Socket AM3 will be released in 2007 according to a few sources. If true, then AM2 is probably worthless. *Links inside*

RichUK

Lifer
Feb 14, 2005
10,341
678
126
http://geek.com/news/geeknews/2006Mar/bch20060329035542.htm

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=socket+am3&meta=

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30617

Originally posted by: Geek.com

We've heard a few reports lately that AMD's follow-up to Socket AM2 will be called Socket AM3. We hadn't seen a definitive posting yet, so we haven't mentioned it. Today, however, The Inquirer's Charlie Demerjian has posted an article citing sources saying that Socket AM3 will support DDR3. It will be the successor to Socket AM2, though there's no word on when it will be available.

In addition to upcoming products using Socket AM3, there will be some numbering changes to AMD processor identification parts. Opterons are currently available in x85 flavors (such as 185, 285, and 885), which means that AMD can't go too much further (190 and 195) before it breaks the numbering convention. This means that a changing of the numbering guard is nearly at hand (I think AMD should move to hexadecimal, but that's just me).

AMD's future products are a little difficult to come by directly from the source. Most of the enthusiast community's information comes from leaked documents stemming from AMD's partners. And, knowing The Inquirer as I do, it is likely that occasionally a piece gets through that wasn't quite leaked in context or even properly. I've often wondered how often companies will leak specific documents or specs to only a specific manufacturer to see where that information comes from, such as saying "1.84 volts" on this manufacturer's product sheet, "1.85 volts" on another, and "1.86 volts" on a third, just to see which number appears on some websites.

For now we'll have to rely on this sometimes unreliable news. Socket AM2 is a definite go, and Socket AM3 is the likely follow-up and should not come too late in the game. AMD is reportedly able to release K8L on 90 nm if it has to, but it's waiting for 65 nm to allow it to really shine. We'll see virtualization and security features with Socket AM2 products, allowing a more rounded and comprehensive computing experience. And with AMD's licensing of Z-RAM we could be seeing some major caching architecture changes in future AMD products.

We'll just have to wait and see. But, stay tuned to Geek.com and we'll keep you apprised as the information trickles in.


Originally posted by: Inq

AT CEBIT we came across a few people mentioning the next AMD socket called, wait for it, AM3.


Originally posted by: Inq

Sadly, it looks like AMD's tradition of keeping socket changes to a bare minimum is about to take a cue from Intel. Not socket of the week, exacly, but more socket of the year, not ideal, but a decent compromise for functionality.


Finally some encouraging competition from AMD, if this information holds true.

Discuss.
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
27,222
16,101
136
Well, looks like the same thing I have been saying, all of these are in the works, but when exactly and what intel has at the time is up for graps.
 

RichUK

Lifer
Feb 14, 2005
10,341
678
126
All I can say is this is something to get excited about. I mean instead of a rehash like AM2 is looking to be if it keeps using the K8 core (unless they release K8L on AM2), AM3 will be the platform to look forward to. Three possible new technologies on one new socket, ohh and the highly anticipated die shrink to 65nm, now that?s worth spending money on IMO.
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
I think the best indicators for timing might be the pricing and availability of DDR3, and would like the insiders to report on that as far as they can. The sooner DDR3 arrives, assuming AMD and Intel follow or lead, the sooner DDR2 and AM2/etc. become useless.
 

Kakumba

Senior member
Mar 13, 2006
610
0
0
Finally. AM2 was scaring me. Provided this is true, I can ignore AM2 completely, and be happy. I think AM2 was completely pointless, before they have even released it, its a waste of time and money.
 

n19htmare

Senior member
Jan 12, 2005
275
0
0
So why would they even waste time and money on the AM2 if it's gonna be replaced with AM3 within a year. Doesn't make any sense. It'd probably make more sense to drop the AM2 completely and just go for the AM3 and DDR3. Thats my 2 cents.
 

MiranoPoncho

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2004
1,441
0
0
I'll stick with 939 until am3 matures, thank you. Midway in Am2, I shall pick up a phase unit and max out my ram.
 

