AMD "'Thuban" - 6-core CPU, SATA 6Gbps mobos due


Recommended Posts

Details are starting to emerge about March updates to AMDs CPU and motherboard chipsets. Arriving in Q2 (May is claimed), four 6-core CPUs are slated for launch at the standard AM3 socket, taking the name "Phenom II X6 10xxT" - where the xx designated the model number.

OC Workbench alludes that they will start at 2.8GHz with a 140W TDP, and that each contains the normal 6MB L3 cache a quad core Phenom II currently uses. Notably the HyperTransport clock has also been increased from 2.0GHz to 2.4GHz, most likely in order to relieve the data stress of adding two extra cores.

The new 'Thuban' die is still made using AMD's 45nm SOI process, although recent advancements in FAB technology at AMD, which was evident in the recent Phenom II X4 965 C3 stepping, have made its leakage more manageable.

Since these CPUs still use the AM3 socket, they should be drop-in compatible with current 790FX, 790GX and 785G AM3 motherboards, providing there's a BIOS update available.

With regards to AMD's new chipsets: the 890GX will be launching in March, with announcements at CeBit we expect. Inside there's an updated graphics, named Radeon HD 4290 - so it's still RV6xx based with DirectX 10.1, although we're still waiting for boards to arrive in Feb to tell us the exact specifications. We hope the UVD video playback is updated to 5xxx series standard to compete with Intel's latest Core i3/i5 Clarkdale CPUs, and maybe, just maybe, AMD will finally support dual digital display outputs.

Most notably though is not the integrated graphics, but the new SB850 series southbridge the 890GX will be paired with. It has SATA 6Gbps natively included, but when it comes to (the arguably more useful) USB 3.0, unfortunately we still have to pay for the additional NEC controller.

A890GXM-A.jpg

amd-6core.png

Source

wait... I'm at a lost...

(noob alert)

I have a motherboard from GIGABYTE, with AM3 socket, and the chipset is AMD770,

will I be able to put this 6 core CPU on my machine or not?

probably ,

you would need at least a bios update , for the cpu to work correctly in your motherboard.

but they could limit the six core to the new AMD 850/880 chipset you never know.

edit:

you could be out of luck

Since these CPUs still use the AM3 socket, they should be drop-in compatible with current 790FX, 790GX and 785G AM3 motherboards, providing there's a BIOS update available.

Looks like it's Phenom II X4 with 2 added cores, so to speak. I was hoping they'd release a newly redesigned CPU.

well, what they need is not a new design, but a new manufacture process. The Phenom's architecture is quite advanced already, after all Nehalem is pretty much just following Phenom's design, with a better manufacture process and more cache.

Phenom already has scalable on-die multi-core controller, built-in memory controller, L3 cache, they just need to figure out how to make it perform better (and a better manufacture process can probably fix it a lot)

Bah,multithreading isn't always the answer and maybe not the best solution. From a programmer's standpoint it's very hard to make multhreaded applications that take advantage of all the cores. It's harder to debug multithreaded code and you can't always multithread the entire application, only parts of it. And even then, creating a thread costs the cpu some time so you also have to be careful how you make your threads. And this is just the begining. You have to sync the threads at times, and that can also waste cpu time, some threads might wait for other to finish their job, you can have 3 threads waiting for a single one to finish and you will use only one core even if it's multithreaded. And the syncronizing mechanism also uses some system resources and so on. And this is just the begining.

Imo they should make a new arhitecture, different from the x86 one that has already shown it's limits. Only a handful of applications actually use more than 2 cores.

Bah,multithreading isn't always the answer and maybe not the best solution. From a programmer's standpoint it's very hard to make multhreaded applications that take advantage of all the cores. It's harder to debug multithreaded code and you can't always multithread the entire application, only parts of it. And even then, creating a thread costs the cpu some time so you also have to be careful how you make your threads. And this is just the begining. You have to sync the threads at times, and that can also waste cpu time, some threads might wait for other to finish their job, you can have 3 threads waiting for a single one to finish and you will use only one core even if it's multithreaded. And the syncronizing mechanism also uses some system resources and so on. And this is just the begining.

Imo they should make a new arhitecture, different from the x86 one that has already shown it's limits. Only a handful of applications actually use more than 2 cores.

Or they need to put time and money into multi-threaded development. I understand that many applications are unable to use multiple threads well, but high-resource things such as games and what not can, but typically don't. Look at Dragon Age: Origins, it benefits from up to 3 cores and runs great compared to many other games released around the same time as it. Then go back and look at some older games from before multi-core became normal (TF2 and other games from that time), they run horrible. What we need is more time spent on developing proper multi-threaded applications and less time spent on making a new architecture that will require them to learn/change many things anyway.

I think a multi-core design plus a focus on instructions per clock will be ok. Each core individually still needs to advance in speed though. It seems to be the future. Almost every decent modern computer has at least a dual core. Two out of the three major consoles sport a multicore design...

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!