraid of not fulfilling their roadmaps? (not that it's stopped them recently or anything--they've taken to cancellations pretty darn well, IMO)

As for a dcOpteron, I'm going to guess they'll have a dual 2.8GHz version by '06 (def a 2.6GHz version based on how kickass their 90nm chips are), and Opteron is slightly faster clock for clock in everything except gaming, not to mention it has the odmc (and doesn't even use all the bandwidth it has! [unlike Dothan, which is bandwidth <b>starved</b>]).

Whoa, lightbulb(!): since Dothan is so incredibly bandwidth limited (as evidenced by its excellent OC scaling [15% boost in FSB yields 15% performance boost in most apps--simply incredible]), giving it a dual channel DDR2-667 bus and a 133MHz FSB will eliminate the bottleneck and probably provide enough for the second core as well, allowing Dothan to possibly show it's true colors.

Yet as promising as this may be, you're right in saying that 2.3GHz isn't that extraordinary (consolation may be that they OC well?). We want more, Intel!

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
November 18, 2004 1:04:53 AM

This is a much more interesting point if you consider that Intel could try using dual-core dothans in LGA775 with 800Mhz or 1066Mhz FSB... these cores would NOT be starved and would make for one hell of a processor.
November 18, 2004 1:32:05 AM

well of course ive heard all the talk and rumors that each core would be at the speed they classify, but i didnt hear that exactly confirmed by either amd or intel, thats what i was talking about. did amd or itnel state that clearly or have all sites pretty much just assumed that?

hey i agree single cores that equal the 2.3 owuld be ludacris, but again, there was no clarification.
November 18, 2004 1:37:58 AM

hey im glad your so excited by dothan, but im still holding my breath. intel hasnt convinced me yet that they have learned thier lesson lol.

but ill say i really hope it can prove to be a competitor, but again, these few overclcoking tests didnt prove enough to me to make me overjoyed lol. there were pieces of info missing and so many unanswered questions.

for instance, i think many are making this sound like its obvious that dothan can just be dropped into the shoes of prescott and suddenly its the new flagship. im taking a much more conservative approach here. i think this is going to take alot more time and effort then some of you may hope.

we already know dual core dothans wont come till Q1 06, so id bet it wil be at least till the end of 2006, probably into 2007, before we see intel make a shift to putting dothan on the desktop completely. now this oculd lal change if intel tears up thier roadmap again lol, and try to get something out faster.
November 18, 2004 7:17:17 PM

i bet the reason we will be seeing only a small step in speed with the dothan is that alviso/sonoma chipset, will offer a boost in performance with its faster FSB and memory along with the dualcore that will provide additional performance with optimized software. GHz steps will probably come later to give the dothan a longer market life. I mean there is no need to ramp the dothan to super incredible performance when its already the leader in the small/light notebook market. There still the issue of heat and power requirements. Ramping GHz, new faster chipset and dualcore is alot to give the dothan, while at the same time maintaining power and heat requirements.
November 18, 2004 11:30:51 PM

Need I remind you (and everyone else) who Dothan (and Yonah/Jonah) will be competing against in the coming years: 90nm dual Opterons (aka K9). By the time these chips roll around, K9 will likely be at 2.6 or even 2.8GHz. I don't think a Dothan at 2.3GHz on Alviso can compete with an FX-55, let alone an FX-57. Now double the cores and remember that Opteron uses about 50-60% of its current bandwidth (meaning both cores can get almost full bandwidth) while the cores of Yonah will be fighting for their bandwidth (and still won't have an ODMC)...Intel definitely has an uphill battle right now and from the looks of it, AMD won't be backing down a bit.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
November 19, 2004 5:16:14 PM

Yonah/Jonah is targeted at the notebook segment. There is no direct competition between the upcoming Yonah/Jonah and the Opteron/FX-55/FX-57.

On the notebook front, the dothan doesnt need a giant step in performance. A gradual ramp of performance is all that is needed until AMD offers a equivalent highperformance low power chip.

Porting the dothan to the desktop seems to unlikely since I doubt Intel is willing to admit that the prescott failed and/or to introduce a desk top cpu that lacks x86-64 during or after the introduction XP64. A x86-64 architecture based on the dothan core might replace the prescott, but thats way down the line.

You seriously think that by Q1 2006 AMD will offer a 2.8 dualcore opteron. The dualcore opteron will be a beast, but it won't operate at 2.8GHz by early 2006. AMD already claims that their dualcore will operate 3 to 5 speed steps slower then their single core equivalents. K9s are just the dualcore equvialents of K8s. Any speed you can coax out of individual cores of a K9 can be coax out of a K8 at a factor greater than one. Expecting 2.8 Ghz dualcore opteron at the beginning of 2006 is like expecting a single core opteron running at 3.4Ghz to 3.8Ghz at the beginning of 2006. Since it took the FX, close to 8 months to move from 2.4Ghz to 2.6Ghz. I think its highly unlikely of AMD to boost speeds by 1GHz in a year and half.