TecHNooB

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
7,458
1
76
I do look forward to z-ram. I do look forward to a 65nm process (hello quads). And DDR3 would be delicious. What I don't like is someone from the Inq telling me what to expect and not getting it (G71). To hell with the Inq!
 

Kakumba

Senior member
Mar 13, 2006
610
0
0
that is a good point, the Inq isnt quite the most reliable source. I dont know what is actually going to happen, coz as has been said, its crazy for 2 new sockets to come out that quickly. AM3 in 2008 I can understand.
 

RichUK

Lifer
Feb 14, 2005
10,341
678
126
Originally posted by: Kakumba
that is a good point, the Inq isnt quite the most reliable source. I dont know what is actually going to happen, coz as has been said, its crazy for 2 new sockets to come out that quickly. AM3 in 2008 I can understand.

Possibly, but in the Inq article it did say:

AT CEBIT we came across a few people mentioning the next AMD socket called, wait for it, AM3.

Although I don?t know how credible this info is etther because once again it has come from the inq.
 

Kakumba

Senior member
Mar 13, 2006
610
0
0
I did read the Inq article, and I dont think that AM3 will be out that soon. I wouldnt mind if it is, but I dont think it will be.
 

coldpower27

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,676
0
76
Well AMD does have to wait until DDR3 reaches mainstream prices... unless they wish to risk their platform being more expensive then Intel's.
 

KBM

Junior Member
Feb 22, 2006
14
0
0
It took more than 2 years for the DDR2 prices to come down to earth..
Talking about DDR3 ??? LOL ... wait atleast 2-3 years before DDR3 can hit
the shelves.. And that even only if Intel gets behind DDR3. Otherewise there
won't be enough consumption in the market and the price will stay way high..

If AMD doesn't benefit from DDR2 band width, how is DDR3 going to help??..
Do you think DDR3 will be introduced with super low latencies like DDR?..
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Originally posted by: KBM
If AMD doesn't benefit from DDR2 band width, how is DDR3 going to help??..
Do you think DDR3 will be introduced with super low latencies like DDR?..

AMD does benefit from RAM bandwidth, especially at higher clock speeds, regardless of what early flawed sample benchmarks might have indicated.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/31/tight_timings_vs_high_clock_frequencies/

As to pricing for DDR3. Of course, that's critical, and the RAM manufacturers are likely counting on caching in asap on Vista+DDR2, so there'll be some delay before DDR3. Everyone will want us to pay for an upgrade cycle via DDR2, and then DDR3. Many people aren't going to bother, esp. if the trend of not having huge CPU bottlenecks in typical applications continues.


 
Mar 19, 2003
18,289
2
71
Originally posted by: Madwand1
As to pricing for DDR3. Of course, that's critical, and the RAM manufacturers are likely counting on caching in asap on Vista+DDR2, so there'll be some delay before DDR3. Everyone will want us to pay for an upgrade cycle via DDR2, and then DDR3. Many people aren't going to bother, esp. if the trend of not having huge CPU bottlenecks in typical applications continues.

I agree. While it looks like Conroe will be a very nice product in six months' time, the fact is that the vast majority of users, even many(most?) enthusiasts here, have a CPU that's plenty fast. Anyone who bought an AMD dual core in the past year will likely be fine for some time to come, and even people with fast single cores (which can really be considered any A64 since 2003 basically..) might not see a compelling reason to upgrade yet. I guess it's easy for me to say that since I have an Opty 170, but honestly, these days I think it's much better to spend more money on the video card than on the CPU (if you can afford it)...gaming is almost always GPU-limited, unless you're still running an Athlon XP or 3+ year old games...

My two cents anyway :p
 

Kakumba

Senior member
Mar 13, 2006
610
0
0
All good posts. The only current gain to be had from more/ faster ram is when dealing with really huge files. so, I think we are in agreement here, AM3 with DDR3 is miles away.
 

darkdemyze

Member
Dec 1, 2005
155
0
0
The topic of Z-RAM is a bit dated:
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=177101749
but interesting [to me anyway] nevertheless.

