Why would a new socket be required if it is just a shrink of the core? Or maybe he might be right because of the way the tulatin was introduced and VIA had to setup a new socket with "T" platform as the older 133a and pro266 sockets didn't accept the Tul pin layout. I think Maddy might be right.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
AMDs neue Roadmap #2
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I disagree.
Intel purposely designed Tualatin to require new boards. Why? Because otherwise, the Tuallie would have been a far more likely upgrade candidate than Pentium 4. So they forced new boards and jacked up the prices.
AMD isn't likely to screw consumers over that way. They've said from the onset that they're sticking with Socket A right up to the Hammer series, and I don't see any reason to doubt that. The Thoroughbred's only difference will be a lower core voltage, which some boards will already support, and others (likely) with a BIOS update.
That said, by the time Thoroughbred is released, you'll likely purchase a new mainboard anyway. But I do see an upgrade path.
Intel purposely designed Tualatin to require new boards. Why? Because otherwise, the Tuallie would have been a far more likely upgrade candidate than Pentium 4. So they forced new boards and jacked up the prices.
AMD isn't likely to screw consumers over that way. They've said from the onset that they're sticking with Socket A right up to the Hammer series, and I don't see any reason to doubt that. The Thoroughbred's only difference will be a lower core voltage, which some boards will already support, and others (likely) with a BIOS update.
That said, by the time Thoroughbred is released, you'll likely purchase a new mainboard anyway. But I do see an upgrade path.
Bozo Galora
Diamond Member
exactly, this will be a good test to see whether AMD treats its customers differently than Intel.
MadRat
Lifer
<<Intel purposely designed Tualatin to require new boards. Why? Because otherwise, the Tuallie would have been a far more likely upgrade candidate than Pentium 4. So they forced new boards and jacked up the prices.>>
With that reasoning we can assume Intel released the Socket-7 to make Socket-5 users upgrade although obviously it wasn't necessary in your opinion. We know that is not true, nor is your opinion on the Taulitan compatible boards. Thats just the thing about opinions being like @ssholes, everyone has their own.
Intel could not have designed the Taulitan to use the same sockets as previous P!!! processors due to the differences in voltage. Plain and simple you cannot squeeze the right voltage out of the older socket-370 motherboards. You also have to remember that motherboards are tuned for a certain voltage range, and running them out of that range means the electrical signals will be less precise. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to risk a $250 CPU on an old motherboard that probably wouldn't fetch $20 in a trade-in.
With that reasoning we can assume Intel released the Socket-7 to make Socket-5 users upgrade although obviously it wasn't necessary in your opinion. We know that is not true, nor is your opinion on the Taulitan compatible boards. Thats just the thing about opinions being like @ssholes, everyone has their own.
Intel could not have designed the Taulitan to use the same sockets as previous P!!! processors due to the differences in voltage. Plain and simple you cannot squeeze the right voltage out of the older socket-370 motherboards. You also have to remember that motherboards are tuned for a certain voltage range, and running them out of that range means the electrical signals will be less precise. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to risk a $250 CPU on an old motherboard that probably wouldn't fetch $20 in a trade-in.
Is it just me, or does the table below the roadmap look funny?
Look at the power usage specs, they spec the 1667 MHz Pally @ <=72 W, and just above that one, is the Thoroughbred at 1667 MHz, also at <=72 W.
That is despite the process being .13 and voltage being 1.6, compared to .18 and 1.75 for the Pally?
Unless they've slapped on a crapola of stuff on the Thoroughbred core, I just dont see how that could be?
Look at the power usage specs, they spec the 1667 MHz Pally @ <=72 W, and just above that one, is the Thoroughbred at 1667 MHz, also at <=72 W.
That is despite the process being .13 and voltage being 1.6, compared to .18 and 1.75 for the Pally?
Unless they've slapped on a crapola of stuff on the Thoroughbred core, I just dont see how that could be?
<< Nortwood will have 512 lvl2 cache and hammer will only be 384? >>
But Hummer will have memory controller on chip. 2 chips - 2 memory controllers and 4 mem banks - 2x memory bandwidth, 4 chips - 4 mem controllers and 8 mem banks - 4x , 8 chips ... You got the point. What's few extra cache in Northwood's in comparison with that? Hammer will be sooo fast.
EDIT:
from Anandtech's article about hammer:
about L2 cache:
What will most likely happen is that we will see 512KB parts for the performance desktop and entry-level workstation segments, and 1MB parts for the high end servers
Edit2: MadRat was faster I guess 🙂
MadRat
Lifer
SledgeHammer will probably not have 384k cache. That sounds awfully low to me.