Some may say that the current situation with Intel hitting a speed bump as a reason we haven't seen a large speed increase in the K8 architecture during 2004 with AMD not needing to do much to keep a performance lead in the server and desktop market. My response to them is that probably won't change within the next year and a half. Intel is dualcoring the Prescott/Xeon architecture which probably means AMD won't need a 2.8 dualcore K9 for the first half of 2006. What Intel needs is a change of architecture anything less will produce the same issues that revolve around the prescott architecture. Until Intel's issues are resolved AMD will be on cruise control.
November 19, 2004 6:13:38 PM

"You seriously think that by Q1 2006 AMD will offer a 2.8 dualcore opteron. The dualcore opteron will be a beast, but it won't operate at 2.8GHz by early 2006. AMD already claims that their dualcore will operate 3 to 5 speed steps slower then their single core equivalents. K9s are just the dualcore equvialents of K8s. Any speed you can coax out of individual cores of a K9 can be coax out of a K8 at a factor greater than one. Expecting 2.8 Ghz dualcore opteron at the beginning of 2006 is like expecting a single core opteron running at 3.4Ghz to 3.8Ghz at the beginning of 2006. Since it took the FX, close to 8 months to move from 2.4Ghz to 2.6Ghz. I think its highly unlikely of AMD to boost speeds by 1GHz in a year and half."

now remeber, that statement was aobut the chips to be released in 2H 05, that doesnt mean it has to apply to Q1 06. Just as 90nm parts started at the low end and will eventually become the high end, so will dual core at some point. dual core will start off at the lower end and then once the process is ready, they put it at the high end. Now I would agree that Q1 06 is very tight for getting that process far enough along to put dual core at the high end, but its not impossible, seeing as amd already had a lead development wise to begin with. its very possible they could reach 2.8 for dual core while single cores have only reached 3ghz or so.
November 19, 2004 8:33:44 PM

"its very possible they could reach 2.8 for dual core while single cores have only reached 3ghz or so."

Aren't K9s just dualcored K8s? Explain to me how you can up the Ghz of individual cores of a dualcore. Yet be GHz restrictive when implementing the same core as a single core cpu especially when the two use the same chipset and are bound by the same power/heat restrictions. A single core will always have a luxury of higher heat output and being more power hungry than individual cores of a dually.

The situation you are talking about can only happen if AMD continue developments on dualcores and stop it on K8. Problem with that is single core aren't going anywhere any time soon. Im sure singlecore K8 will exist in the low end market. It will simply be the Sempron of the server world.
November 19, 2004 9:00:36 PM

Quote:
referring to a dualcore set up as 2.3Ghz where each individual core is 1.15Ghz would be just as ridiculous as referring to Xeon dp system as 7.2 GHz because each processor run at 3.6Ghz.



AMD refers to their full duplex 800mhz HT bus as 1600mhz, :) 

-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
Brand name whores are stupid!
November 19, 2004 9:09:32 PM

Let AMD/Intel do that with their dualcores and see what kind uproar it generates. You know both of us would be typing all types of !#@#^%$& ^%*%!@$#@$% #@%$@%$#@#$.

Imagine a dualcored A64 with its individual cores clocked at 1.7GHz called a A64 5000+, but plays HL2 like a xp3200.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by dobster99 on 11/19/04 06:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
November 19, 2004 10:38:29 PM

I may have read/interpretted the article wrong, but it seems to me that Sossaman will be a sever chip, not a mobile chip. The concept of putting 2 dual core chips in a laptop just seems strange.
As far as the speed of opterons at that time, a lot depends on the interpretation of "3 to 5 speed steps" If they mean 300 to 500 pr mhz, that would be a lot different from say 300 to 500 real mhz.
Speculation is that amd could already be pushing 3ghz chips out the door, though not in very large quantities. It does not seem unlikely that in a little over 16 months, they would be capable of hitting a few hundred mhz more.
As far as competing with dothans, lets agree to dissagree. Amd is capable of putting out low power opterons that come very close to PM numbers. Could they cut a little on error protection to gain the difference? Would cool and quiet make a big difference? I believe so, but what company would develop a platform to compete with the dothans?
November 19, 2004 11:20:43 PM

yeah im not to fuzzy about a dualcore notebook either. The alviso/sonoma is really intriguing though.

"3 to 5 speed steps" i interpret that in actual mhz # and not PR, especially since AMD has been boosting speed at 200MHz jumps while the PR numbers are relative to cpu performance and not cpu speed.

