AMD has confirmed that it will be releasing a six core (or hexa-core) CPU in 2010. While it was speculated that this would happen, AMD had not confirmed that such a product existed until yesterday.The biggest news about the upcoming CPU is that it will be backwards compatible with AM3 and AM2+ motherboards. An AMD spokesperson said that "[they] are all about platform longevity and long-lived upgrade paths," which is a direct attack at Intel who currently has three different socket infrastructures on its desktop computers; all of which are incompatible, according to MaximumPC.com.
The codename for the CPU is Thuban and it will feature 6 cores on a 45nm die and will also include a DDR3 integrated controller. Also expected, but not confirmed, 3MB of L2 and 6MB of L3 cache, will be on board but specifications are subject to change.
Thuban will likely to go head to head with Intel's i9 line of processors that are expected to have 6 cores and 12 threads (6 coming from hyper threading). But, in this day and age, it's all about benchmarks and being faster than your competitor. Will AMD over take Intel in CPU speed in this upcoming generation, no one knows yet, but soon both companies will show the fruits of their labor.
no one knows yet
While AMD customers got burned if they went with Socket 754 as CPUs dried up when Socket 939 came out, and CPUs dried up for that when Socket AM came out, etc. I jumped from AMD to a Socket 775 platform because I was tired of the lack of upgrade choices with my 754 board.
So now AMD dedicates itself to an existing platform, and blasts Intel for having just released 2 new ones. While I'm not happy with Intel bringing out two new socket types, this is definitely a case of the the "pot calling the kettle black".
I thought C2Q wasn't supported on the early P965 boards (I could be wrong on this point).
754 was a mistake in my eyes, it was silly and aimed at getting a product out the door. Should of jumped to 939 then AM2 (don't forget this is all about memory types, 939 was DDR1, AM2 was DDR2).
They have this technology called fusion but idk what it does.
It's still being developed from what I read.
It's still being developed from what I read.
it is CPU+GPU in one die Tech
I'm noticing a trend with AMD - they attempt to resist by publicly denouncing and bashing their competition's decisions; however, they eventually convert in secrecy while trying to make it a huge selling point.
Way back when, AMD stated the reason they do not concentrate on improving heat dissipation or use the lowest nm process is because they're a desktop CPU manufacturer. Why worry about heat and consuming more power when the desktop platform could clearly afford to ignore both?
I think we'll all agree that they've done a 180 since they entered the mobile CPU market and even try to compete with Intel on the nm process, but they still act like they're along for the ride instead of trying to pioneer. They partner with IBM, letting them do all the work, then reap the benefit. Woopty-doo... 6 cores on a 45 nm process... WTF... lets see 8 cores on a 45 nm process and then I'll be impressed. Better yet, 6 cores on a 32 nm process!
Back when the P4 came out, Intel was pushing the MHZ / GHZ barrier, and AMD vehemently fought against it maintaining the overall cycles per second was just a minor part. They were right, spanking Intel for a while, but they've been slowly turning around, advertising higher cycles per second for the sake of being faster and even releasing a non-supported chip to enthusiasts to see how high they can overclock. again... WTF... which audience are you targeting?
As Xenomorph has already mentioned, AMD now claims they've always been about the long-haul upgrade path. What rubbish...! They've had just as many different socket types as Intel over the years. I would bet that if you averaged the time Intel spent on each type compared to AMD the averages would be almost equivalent, which doesn't corroborate AMDs claim that they value the long haul upgrade path.
AMD is just all over the bloody place...
Also AMD don't run incompatible sockets paralel in the same manner as Intel... there is a more clear "lineage".
Now, i might just have my history wrong, i just seem to remember every time i wanted a CPU upgrade back when i used Intel, they had changed standards... i even remember buying a slot1-> socked converter for my p3 mobo... now those where the days. (Still have that mobo+cpu somewhere just to show it of.)
Last edited by Dipso on 26 Sep 2009 - 09:55
And then...? I guess Intel learned their lesson. They keep putting out stuff that performs great and is priced fairly. Anyone can pick up an E5200 for $60 and clock it to almost 4 GHz for some amazing 64-bit multicore goodness. Even the Celerons are multi-core and 64-bit now, and they cost around $40.
I plan on sticking with Socket 775 for a while longer. I have multiple Socket 775 boards and several Socket 775 CPUs. It's been around for a while now. It's hit its peak, but there is still a lot of performance left in it. At this point I'd rather see which of the new Intel sockets develops into a clear winner before I think of going back to AMD.
This is why i have stuck by AMD all this time, with an AMD platform i can maintain an incremental upgrade path that makes sure i have a more or less cutting edge computer, with regular small expenses instead of having to shell out on a MB, RAM, CPU, all at the same time. This way i can alternate between different parts of my system to upgrade over time, and make sure i get components when i get the most bang for my buck.
than a MSI G31M3-L with an Intel E8600 3.33Ghz processor.
Here are some benchmark results: http://bit.ly/708Io
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.