Anandtech's article:
"What will most likely happen is that we will see 512KB parts for the performance desktop and entry-level workstation segments, and 1MB parts for the high end servers. On a 0.13-micron process it shouldn't be too difficult to fit 512KB on the Hammer's die and it would be a sin to outfit the processor with anything smaller especially considering AMD's stressing of its stellar performance when dealing with large workloads. If AMD were to eventually create a Duron-like version of the Hammer then it would be feasible that a processor like that would only have a 256KB L2 cache.
Once again the L2 cache is 16-way set associative like the Thunderbird/Palomino cores however AMD assured us that the L2 cache was designed independently of the Athlon making any similarities between the two purely because that's the right way for them to do it. While AMD did confirm that internally the L2 cache would be dealt with more efficiently, we have yet to get confirmation that the L2-core interface has been widened from the currently crippling 64-bit data path."
Anandtech's article:
"What will most likely happen is that we will see 512KB parts for the performance desktop and entry-level workstation segments, and 1MB parts for the high end servers. On a 0.13-micron process it shouldn't be too difficult to fit 512KB on the Hammer's die and it would be a sin to outfit the processor with anything smaller especially considering AMD's stressing of its stellar performance when dealing with large workloads. If AMD were to eventually create a Duron-like version of the Hammer then it would be feasible that a processor like that would only have a 256KB L2 cache.
Once again the L2 cache is 16-way set associative like the Thunderbird/Palomino cores however AMD assured us that the L2 cache was designed independently of the Athlon making any similarities between the two purely because that's the right way for them to do it. While AMD did confirm that internally the L2 cache would be dealt with more efficiently, we have yet to get confirmation that the L2-core interface has been widened from the currently crippling 64-bit data path."
<< I disagree.
Intel purposely designed Tualatin to require new boards. Why? Because otherwise, the Tuallie would have been a far more likely upgrade candidate than Pentium 4. So they forced new boards and jacked up the prices.
AMD isn't likely to screw consumers over that way. >>
The Tualatin's need a new motherboards because the voltage they require was not spec when the socketed P3's were designed. I know hindsight is 20/20 but to say Intel should have known in 1998(or earlier) that there chips in 2001 would use a lower voltage then they aloted for is just dumb.
So AMD doesn't screw over cusumers well what about us Slot A owners, haven't we been screwed us over by consumer loving AMD? Our motherboards were obsolete after 10 months unlike P3 owner who got years of use out of there boards. If we followed your logic us Slot A owner should start dumping on AMD for abandoning our platform but its idiotic to expect Intel or AMD to support a platform indefinitely.
Diable wrote:
"So AMD doesn't screw over cusumers well what about us Slot A owners, haven't we been screwed us over by consumer loving AMD? Our motherboards were obsolete after 10 months unlike P3 owner who got years of use out of there boards. If we followed your logic us Slot A owner should start dumping on AMD for abandoning our platform but its idiotic to expect Intel or AMD to support a platform indefinitely."
Somehow I knew I'd get jumped on for that comment.
I'll say it like MadRat: Opinions are like assholes... everyone has one. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
I think we're pretty much in a period where motherboards are upgraded right along with CPUs, such that it's pretty much irrelevant anyway. Then again, not everyone has the luxury to upgrade every couple months.
"So AMD doesn't screw over cusumers well what about us Slot A owners, haven't we been screwed us over by consumer loving AMD? Our motherboards were obsolete after 10 months unlike P3 owner who got years of use out of there boards. If we followed your logic us Slot A owner should start dumping on AMD for abandoning our platform but its idiotic to expect Intel or AMD to support a platform indefinitely."
Somehow I knew I'd get jumped on for that comment.
I'll say it like MadRat: Opinions are like assholes... everyone has one. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
I think we're pretty much in a period where motherboards are upgraded right along with CPUs, such that it's pretty much irrelevant anyway. Then again, not everyone has the luxury to upgrade every couple months.
MadRat
Lifer
<<I think we're pretty much in a period where motherboards are upgraded right along with CPUs, such that it's pretty much irrelevant anyway.>>
This is true. I rarely hold onto a motherboard longer than a year. Have to admit I like it when only one of them (CPU or m/b) can show substantial performance improvements to the system. And to think quality videocards are more expensive than either, it a pretty moot point.
This is true. I rarely hold onto a motherboard longer than a year. Have to admit I like it when only one of them (CPU or m/b) can show substantial performance improvements to the system. And to think quality videocards are more expensive than either, it a pretty moot point.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