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001
Originally posted by: Madwand1
As to pricing for DDR3. Of course, that's critical, and the RAM manufacturers are likely counting on caching in asap on Vista+DDR2, so there'll be some delay before DDR3. Everyone will want us to pay for an upgrade cycle via DDR2, and then DDR3. Many people aren't going to bother, esp. if the trend of not having huge CPU bottlenecks in typical applications continues.

I agree. While it looks like Conroe will be a very nice product in six months' time, the fact is that the vast majority of users, even many(most?) enthusiasts here, have a CPU that's plenty fast. Anyone who bought an AMD dual core in the past year will likely be fine for some time to come, and even people with fast single cores (which can really be considered any A64 since 2003 basically..) might not see a compelling reason to upgrade yet. I guess it's easy for me to say that since I have an Opty 170, but honestly, these days I think it's much better to spend more money on the video card than on the CPU (if you can afford it)...gaming is almost always GPU-limited, unless you're still running an Athlon XP or 3+ year old games...

My two cents anyway :p

As for this, I agree as well. As Anand has said in the past:
Upgrade when you are not happy with your current system, not when the latest and greatest comes out.

And I feel that again, most people will not be unhappy with their current platform at the release time of AM2, especially with knowing the platform will only be supported for aprox. a year? Er, according to the above sources anyway..I see the anticipation for AM3 surpassing the want / need for AM2 upgrade.

Just my two cents :p
 

Furen

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2004
1,567
0
0
Wow, I'm actually quite surprised everyone in this thread is so hyped up about DDR3 yet continues bashing DDR2. You know that DDR3 will offer even lower operating clocks and higher latencies compared to DDR2, right? DDR3 will be to DDR2 what this last one was to DDR, lower internal clock and a doubled prefetch (8 bits for DDR3).

Originally posted by: Madwand1
Originally posted by: KBM
If AMD doesn't benefit from DDR2 band width, how is DDR3 going to help??..
Do you think DDR3 will be introduced with super low latencies like DDR?..

AMD does benefit from RAM bandwidth, especially at higher clock speeds, regardless of what early flawed sample benchmarks might have indicated.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/31/tight_timings_vs_high_clock_frequencies/

As to pricing for DDR3. Of course, that's critical, and the RAM manufacturers are likely counting on caching in asap on Vista+DDR2, so there'll be some delay before DDR3. Everyone will want us to pay for an upgrade cycle via DDR2, and then DDR3. Many people aren't going to bother, esp. if the trend of not having huge CPU bottlenecks in typical applications continues.

This comparison is hardly useful since the DDR is running at insanely tight timings. DDR at 300MHz (DDR600) at 2.5,3,3 timings is much better than DDR at 200MHz with 2-2-2 timings because latency (in ns) WILL BE LOWER and bandwidth will be 50% higher. Also, comparing different timings on DDR1 is quite different from comparing DDR1 to DDR2 or DDR2 to DDR3. If you could make DDR1 run at 333MHz (667 effective) at 6-4-4 timings you could create the equivalent of DDR2 667 at 3-2-2. Of course, your memory chips would still be running at 333MHz compared to the 166MHz memory chips on DDR2 but the latency would probably make the comparison more adequate.

By the way, K8L should hit socket AM2 in early 2007 (I'd expect Q1 but could be Q2) in the form of Brisbane. I'm not about to venture out and say that I'm sure this CPU will be vastly superior to Conroe, but it should give it a run for its money when dealing with FP/SSE code. Integer performance should still be Intel's, though, so you'll have to pick your poison when both of these CPUs are in the market. Regardless, I wouldnt expect AM3 to hit the market before 2008 simply because there is absolutely no DDR3 out there (to purchase, there are engineering samples) and there probably wont be for at least the next year or so. Give it a few months to allow the supply to normalize and you end up in 2008.

EDIT:

Originally posted by: darkdemyze
As for this, I agree as well. As Anand has said in the past:
Upgrade when you are not happy with your current system, not when the latest and greatest comes out.

And I feel that again, most people will not be unhappy with their current platform at the release time of AM2, especially with knowing the platform will only be supported for aprox. a year? Er, according to the above sources anyway..I see the anticipation for AM3 surpassing the want / need for AM2 upgrade.

