WOW! AM2 is compatible with quad core K8L!

[acadian]

Check this out:

http://digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20060628VL201.html

 

[RichUK]

I haven't read it, but going by your thread title, i still wouldn't say at present AM2 would be a good investment to go with since new and improved chipsets/motherboards will be out at the time of K8L's release.

However people that have already purchased hardware based around the AM2 platform, will see this as good news, as their current AM2 processors can be updated with something next gen that will compete with Conroe/Kentsfield.

 

[AkumaX]

werd. Conroe's socket 775. but that doesn't mean that all the socket 775 motherboards will run it, depends on chipset support. thanks intel for making my socket 775 865, 875, 915, 925, 945, 955, 965, and 1/2 the 975 chipsets absol33t!

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: AkumaX
werd. Conroe's socket 775. but that doesn't mean that all the socket 775 motherboards will run it, depends on chipset support. thanks intel for making my socket 775 865, 875, 915, 925, 945, 955, 965, and 1/2 the 975 chipsets absol33t!

Lets seethat isn't really fair.

865/875 were never officially intended for LGA775, just certain AIB partners decided to make those since these have AGP support.

965 runs Conroe natively for sure, so that's out,

New revisions of 945 are coming out to support Conroe as well as the new revisions of 975.

 

[AkumaX]

Originally posted by: coldpower27
Lets seethat isn't really fair.

865/875 were never officially intended for LGA775, just certain AIB partners decided to make those since these have AGP support.

ok neat-0

965 runs Conroe natively for sure, so that's out,

cool didnt know that either

New revisions of 945 are coming out to support Conroe as well as the new revisions of 975.

yes, NEW revisions. as in, all of the current 945 and 975 owners are SOL.

btw, this post was made to bring awareness that just because a new cpu will work with an existing socket doesn't mean that it's compatible with the actual motheboard

i am freakin' glad AMD had dual core in mind and it was merely a case of a bios flash (for most people) that allowed S939 owners to run dual core

as for intel->bios flash->conroe, we have yet to see

 

[Acanthus]

This is more the mobo manufacturers cheaping out than Intel intentionally screwing everyone.

The VRMs on the motherboards need to support wider ranges of voltages in hardware, so when die shrinks occur or architectures require more power or cleaner power, the motherboard has to be robust enough to handle it.

 

[TrevorRC]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
This is more the mobo manufacturers cheaping out than Intel intentionally screwing everyone.

The VRMs on the motherboards need to support wider ranges of voltages in hardware, so when die shrinks occur or architectures require more power or cleaner power, the motherboard has to be robust enough to handle it.

Exactly. If you guys feel dangerous, you can always replace the controller on the motherboard

--Trevor

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: TrevorRC

Originally posted by: Acanthus
This is more the mobo manufacturers cheaping out than Intel intentionally screwing everyone.

The VRMs on the motherboards need to support wider ranges of voltages in hardware, so when die shrinks occur or architectures require more power or cleaner power, the motherboard has to be robust enough to handle it.

Exactly. If you guys feel dangerous, you can always replace the controller on the motherboard

--Trevor

It would require bios changes as well.

Im just saying that if the mobo makers werent cheaping out on the VRMs, there wouldnt be a need for revision after revision of the same chipset on a different layout for new cpus.

 

[Furen]

To OP:

Not much of a surprise. K8L is coming out early next year and there really isn't another socket coming out any time soon for it to plug into. A DDR3 socket is still pretty far off, since DDR3 has yet to be introduced to the market and prices will be pretty high when it does.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
This is more the mobo manufacturers cheaping out than Intel intentionally screwing everyone.

The VRMs on the motherboards need to support wider ranges of voltages in hardware, so when die shrinks occur or architectures require more power or cleaner power, the motherboard has to be robust enough to handle it.

You can't really blame the mobo manufactureres...they followed Intel's spec exactly.

 

[Teletran1]

nevermind

 

[theteamaqua]

its not really a surprise since with conroe they change the vrm from vrm9 to vrm11, but this is nice though.

edit: i do however hate intel for making all its crap confusing. if someone who doesnt know anyone works for intel and never use forums like xs harrdcop or this, they will make big mistake when changing mobo/cpu

 

[jkresh]

looks like all conroe boards will support kentsfield, so intel is atleast improving with allowing for upgrades (part of the reason I am going conroe). The question as others have said is will current am2 motherboards support k8l (all I know is engineering samples of kentsfield run on 975x boards do out in the next few weeks).

 

[996GT2]

YES!!! AM2 supports K8L...hope my MSI K9N plat will run it

 

[the Chase]

Well not to be a downer but...He said AM2 supports Quad core cpu's, not specifically the K8L. AM2 will support the rev. G 65nm Quad cores but most likely not the K8L. AM2 will end up being a good value platform but a new socket will be coming in 2007(mid-late) to support the K8L. Just my speculation.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: Furen
K8L is coming out early next year

I heard next July.

