AMD's got plans to go quad
By Ryan Block 
posted Jun 11th 2005 2:08PM
posted Jun 11th 2005 2:08PM
We know Apple just annoucned they're going Intel, but AMD would just like you to know that by the time Apple's moved over to x86 in 2007, they're planning on having quad-core CPUs on the market—and we ain't just talking dual-core Hyperthreaded devices. Later plans include scalability to up to 32 processors in their devices, but since most applications still aren't multi-threaded and won't take advantage of such systems, we're hoping they've got some tricks in their bag for making faster really mean faster.
Holy giblet, are you serious?
This is crazy stuff, now all we need are some room temp super conductors.
hells yes!
Photoshop CS 2008 optimized for AMD, the future is bright...
Strictly speaking the applications themselves need not HAVE to be multi-threaded. If the OS could run the apps on different processes you would essentially be able to run a game and browse as if they were on separate computers.
This could mean the OS itself takes a whole CPU to itself...leaving the apps with its own one..This would mean that you would probably reduce the overheads of the OS and leave apps to run much more smoothly.
And, as Gruber points out, "a few years down the road, once the Mac OS X software transition to the x86 instruction set is complete, Apple can switch to (or add to their mix) AMD processors just as easily as they currently use PowerPC processors from both Freescale (n?Motorola) and IBM."
http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/rule_the_galaxy
Its about time AMD makes use of their Hyper-Transport infrastructure that they created. When it all first came out quite a few years ago they said it would scale a lot better than how intel does multiple processors and so will happily work with 32 processors linked together (the intel version used a shared memory bus whereas AMD used dedicated mem-processor links). I think it was all happy up to about 64 devices.
Apple will have an intel based computer before the year is over... they have had the capability of running on x86 chip five years ago...
What really kicks ass about AMD's architecture is that the extra core needs very little more power. So as they add cores the power / Watt just gets better and better.
This is because AMD designed scalability in from the start. Intel has some serious catching up to do here.
Quad core + Pacifica (virtualization) is going to be so powerful in the server arena.
Quadcore and beyond is already here :) .. see why AMD and Intel are jumping on the mulitcore platform so quickly:
How does 14 Cells.. with 9 cores each.. in once box sound.. all yours.. end of this year!
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20050525/105050/
That would be excellent. As long as the operating systems can thread the applications or maybe i am not sure if this would work but to run it as 2 64bits cpus.
Quad, Octo, 32 core CPU...
AMD throw at us anything you want, Linux wil support it.
Allthrough Cell Processors (IBM's demo of Cell server few day's/weeks back), might be a big competition.
Time will tell who is gonna drive us in next computing era. (Hoppe it 'isn't Intel)
That is a full 2 years before Intel can even deliver anything quad. If Apple wants to stay on top they have to adopt AMD processors. This will also force other Intel only system builders such as Dell to move to AMD or they loose market share just like Intel will.
Another problem Intel is fighting, many top engineers are abandoning Intel and joined other companies and startups. Part of that is the Itanium processor. Intel basically pulled the plug with the latest announcements and roadmaps shown at Computex. The next Itanium upgrade is far from what was announced at the intel dev.con. a year ago.
Haveing multiple CPUs on one die (or having multiple CPUs period) isnt just about speed, but just as much as efficiency, and power. Power isnt necessarily speed either. AND, its not just about GAMEING (which you didnt mention, but IM sure you were thinking that). This is (I AM SURE) for the server market segment firstly. After all, most cant afford a single OPTERON anyway.
Quad cores will be good... however, having to liscense an OS for each core will make these computer too expensive to be practical.
Quad-core licensing may become an issue, but as far as I understand it, the basic license for Windows allows for dual-CPU/dual-core setups. VMWare/Virtual Computer stuff should be able to take advantage of those extra cores. If they don't yet, it shouldn't be long.
Understand that Multicore Intel/AMDs are _very_ different to Multicore Cells. Each Cell core its own _local_ mem store.. and registers.. AMD/Intel use all sorts of sharing tricks to reduce die size. The Cell however can run a microkernel on _EACH_ core.. or you can use job queue proceesing.. or stream processing.. you choose - heres nice writeup about Cell architecture and how you could run all sorts of deferent styled OS's/apps on it:
http://www.research.scea.com/research/html/CellGDC05/18.html
Microsoft said that it's windows software will run on multi core processors without additional licenses. It depends how many sockets are in a computer. If you have a multi core-multi socket system than more licenses are required. So the single socket quad core user can buy just one longhorn and it will take advantage of all cores.
Are you guys kidding me?
Xbox360 has 3 kick A$$ cpu's
Onboard and ATI 520 graphic
Card gonna for $300.00.
Why on this freaking planet
You think 4 cores only for
The server arena.
Damn isn’t Vista coming out?
Soon? I’m not planning buy
Another pc intill they either
Have 3 or more CPU's onboard
Around the cost $300.00 bucks.
If you CAN MAKE A GAME CONSOLE
Around $300.00 to $400.00 dollars.
You shouldn’t have a problem building a strip
Down system with just motherboard
With 3 or more cpu's, that my take on
Whole matter!