Just my two cents :p

Completely true with a few exceptions: there are tasks that take as much power as you feed them, and having more power to throw at them will allow you to be more productive. Examples: Video encoding, 3D modeling/rendering, various forms of data analysis and manipulation. Also, having all this compute power at your fingertips allows developers to make software that actually uses it.
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Originally posted by: Furen
This comparison is hardly useful since the DDR is running at insanely tight timings. DDR at 300MHz (DDR600) at 2.5,3,3 timings is much better than DDR at 200MHz with 2-2-2 timings because latency (in ns) WILL BE LOWER and bandwidth will be 50% higher. Also, comparing different timings on DDR1 is quite different from comparing DDR1 to DDR2 or DDR2 to DDR3. If you could make DDR1 run at 333MHz (667 effective) at 6-4-4 timings you could create the equivalent of DDR2 667 at 3-2-2. Of course, your memory chips would still be running at 333MHz compared to the 166MHz memory chips on DDR2 but the latency would probably make the comparison more adequate.

The comparison showed performance improvements due to increased bandwidth and CPU speed, as well as latency. Considering that you can buy DDR2 800 with 4-5-4 timings, I think that trying to maintain a position that the additional bandwidth will not give a performance improvement is pretty weak. I'm pretty cynical, but not so cynical to believe that AMD will expect us to pay for a new socket and new memory which will get us a performance decline CPU clock for clock vs. the 939 line. But I'll step out for now and say let's see when the products actually come out.
 

DeathReborn

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 2005
2,786
789
136
This is kinda interesting as it's pretty much how 939 came about.

AM2 = 754
AM3 = 939
Socket F = 940

It's just a guess but it's plausible.
 

Furen

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2004
1,567
0
0
The problem is that the comparison puts 200MHz memory with tight timings against 300MHz memory with even TIGHTER timings. Remember that latency is a function of clock speed, so increasing your clock by 50% and only increasing latency by half a clock (25%) actually leads to a lower overall latency. The latency in a DDR2 800 system would be directly comparable to the latency in a DDR400 system because the memory chips run at the same speed in both (200MHz memory chips), but if you notice there is no DDR2 800 that runs at 2-2-2 timings, hence the huge latency difference. Of course the increased bandwidth mitigates this, and it may actually lead to higher performance, but my point was that two tests using DDR1 cannot give us an accurate prediction of how latency will affect performance in DDR2 because the technologies are SIGNIFICANTLY different and the DDR2 latency ratings are meant to mislead people into believing that their latency with DDR2 will be lower than it will really be.

I'm the same as you, I believe that AM2 will at least perform on par with 939, but I'm sure it was/will be a pain in the ass for AMD to accomplish this.
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
I agree that it was good to point out that DDR bandwidth and latency aren't the same as for DDR2, however I think that the argument that DDR2 bandwidth is not enough to overcome its latency is/will be outdated by the release of AM2.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,896
12,957
136
AMD hasn't shown us anything on their AM2 price list that would be bandwidth staved by DDR450 or DDR500. Granted, such memory is only available in the form of enthusiast parts, and memory manufacturers seem to want to get away from DDR in general, so the move to DDR2 seems inevitable.

However, until quad cores show up, AMD just doesn't have anything out there that needs the bandwidth provided by DDR2-800 or DDR2-1066. The only way for AMD to capitalize on DDR2 is to keep timings as low as possible while ramping up the memory clock to reduce overall latency.

DDR2-1066 with 4-4-4-15 timings will beat DDR400 at 2-2-2-5, or at least it should. Sadly, the only DDR2 DIMMS out there right now capable of such speeds with such timings seem to be . . . *drumroll* . . . enthusiast parts, such as these:

http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2732

Making the transition to DDR3 makes a lot more sense when you frame their situation like this: at the consumer desktop level, AMD isn't going to need significant increases in memory bandwidth until they start selling quad-core CPUs. What they need is reduced latency, and beating DDR400 at 2-2-2-5 is the name of the game. The cost of doing this while sticking with DDR is prohibitive because it would involve adopting enthusiast standards like DDR450 or DDR500, and even then, they'd have to prod memory makers into making and selling large quanities of DIMMS capable of 2-2-2-5 or at least 2-3-2-10 at DDR450-500. Not cheap.

