Friday, January 26th 2007

More K8L specs leaked

Some new details on AMD’s next generation of desktop processing have been released, with three different models to go alongside AMD’s Barcelona (the processor for servers). The desktop equivalent of Barcelona, with the codename Agena, will feature four cores and should have clock speeds of 2.4GHz to 2.6GHz, with a 2MB L2 cache and 2MB L3 cache per CPU – it’s scheduled for the third quarter of this year. The mainstream processor is called Kuma and should launch with clock speeds of 2.0GHz to 2.9GHz using a dual core architecture, with 1MB L2 cache and 2MB shared L3 cache. Rana, the replacement for the Sempron family, will have clock frequencies of 2.1GHz to 2.3GHz, feature dual core and 1MB of L2 cache, but no L3 cache. The Rana is expected for the forth quarter of this year.Source: DailyTech
Add your own comment

31 Comments on More K8L specs leaked

#1
Makaveli
wow alot of dual core haters in this thread. I'm in the same boat I was very happy with my Opteron 146 at 2.7 ghz it was plenty fast. Didn't see the big deal about the dual core cpus.
Guess what I just upgraded to a Opteron 170 now also at 2.7 and it was F***en worth it. Windows alone runs so much better, and now when some stupid appz decides to hang, the system is still responsive. I can then go to task manager and close it within seconds. Try doing that on a single core system, when a hung appz is using 100% cpu cycles.

I don't mind using single core systems but the difference is there. I noticed it with in the first 5 mins of booting the system with the new chip.
Posted on Reply
#2
error_f0rce
Track Ban

Keep it clean and get a clue.... not sure what Track thought would happen when he insulted and refused to listen to zek.... oh well, let's see if a 7 day ban does the trick.... if not, we'll just go from there.
Posted on Reply
#3
JC316
Knows what makes you tick
Makaveli said:
wow alot of dual core haters in this thread. I'm in the same boat I was very happy with my Opteron 146 at 2.7 ghz it was plenty fast. Didn't see the big deal about the dual core cpus.
Guess what I just upgraded to a Opteron 170 now also at 2.7 and it was F***en worth it. Windows alone runs so much better, and now when some stupid appz decides to hang, the system is still responsive. I can then go to task manager and close it within seconds. Try doing that on a single core system, when a hung appz is using 100% cpu cycles.

I don't mind using single core systems but the difference is there. I noticed it with in the first 5 mins of booting the system with the new chip.
Wow, I never knew dualie's could do that. I think I will be VERY happy with that.
Posted on Reply
#4
XooM
I would like to point out that there is NO argument for dual vs quad core. The issue is not in the number of cores a program can take advantage of, its whether or not it's SMP-capable in the first place. Any SMP-capable program will make use of as many cores as you can throw at it, whereas a SMP-insensitive one will not.
Posted on Reply
#5
Alec§taar
AshenSugar said:
dual core is plenty for that, most apps dont need more then 1 core to run, if you move all the excess bs to another core then your main core is free to run whatever, even mutithreded apps like games rarely use both cores 100%, and i multi task like a mad man on singel core at 3gz, never have slowdowns, well other then when i messed up and installed anydvd without unmounting a dvd image from daemontools, but that was an "oops" and took the system about 15min to work out(and let me unmount and remount the image)
OH, I won't disagree w/ that which you say, because largely you're right & yes, there are use patterns & apps (heavy disk I/O ones ARE killers & you note that) that have exceptions to YOUR rules, as well.

I guess my main point was "potentially" they could gain... note I used that very word.

Where do I think, in the future @ least, where folks will get the MOST out of this quad or more CORES ON THE CPU design? A COUPLE OF THEM, HISTORY BACKS ME ON BOTH REALLY, CHECK IT:

1.) When more & more service daemon type apps will be run, both on the OS itself & applications loaded on it.

You see more & more of this over time.

(E.G., as a backing example from history on Windows NT-based OS alone -> Windows NT 3.x had a FRACTION of the services present on XP &/or Windows Server 2003, for example - I think this number will continue to increase as time passes, as it has historically already for coming up on 2 decades now).

&

2.) Also, as things like AntiVirus &/or AntiSpyware resident programs databases for detection get larger...

(Programmers possibly CAN help offset this SOME, imo, by programming what is known as a datastructure (to represent MANY elements (virus/malware sigs) as 1 single variable), but it is NOT a "Cure All" imo... takes memory & more the larger it gets, & all those DO is get larger! The larger it gets, the more CPU cycles it will take to run thru the added signatures for detection as well!)

ALL @ THE HOME/END-USER LEVEL, as well as the enterprise work-environs. Not just "heavy multitasking end users" will gain from this, by being to run MORE backgrounded tasks (like services &/or trayicon resident apps) @ once, simultaneously, & smoother than before (being able to run FAR MORE of them @ once, if needed).

:)

* ANYHOW/ANYWAYS: Whether folks need it or not, is totally up to the end user, & to justify the cost of such CPU's as well for home usage typical end-user use patterns.

APK
Posted on Reply
#6
Dippyskoodlez
mmm dual core semprons..... K8L semprons..... double L1 cache..

Can't wait.
Posted on Reply