 

[atom]

Originally posted by: the Chase
Well not to be a downer but...He said AM2 supports Quad core cpu's, not specifically the K8L. AM2 will support the rev. G 65nm Quad cores but most likely not the K8L. AM2 will end up being a good value platform but a new socket will be coming in 2007(mid-late) to support the K8L. Just my speculation.

But there hasn't been a rev. G K8 based quad core announced for AM2 yet. The only K8 based quad core coming out is deerhound which is socket F. The first quad core for desktops is greyhound which is K8L based according to dailytech.

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: atom

Originally posted by: the Chase
Well not to be a downer but...He said AM2 supports Quad core cpu's, not specifically the K8L. AM2 will support the rev. G 65nm Quad cores but most likely not the K8L. AM2 will end up being a good value platform but a new socket will be coming in 2007(mid-late) to support the K8L. Just my speculation.

But there hasn't been a rev. G K8 based quad core announced for AM2 yet. The only K8 based quad core coming out is deerhound which is socket F. The first quad core for desktops is greyhound which is K8L based according to dailytech.

Yeah I'm speculating. I think AMD will push out a Quad core in some form(maybe "glued together" duallies) to meet/beat Intel's coming desktop Quad.

 

[atom]

If anything, I'd rather have AMD open up the 4x4 platform to non-FX chips. I still haven't really read a good technical explanation of how AMD is going to keep non FX cpu's from operating on a 4x4 platform.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: atom
If anything, I'd rather have AMD open up the 4x4 platform to non-FX chips. I still haven't really read a good technical explanation of how AMD is going to keep non FX cpu's from operating on a 4x4 platform.

Maybe the chipset (being that they are going to be AMD based only) will be configured to read the ID strings of the processors, so to qualify 4X4 mode, maybe.

But this does seem a little far fetched. The platform would make a lot more money and generate a lot more interest if it were to work with any of the X2 AM2 processors.

 

[MDme]

it's probably due to the activation of the HT links on the FX CPUs. If they don't activate the HT links on the X2's then it won't run on 4x4

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: atom
If anything, I'd rather have AMD open up the 4x4 platform to non-FX chips. I still haven't really read a good technical explanation of how AMD is going to keep non FX cpu's from operating on a 4x4 platform.

Maybe the chipset (being that they are going to be AMD based only) will be configured to read the ID strings of the processors, so to qualify 4X4 mode, maybe.

But this does seem a little far fetched. The platform would make a lot more money and generate a lot more interest if it were to work with any of the X2 AM2 processors.

If it's for FX processors only, why not differentiate the FX processors by giving them two memory controllers, thus allowing them to talk to each other.

 

[Furen]

Originally posted by: Fox5
If it's for FX processors only, why not differentiate the FX processors by giving them two memory controllers, thus allowing them to talk to each other.

Giving them two memory controllers? I have no idea what that means. AMD is not likely to make FXs significantly different because that would require it to invest a lot of cash into a very low-volume part. Yes, the only ways AMD can lock-out regular X2s out of 4x4 is either by disabling the coherent HT links to other chips (which is not much trouble) or making the bios require FXs (even easier but sure to get hacked).

Here's a bit of speculation on my part: I think 4x4 will either work with non-FX parts or the FX-62 will drop in price significantly once the FX-64 hits the market (Aug 8 according to Hexus' sources). 4x4 Motherboards will take at least 3 more months to hit the market and Kentsfield will be very close to launching by then. Having to chose between a 2.66GHz Dual-Conroe on a single package for $1k (I'd say this is a reasonable clock unless Intel decides to get in the 140W TDP territory) or two 3.0GHz+ FXs (which rival 65nm Netbursts in power draw, by the way) for $2k does not look too good for AMD. You can say that 4x4 is AMD's way of making a Kentsfield of its own without having to deal with MCPs, increased power draw in a single socket, and the like.

Regs: I've heard 2007Q2, 2007H1 and even "early next year" here and there. I've also heard that Brisbane WILL be K8L, though I'd seriously doubt that.

 

[atom]

Originally posted by: MDme
it's probably due to the activation of the HT links on the FX CPUs. If they don't activate the HT links on the X2's then it won't run on 4x4

I was thinking that too but that would mean AMD enabled coherent HT on the FX-62 without telling anyone. At least I've never heard about it.

 

[pcoffman]

Originally posted by: the Chase
I'm speculating. I think AMD will push out a Quad core in some form(maybe "glued together" duallies)

Not "glued together", if AMD remains true to form. AMD's objective is to maintain a technical edge over Intel. In my opinion, this precludes an improvised, sleight-of-hand multi-core implementation, such as Intel has been accussed of in its dual-core implementation of Smithfield and Presler. Even in Kentsfield, Intel seems to be putting time-to-market above engineering a native quad-core part.