VIA twin-core processor

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:55:55 -0400, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

>http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id%3B311116776%3Bfp%3B2%3Bfpid%3B1
>

Hmm, this initial effort looks more like a MCM compared with what Intel &
AMD are doing. I wonder how that -- a twin core -- will sit with M$'s dual
core processor policy?

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 02:23:29 -0400, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:55:55 -0400, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id%3B311116776%3Bfp%3B2%3Bfpid%3B1
>>
>
>Hmm, this initial effort looks more like a MCM compared with what Intel &
>AMD are doing. I wonder how that -- a twin core -- will sit with M$'s dual
>core processor policy?

My understanding of the MS' licensing policy is 1 socket = 1 CPU
license, so this MCM would still just be single "chip". Of course,
I'm sure that Microsoft's actual policy will end up being ~100 pages
long, impossible to read without an entire team of lawyers and still
subject to change on a whim, so I don't know that it will matter much.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:55:55 -0400, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id%3B311116776%3Bfp%3B2%3Bfpid%3B1
>>
>
> Hmm, this initial effort looks more like a MCM compared with what
> Intel & AMD are doing. I wonder how that -- a twin core -- will sit
> with M$'s dual core processor policy?

If they use the Hyperthreading API, then MS will simply think it's a single
processor.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
>
> Hmm, this initial effort looks more like a MCM compared with what
> Intel & AMD are doing. I wonder how that -- a twin core -- will sit
> with M$'s dual core processor policy?

George, I think the reporter misunderstood what the Via guy was
explaining to him. MCMs are damned expensive, just for the package -
and expensive is not Via's thing at all. I believe this thing is one
chip/dual core all the way, esp. at 90 nanometers.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:08:55 GMT, "Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net>
wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, this initial effort looks more like a MCM compared with what
>> Intel & AMD are doing. I wonder how that -- a twin core -- will sit
>> with M$'s dual core processor policy?
>
>George, I think the reporter misunderstood what the Via guy was
>explaining to him. MCMs are damned expensive, just for the package -
>and expensive is not Via's thing at all. I believe this thing is one
>chip/dual core all the way, esp. at 90 nanometers.

Hmm, maybe a mini-MCM??... hard to tell if they intended to do the "twin
core" on a sinlge die or not.

Slightly OT: this will go down very well in their target market of PRC and
other far-east countries. I dunno if you've seen what the Chinese font
sets do to performance of a single CPU; having a 2nd CPU to handle things
will be a big win.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:08:55 +0000, Felger Carbon wrote:

> George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, this initial effort looks more like a MCM compared with what
>> Intel & AMD are doing. I wonder how that -- a twin core -- will sit
>> with M$'s dual core processor policy?
>
> George, I think the reporter misunderstood what the Via guy was
> explaining to him. MCMs are damned expensive, just for the package -
> and expensive is not Via's thing at all. I believe this thing is one
> chip/dual core all the way, esp. at 90 nanometers.

I found this amazing, as well. Not only are MCM packages *extremely*
expensice (particularly for the bottom-feeeeders like Via), but the yeald
loss isn't pretty either. Shirly they're not that hard up!

--
Keith