If they turn to DDR2, the only way to beat DDR400 2-2-2-5 is with something like DDR2-1066 4-4-4-15, which is doable, but only with expensive enthusiast DIMMS. Again, not cheap.

With DDR3, the common presumption is that DDR400 2-2-2-5 could be beaten easily by any DDR3 imaginable. This too is not a cheap solution, but since the technology is held to be superior to anything DDR or DDR2 has to offer, it might make sense for them just to adopt DDR3 seeing as how the only viable solutions in the DDR or DDR2 realms would be equally expensive. They could marry AM2 chips to DDR400 and watch their high-end dual cores suffer from bandwidth starvation, or they could try using el-cheapo DDR2 memory(which it looks like they may do) and watch performance suffer on all their chips due to increased latency.
 

hans007

Lifer
Feb 1, 2000
20,212
18
81
so are all the people who keep saying yeah AMD let me keep my socket 939 for 2 years and it was so great to keep my platform going to cry now that amd is changing sockets every year?


i dont know why everyone is getting excited by am3. if it is still basically the same core, or say 2 or 4 of the same core, with a different memory controller again it still isnt going to make a huge difference.


ddr3 is supposed to be slightly better latency than ddr2. and bandwitdh on the amd platforms doesnt even matter, ddr2 provides plenty and even ddr1 had plenty.

 

coldpower27

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,676
0
76
Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
AMD hasn't shown us anything on their AM2 price list that would be bandwidth staved by DDR450 or DDR500. Granted, such memory is only available in the form of enthusiast parts, and memory manufacturers seem to want to get away from DDR in general, so the move to DDR2 seems inevitable.

However, until quad cores show up, AMD just doesn't have anything out there that needs the bandwidth provided by DDR2-800 or DDR2-1066. The only way for AMD to capitalize on DDR2 is to keep timings as low as possible while ramping up the memory clock to reduce overall latency.

DDR2-1066 with 4-4-4-15 timings will beat DDR400 at 2-2-2-5, or at least it should. Sadly, the only DDR2 DIMMS out there right now capable of such speeds with such timings seem to be . . . *drumroll* . . . enthusiast parts, such as these:

http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2732

Making the transition to DDR3 makes a lot more sense when you frame their situation like this: at the consumer desktop level, AMD isn't going to need significant increases in memory bandwidth until they start selling quad-core CPUs. What they need is reduced latency, and beating DDR400 at 2-2-2-5 is the name of the game. The cost of doing this while sticking with DDR is prohibitive because it would involve adopting enthusiast standards like DDR450 or DDR500, and even then, they'd have to prod memory makers into making and selling large quanities of DIMMS capable of 2-2-2-5 or at least 2-3-2-10 at DDR450-500. Not cheap.

If they turn to DDR2, the only way to beat DDR400 2-2-2-5 is with something like DDR2-1066 4-4-4-15, which is doable, but only with expensive enthusiast DIMMS. Again, not cheap.

With DDR3, the common presumption is that DDR400 2-2-2-5 could be beaten easily by any DDR3 imaginable. This too is not a cheap solution, but since the technology is held to be superior to anything DDR or DDR2 has to offer, it might make sense for them just to adopt DDR3 seeing as how the only viable solutions in the DDR or DDR2 realms would be equally expensive. They could marry AM2 chips to DDR400 and watch their high-end dual cores suffer from bandwidth starvation, or they could try using el-cheapo DDR2 memory(which it looks like they may do) and watch performance suffer on all their chips due to increased latency.

DDR2-1066 at 4-4-4-15 Really? are there 2x1GB modules though, because if not then I don't want to populate all my DIMM slots with it.

To me right now the highest is DDR2-800 5-5-5-15, which is available in 2x1GB DIMM. However still isn't mainstream yet, I hope WIndsor and Conroe ad thier derivatives will change that...