• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

12-core CPUs From AMD on Their Way

I was like "HOLY ****" when I read the title. I thought you meant AMD will release CPUs with "12" cores so we should call it triple quad cores.
 
notice that amd finnally got their shit together after one of the main guys from amd resigned.


They've been working on this for a while.... and even their 690 generation chips had better Igp than the G53 (but not nearly as significant).


I just like that the difference is huge even with a significantly lesser processor.... and a cheaper build of a platform by probably $100.


They may be falling on hard times in terms of CPUs, but AMD has a strong graphics division and with the launch of the 7x0 series chipsets, really has the edge here. Sure the P35, P45, X38, and X48 are no slouch, but especially with the overdrive utility, I think AMD has the edge.
 
Hell yea AMD! Give me a reason to dump this Q6600! WOOT!
 
Connecting two dies via HTT 3.0 is not the same as connecting dies via shitty FSB. That is not a design copy *cough* nehalem *cough*
 
so perhaps software companies will now get the hint to start developing for dual core cpus ?
 
nehalem is still bether in multietasking :)
2 cores = 4 threads
4 cores = 8 threads
8 cores = 16 threads
16cores = 32threads
32 cores = 64threads
Hyperthreading is so lovly :P
 
nehalem is still bether in multietasking :)
2 cores = 4 threads
4 cores = 8 threads
8 cores = 16 threads
16cores = 32threads
32 cores = 64threads
Hyperthreading is so lovly :P

from my experience with a single core Intel CPU that supported HT . . . HT doesn't offer much improvement at all. Perhaps for some threads that require only a marginal percentage of CPU power, but for true multi-threaded applications, hyperthreading offers only a small marginal performance boost over a dedicated single core.


Asides, I'm glad to hear this kind of news from AMD - nice to know that they have been up to something, and it looks like they're gearing up for a battle-royale with Intel within the next few years.
 
Im sorry that came out wrong. I meant it to say that I didnt think they were gonna due a true 12 core cpu and they didnt. However, if their 6 core cpus are good a la intel sandwiching for 12 should be killer.
 
from my experience with a single core Intel CPU that supported HT . . . HT doesn't offer much improvement at all. Perhaps for some threads that require only a marginal percentage of CPU power, but for true multi-threaded applications, hyperthreading offers only a small marginal performance boost over a dedicated single core.


Asides, I'm glad to hear this kind of news from AMD - nice to know that they have been up to something, and it looks like they're gearing up for a battle-royale with Intel within the next few years.

yes true but who knows how HTT/MTT perfomance is on the new architecture nehalem
on the fire demo of nehalem it showed some great work
 
To be honest, i haven't "had" an AMD (i didn't buy it..) since my socket 754 AMD Sempron 2600+. I'll wait for them to get better on the desktop end of the spectrum before i go running down the hallways naked yelling "OMG 12-CORE"

:shiftyeyes:

:)
 
Smart Choice to Kick Phil Hester to the Curb
 
I suspect poor OCing performance on the horizon from 12 core AMDs!

Cough in the Server Market, Overclocking doesnt matter
 
Ohhhh.....

12 cores per P, 4P per blade, 10 blades per 7U chassis, 6 chassis per 42U rack... 2880 cores!

Though my company runs fine on a handful of 2P servers, so I'm not going to see anything like that :D
 
glad you see the possibilities
 
Any link?



how about the entire review i posted here?

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=57343&highlight=9850

and the original reviewers

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_phenom9850/

32-3dmark.gif


lostcircuits said:
For comparison, a Yorkfield 9650 running at the same frequency scores 4659 (plus-minus a few). Not a bad score at all...

that work for you?
 
Uh no. I'm not buying any statements from AMD till I see results. Same applies to Intel and Nehalem. I won't regard pre-release benches, performance isn't everything for me this time.
 
Uh no. I'm not buying any statements from AMD till I see results. Same applies to Intel and Nehalem. I won't regard pre-release benches, performance isn't everything for me this time.

You can't really ever trust them anyway. Marketing depts lie like politicians haha
 
Cough in the Server Market, Overclocking doesnt matter

Well truth be told, most consumer based CPUs are derivatives of server base CPUs...It's a big funnel per say.
 
You can't really ever trust them anyway. Marketing depts lie like politicians haha

Only difference being that when you put the wrong people to power, you have to wait long (or struggle hard) to get rid of them. In this case, hardware-reviewers tell you if they've been like politicians or not, before you buy their stuff.
 
poor oc performance if this current generation even after the b3 stepping fix is any indication amd chips will be a big pain in the but to oc

that is NO indication of what future CPUs will be like.

that's like saying since THoroughbred A didn't OC worth crapso the next AMD won't oc worth crap. Then the next revision was Thoroughbred B and the next core released was Barton, both of which were OC animals.
 
Usually to one up someone you come better/harder/faster/stronger. Sadly, if this is the counter to Intel 24 core behemoth i think this shall be a failure.
 
^run four of these AMD chips on the TYAN 4 socket board, 48 cores in all. Wonder what task manager would look like.
 
Back
Top