Thursday, July 17th 2008

First Sketch of AMD Socket G34 Presented

AMD wants to leave the Barcelona (rather K10) debacle behind it as it moves closer to a newer processor architecture. This paves way for AMD to incorporate strong memory and system interface links. The G34 socket though touted to be a successor for the current socket 1207, is believed to be a standard socket for both enterprise and PC processors. AMD is working on a new CPU architecture codenamed 'Bulldozer'. Derivatives include monolithic 8-core and 12-core processors. The 12-core processor is now codenamed Magny-Cours, the 8-core part is called Sao Paulo. These processors could feature four parallel HyperTransport 3.0 interconnects, upto 12 MB of L3 cache and 512 KB L2 cache per core. It's known that AMD could be working on quad-channel DDR3 (both registered DDR3 under G3MX and unregistered). Socket G34 seems to have 1,974 pins.

The provision of four independent HyperTransport interconnects means that the fourth interconnect can be dedicated as a peer-to-peer interconnect between two sockets in a dual-socket setup, or its bandwidth split to form daisy-chains with multiple sockets. A prelude to AMD's Torrenza enterprise platform, which would allow use of several co-processors of different architectures including ClearSpeed to be embedded in workstations.

Source: DailyTech
Add your own comment

37 Comments on First Sketch of AMD Socket G34 Presented

#1
chron
Super XP said:
[COLOR="DarkRed"]

Also AMD’s other design called Fusion will have nothing to do with Bulldozer. Both are different in design and meant for a different purpose from what I’ve found out.
which one will people be using for games?
Posted on Reply
#2
Dark_Webster
suraswami said:
Damn it, I just upgraded to Quad-core and 8 and 12 cores are already in the horizon?

Hopefully this gives AMD a fighting chance.
If the new architecture is good, it will give a good fight against Intel's Nelahem.

Let's hope that the price is also good :).
Posted on Reply
#3
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
So AMDs R&D is slowly catching up to Intels. Intel took a couple years ( I think maybe 3) to finally counteract Athlon 64. AMD took about the same time maybe 1 year longer ( I think 4 to 4.5 years) to counter that. Im still not ready for that many cores. OCing those things should be a pain in the rear.
Posted on Reply
#4
twicksisted
pity, as now a heatsink will only work on amd and vice versa... and what about performance heatsinks?
Posted on Reply
#5
Super XP
chron said:
which one will people be using for games?
Fusion will mostly be for notebooks and general low to mid powered PC's where as the Meat and Potatoes will be Bulldozer.
Posted on Reply
#6
panchoman
Sold my stars!
yay! no more cpus that are squares!
Posted on Reply
#7
Super XP
panchoman said:
yay! no more cpus that are squares!
I think their is nothing wrong with AMD's upcoming CPU shape. Their is always options and addons to make sure heatsinks work on a large number of different CPU's...
Posted on Reply
#8
twicksisted
Super XP said:
I think their is nothing wrong with AMD's upcoming CPU shape. Their is always options and addons to make sure heatsinks work on a large number of different CPU's...
yeah but changing the actual physical shape so that it dosent fit the bottom plate of any currect heatsink will need more than an add-on to be effective.

you cant just put a piece of metal between it and expect that to be very effective
Posted on Reply
#9
Super XP
I see your point. But by the time these new CPU's are released, there is going to be so many more new heat sinks in the market. Who knows, maybe AMD might do a last minute change with the socket shape.

I am sure they have a logical explanation in why they've chosen such a peculiar shape.
Posted on Reply
#10
Megasty
Super XP said:
I see your point. But by the time these new CPU's are released, there is going to be so many more new heat sinks in the market. Who knows, maybe AMD might do a last minute change with the socket shape.

I am sure they have a logical explanation in why they've chosen such a peculiar shape.
lol, you try fitting 12 cores (in a similar scale that you already use) on a chip & see what happens. I would rather have a funny looking smaller rectangle than a huge square :wtf:
Posted on Reply
#11
Unregistered
wouldnt it make sense for dual and quad cores to be focused on one side of the rectangle, where current heatsinks would still cover them? if you have the cash for 12 cores, I'm sure you can throw in a heatsink.
Posted on Edit | Reply
#12
TheMailMan78
Big Member
Bla, bla, bla. When can I buy one!?!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment