AMD’s Quad-Core Processors to Show Up Soon

rettihSlluB

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2005
296
0
18,780
0
Since Tommy and friends aren't posting these valuable articles, I'll post them for all of you in the forum.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060126111118.html

AMD’s quad-core processors are due out in early 2007, but some industry analysts have said AMD could release them by the end of this year.
Really interesting. I believe after this announcement, AMD will end up with 25% of server market share next year.

Who gives more??
 

cedric

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2004
28
0
18,530
0
And the crazy is saying this .Note that quad core is in the development program and is surely for sale later when most of us will already own a dual core processor . learn som thing abt bussiness then come to ze forum.dont u know that industries only commercialise new products when the old techno is no longer viable for commercilisation. :idea: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
 

rettihSlluB

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2005
296
0
18,780
0
learn som thing abt bussiness then come to ze forum.dont u know that industries only commercialise new products when the old techno is no longer viable for commercilisation.
Here we have Mr. business man. WOW, I'm impressed with such statements. :roll:

Here's a question for you:

1) Do you even know why quad cores are coming out??

2) Do you know what is a quad core processor??

Try to do your homework before posting bullshit about how the industry should do their job. :wink:

bull shitter im sorry i still cant believe you with a name like that lol
And the reason of your post is...
 

ltcommander_data

Distinguished
Dec 16, 2004
997
0
18,980
0
I wonder if they will be using 65nm? I would think they would be to keep the size, power, and heat down. The ones they're demoing soon they could actually be 90nm since I don't think Fab 36 is finished converting to 65nm yet. It'd be interesting to see how far AMD's SOI advantage in their 90nm process extends. Intel of course needs 65nm to do quad cores, so if AMD can do it with 90nm, it'd be an embarassement to Intel's manufacturing process which they pride themselves on. 65nm is probably more ideal, but the fact that AMD's 90nm is doable would still be a victory. (The size depends on your perspective of course).

Hmm, that may have come across too "professional" and "arrogant" so I'll apologize in advance since MadModMike is on my tail.
 

CCanadian_Bacon

Distinguished
Jan 31, 2006
19
0
18,510
0
ooh i cant wait for a quad-core opty to play on cod2 holy crap imagine the fps!
is COD2 multi-threaded? if it isn't, having extra cores wouldn't have any effect sicne only one processor would be able to carry out one thread.

and even if its multi-threaded it might only take advantage of two cores because one thread might include in-game shadows, sounds,AI while the other thread would be all the other shit.

i don't know much about programming so i may be wrong
 

TabrisDarkPeace

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2006
1,378
0
19,280
0
Think of it this way (cores per processor)

Each CPU die exists in a 3D space, but it is mostly flat, so more like a 2D space with layers on it.

130nm sq = 16900 '2D space used for X transistors'
90nm sq = 8100 '2D space used for X transistors'
65nm sq = 4225 '2D space used for X transistors'
45nm sq = 2025
32nm sq = 1024
22/23nm sq = 506.25 (apx)
16nm sq = 256 (apx)

So moving to 65nm (from 90nm) allows for a +91.7% increase in transistor count.

Then moving from say 12 to 13 layer manufacturing (as layers could be thinner on the smaller process) would allow for an additional +8.33% increase in transistor count.

Bringing the total to +107.67% increase (from 90nm to 65nm, as values above percentage multiply, not just add) in transistor count within the same 3D space.

If they then decide to implement Z-RAM as L2 cache they can then have 4x the cache (2 MB / 4 MB vs 512 KB / 1024 KB) while only using 80% the comparitive space (same process) for L2 cache..... or 40% the 'real' space (90nm -> 65nm).

eg: Using Z-RAM as cache would only use 80% of the space and permit a 4x increase in quantity of L2 cache on AMD processors.


End result = Expect Quad-Core Processors in 2007 with heaps more L2 cache at roughly similar prices to when Dual-Core processors where released, on a 65nm manufacturing process as, although it is 'possible' on 90nm, the processors would be 'large', yeild would thus be low (physically large dies), and require too much power to cool even though the surface area : contact ratio was higher.

You can figure it out using early high-school mathamatics alone, and 'common' physics plain sense.

PS: Using the above numbers (on dize size shrinks down to 16nm) you can see processors with over 16x the transistor count of current processors, eg: 8-16 cores, 64 MB L2/L3 cache, maybe a few dedicated 'processor element cores' specially designed for certain things, such as 'one-way' cryptography in consumer CPUs, offloading network I/O, specialist 'game elements' with very large register counts for SIMD and MIMD data processing, ..... and more.

Sure, it is a few years away, but it'll happen.... IA-64 may even take off 'again' under a new name around the same time frame.... but that is only 'speculation' on my part and nothing more at this time.
 

TabrisDarkPeace

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2006
1,378
0
19,280
0
intel needs atleast 51 nminfact. ive seen a 50 nm transistor once from some japanese company

hey guy's i remember reading an article like a month ago about 50nm transistor's does anyone know where i could find it?
But you've SEEN the 50nm process from some japanese company before right ?, surely you have the link and know the process very well, because well, YOU'VE SEEN 50nm.

Of course not knowing which chipset 'KT6' implies in your previous posts, and bashing various Eastern companies for 'bad chipsets' would indicate you haven't even come close to seeing these things.

48 hours, 500 posts, I KNOW YOU CAN DO IT, TRY HARDER - Feb 05 is not that far off.
1 year, 1 useful post, well that'd be priceless from you. :p
 

TabrisDarkPeace

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2006
1,378
0
19,280
0
Intel of course needs 65nm to do quad cores
Not in their wet dreams.

For intel to achieve something like that, they'll have to go with 45nm process.

I never said that dude: ltcommander_data ; did.

Intel may be able to pull it off, but not using their 'NetBurst' CPU architecture. They can pull it off using IA-64 / Itanium easily (as the cores are only 20 million transistors each in IA-64 currently). :p
 

dvdpiddy

Splendid
Feb 3, 2006
4,764
0
22,780
0
no you dont understand on some japanese website they were talkin but i couldn't understand them only thing i could understand was the words 51-50 nanometer it was in plain english on a sign in the video i think it just of might have been a promotianial video of some sort's ok guy's geez i dont speak japanese!
 

Corasik

Distinguished
Jan 24, 2006
92
0
18,630
0
I never said that dude: ltcommander_data ; did.

Intel may be able to pull it off, but not using their 'NetBurst' CPU architecture. They can pull it off using IA-64 / Itanium easily (as the cores are only 20 million transistors each in IA-64 currently). :p
Intel wont make a Quad Core Netburst, on any process. Thier planned Quadcore is based on the new Conroe processor, not a netburst.
 

K8MAN

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2005
839
0
18,980
0
I never said that dude: ltcommander_data ; did.

Intel may be able to pull it off, but not using their 'NetBurst' CPU architecture. They can pull it off using IA-64 / Itanium easily (as the cores are only 20 million transistors each in IA-64 currently). :p
Intel wont make a Quad Core Netburst, on any process. Their planned Quadcore is based on the new Conroe processor, not a netburst.
Its too bad that regardless of what core they use they are stuck with the same old lame FSB bottleneck for at least 2 more years.
 

Similar threads