Speculation is also that AMD is having a hard time ramping up speed since its increasing PR numbers through manipulation of HT speeds and dual channeling. But its hard to know and i don't care to speculate when the situation is not forcing AMD's hand.

I don't discount the ability of AMD pushing out a 3.0Ghz opteron by 2006. I just don't see a dualcore opteron operating at 2.8 per core arriving at the same time as a yonah/jonah, unless its delayed. But with intel delays are becoming automatic.

If AMD could create a dothan equivalent so easily it would have already. I am not saying it can't. But I seriously doubt it that can do it with the K8 architecture, not in its current form. Reducing heatoutput and power-requirements by over half while maintaining GHz is not possible with a few tweaks. We talking about major redesign of the architecture.

Notebooks are a very important market. The notebook market is growing. It will at some point make the desktop a niche market. All it will take is for mobile graphics to catch up and build it yourself notebook market to become viable.
November 20, 2004 5:14:44 AM

um i still dont understand whats so hard to think its possible. amd wouldnt be 'giving up' on the K8 at all, i never said that. all im saying is if they refine 90nm process by then , dual 2.8 cores could possibly work, im nto saying for sure, im saying its possible, where is it said that its not possible? does anyoen here know what revisions to 90nm especially on opterons? there are plenty of things amd hasnt evne employed yet so we dont have much refrence to pridict either way. the new soi process and 90nm revisions will offer some advantages in that very area.

i think you were thinking that if each core ina dual core could clock up to 2.8, then single cores should be well past 3ghz, but why? does amd have a reason? is intel going to be pushing past 4ghz next year? nope. the chips may be capable of more at that point, but that doesnt mean amd has to release it all at once. im intel has nothing that requires much passed that, then all you may see is 3ghz. but, on the other hand, dual core will need to ramp as quickly as possible and close the gap with the single core versions. at some point, both intel and amd will want to focus only on dual core. granted thats years away, but the first step is closing the gap with single core speeds.

also, you keep saying amd doesnt seem to have an answer to dothan's low power/good performance, but i argue they have made alot of progress in that area. lets take the opteron EE models. you can currently buy the opteron 240EE at 2.0 ghz and a 30W power rating, less then 10W seperate it and dothan. so tell me that amd has made no progress in that area. its here now, its obvious amd is working on this area, and just think, thats before 90nm and soi changes, who knows what the new revisions will bring.
November 22, 2004 5:46:20 PM

http://www2.amd.com/us-en/protected/Weblets/1,,7832_113...

The 240EE is a 1.4Ghz not a 2.0Ghz. The 246HE is the 2.0Ghz but rated at 55W.

Either one shows promise, but are still off in terms of performance/power that is offered by the dothan.

I am not saying AMD can't produce a viable competitor to the dothan. I am saying that it must produce one.

Name one instance of where a retail cpu could only achieve a less than 7% speedboost (over retail speed) even though power to the chip was doubled. The point you make can happen but under extreme conditions of where you are nearing the theoretical max speed of an architecture. You need an extreme overclock and cooling of the opteron to force a situation where doubling the power only gives less than 7% speedboost.

The only other instances (other than the one stated before) i can see this happening is if there is something wrong with the architecture or the manufacturing process. I think that both of us can agreed that the K8 is not the prescott.

I still find it highly unlikely that AMD will put out a 2.8dually but be limited to a singlecore at 3.0 where the cores share the same revisions, use the same chipset and both are rated at 89W.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by dobster99 on 11/22/04 02:49 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
November 22, 2004 9:19:59 PM

what is there not to get about their being a 3ghz single core and 2.8ghz dual core at the same time?

almost anyone with a prescott can hit 4ghz wihtout any fuss, yet intel wont release a 4ghz all of next year.

what pressure is there for amd to put out anything passed 3ghz next year? intel and amd both are pushing for dual core, so it seems pretty logical to me that they would do all they could to make them viable against single core cpu's. and if amd puts out a 3ghz single core chip, its pretty obvious that would smoke anything single core intel would have next year and into Q1 of 06. but, 2006 is the time when dual core is going to be really pushed. what better way to speed up adoption then by closing the gap of performance between dual and single core?


"The 240EE is a 1.4Ghz not a 2.0Ghz. The 246HE is the 2.0Ghz but rated at 55W.

Either one shows promise, but are still off in terms of performance/power that is offered by the dothan.

I am not saying AMD can't produce a viable competitor to the dothan. I am saying that it must produce one. "

and im saying its quite obvious they have plans to that end, dont you see that? you dont see these chips as progress that points to an answer?

sorry about the 240EE, i saw a miss marked listing lol, but my points still stand. i dont see this as such a huge hurdle for amd to overcome.

i guess we will see when they release an answer, possibly implied here:

<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19810" target="_new">http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19810&lt;/A>
!