[Quattro]

So what's going to be the next big jump for processors as we know them?

• Dual Cores?
  128bit?
  Something that will blow us away?

What do you think it will be?

I reckon dual cores will be the next major thing that will be mainstream in about 2 years, maybe less.

[deception``]

Originally Posted by Quattro

So what's going to be the next big jump for processors as we know them?

• Dual Cores?
  128bit?
  Something that will blow us away?

What do you think it will be?

I reckon dual cores will be the next major thing that will be mainstream in about 2 years, maybe less.

The first dual cores will be compatible with the s939 socket. However, there is a very strong possibility that AMD will adopt DDR2 once it begins to provide an actual performance benefit over DDR. Once this occurs, it will be necessary to formulate yet another socket, as DDR2 is comprised of more pins than standard DDR.

deception``

[OC-Master]

Originally Posted by Quattro

So what's going to be the next big jump for processors as we know them?

• Dual Cores?
  128bit?
  Something that will blow us away?

What do you think it will be?

I reckon dual cores will be the next major thing that will be mainstream in about 2 years, maybe less.

Unfortuneatly, AMD will be changing the socket design yet again from S939 to a socket design of over a 1000 pins to support DDRII technology. Fortuneatly, this wont happen untill at least Q1 2006 so its a good year's away.

Next big jump for AMD will be the K9 core which rumor has it AMD renamed to K10 which sports Dual cored CPUs. At first, Dual cored CPUs will be slower than single cored CPUs in almost every task due to most applications not having multi thread capabilities.

AMD has already told us that Dual core Athlon64s will be compatible with current generation S939 (2000 HTT) and will start at clock speeds around 3GHz (2X1.5GHz).

I cant say much because its all up in the air and specs could change, but I can tell you there will be some dual cored Socket 939 chips to come next yeat.

EDIT: As an interesting fact, it seems that Socket 939 (Or 940/754 for the matter) was specifically designed for Dual core operations with current hypertransport technology. The CPU it self only uses 1000MHz of bandwidth with current Winchester chips yet HTT is actually effectively double that (2000HTT) because it possess bi signals which means you can send signal both ways at full speed. So technically, Winchester chips can only consume half of the hypertransport bandwidth when working at full speed. Dual cored CPUs would require double the FSB which would effectively consume that bi-directional extra bus speed that HTT gives us more effectively than a single cored CPU.


OC-Master

[Quattro]

Only a year away?

But the new ones will not be very quick will they?
I was planning on keeping my S754 2ghz for a year, I wonder what will be around during that time.


Anyone know what my avatar is about?

[OC-Master]

Originally Posted by Quattro

Only a year away?

But the new ones will not be very quick will they?
I was planning on keeping my S754 2ghz for a year, I wonder what will be around during that time.


Anyone know what my avatar is about?

Intel has already demostrated a crappy Workstation Dual cored setup which showed how slow current Dual cored chips will be with single threaded applications.

A 3GHz Dual cored Athlon64 running a single threaded application is slower than a Athlon64 2800+. But then again, if what you work worth is only multi threaded applications than the dual cored CPU would smoke any single cored CPU.

[Quattro]

Ah... I see.

But when we get 2 cores that can do multithreading, that will when we will have some serious performance.

I'm kinda looking forward to the next big leap.
I have to say my 64bit if really quick but it wasn't a big leap as I was perhaps expecting. Don't get me wrong it is blindly quick and amazing how far we've come in say, just 5 years.

[c627627]

Originally Posted by OC-Master

AMD has already told us that Dual core Athlon64s... will start at clock speeds around 3GHz (2X1.5GHz).

Where did you get the 1.5 GHz x 2 info please?

First dual cores for Socket 939 time frame looks like toward the beginning of 2006.

That means that if the new socket as you say is Q1 2006, it may only be for servers and that the new socket for desktops is much further away unless AMD releases dual core 939s at almost the same time as dual core for the new socket which makes no marketing sense.

Is 2007 too far away for the new desktop socket? 754 and 939 were more than a year apart...


and no I don't know what the avatar is.

[deception``]

It's way too early to speculate on the performance of dual cores or how they will be marketed. All we do know is that the first ones will be s939 compatible and should begin to surface toward the end of the year.

deception``

[Grov]

It would be nice for AMD cpu's to have a hyperthreading type feature that Intel CPU's have.

[c627627]

Originally Posted by deception``

...and should begin to surface toward the end of the year.

deception``

We're still in 2004.

signed,
c627627

[deception``]

Originally Posted by c627627

We're still in 2004.

signed,
c627627

I was referring to 2005. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

deception``

[doublejack]

I read that AMD is targeting mid 2005 for the release of dual cores. So we're looking about 8-10 months.

[deception``]

Originally Posted by doublejack

I read that AMD is targeting mid 2005 for the release of dual cores. So we're looking about 8-10 months.

Yes, mid 2005 is the target. Knowing AMD, however, it is more likely that their release date will be pushed back to the end of the year (2005, that is ). I suspect a run-of-the-mill paper launch a good month or so before we even begin to see the actual product.

deception``

[Npetune3000]

Originally Posted by OC-Master

Intel has already demostrated a crappy Workstation Dual cored setup which showed how slow current Dual cored chips will be with single threaded applications.

A 3GHz Dual cored Athlon64 running a single threaded application is slower than a Athlon64 2800+. But then again, if what you work worth is only multi threaded applications than the dual cored CPU would smoke any single cored CPU.

hey, dont make fun of my A64 2800+!!!!

she's plenty fast and OCs better than all of these higher priced A64s

[c627627]

Originally Posted by doublejack

I read that AMD is targeting mid 2005 for the release of dual cores. So we're looking about 8-10 months.

Where did you read about it being mid year instead of Q4 2005?
It would be nice if it was mid year instead of Q4 so that they can go down in price by then but if it's Q4, that may mean December 2005 + these are going to be FX-class CPUs which means we shouldn't be surprised with an $850 tag.

It's going to be Venice, not dual core , most people will buy next year and probably well into the year after that.

[OC Detective]

Everyone needs to remember that for AMD you will only see dual core for the server market for at least the first few months (similar to Opteron v A64 launch dates) - this is because the server market is more ideally suited as most applications are multi threaded (unlike games which are primarily single threaded applications).
Although I will not say a 3Ghz dual core is worse at single threads than a 1.8Ghz A64 it is undoubtedly true that single cores are better at handling single threaded applications.
Until games start becoming multi threaded I see little point in gaming enthusiasts going multi core for those more into encoding etc however it will be a different story.

[jcw122]

Quattro...what IS ur avatar about?

[G0DZILLA]

You have to remember you 64 bit isn't even being utilized yet so once 64 bit applications start you will notice a difference.

[DanIdentity]

Just because each of the cores in a dual-core A64 will be running 1.5GHz (or so), doesn't mean it's a "3GHz" CPU. Dual cores don't effectively increase clock speed and they won't be referred to that way.

[deception``]

Originally Posted by DanIdentity

Just because each of the cores in a dual-core A64 will be running 1.5GHz (or so), doesn't mean it's a "3GHz" CPU. Dual cores don't effectively increase clock speed and they won't be referred to that way.

Like I said, we have no real information of dual cores from either Intel or AMD. So it is rather moot to speculate on their clock speed, how they will be marketed, or how they will perform. Better to sit tight on and wait on this one.

deception``