AMD to bring six-core 'Thuban' processor to the consumer realm
By Darren Murph 
posted September 21st 2009 9:11PM
posted September 21st 2009 9:11PM
Look out, Intel -- six cores are mightier than four, don'tcha know? Shortly after introducing a six-core processor in the server sector, AMD is reportedly angling to issue a hexa-core chip over on the consumer side. The chip maker has confirmed to Maximum PC that a six-core slab of silicon (codenamed Thuban) will be released in 2010, with the real kicker being that it'll be fully backwards compatible with existing AM3 and AM2+ mainboards. It'll be based on 45nm process technology and will boast an integrated DDR3 controller, 3MB of L2 cache and 6MB of L3 cache, and while the outfit wouldn't confirm, word on the street has it that the final product will sport a Phenom II X6 moniker. So, Core i9 -- what have you to say now?
You realize you don't need to randomly capitalize words that aren't proper nouns and aren't at the beginning sentences, right?
Why do you think he's going to Harvard?
jk/
made sense to me and i dropped out of college. i don't know what the rest of you had a problem with.
I want DDR2!!!
uh, what?
I'll buy this just to have it. I have no use for a hexa-core, but I'll buy it anyway.
I'm sure Gulftown/i9 will be much faster... but it won't be a drop-in replacement for my nice AM2+ board like this.
Yeah, ya know, I'm almost thinking the same thing. I sure as hell don't need it, but it would put a grin on my face. Even the name sounds kinda big dumb and goofy. THUBAN!
Was toying around with the idea of trading my x3 720 for a x4 955, since the 965's came out and made things cheaper. Thuban will probly drop prices even more, but if theres a 6 core out there.... I might just have to go straight to that. I JUST WANT SHINY TOYS!
Bah humbug.
The core i9 will undoubtibly be at least 2x as expensive.
I had to respond to this one.
First off, graphics calculations and particle dynamics simulations are not thread parallel, they are data parallel.
Second off, you can only do things in parallel before you run into something you have to do in series. This isn't a huge revelation - eventually you run into something that needs to be done in order. There is a formal argument from information theory, but the one everyone uses is called Amdahl's law.
Third off, if you think programming ANYTHING with OpenMP is "fast and dirty" you really don't know anything about...well, anything.
Fourth off, "More cores add more stability and security." - Sorry, that isn't the way cores work. If you are making an argument for some kind of memory protection (something like the kernel has), that STILL isn't core-number dependent. So...yeah, no.
Why is it we get so few actual engineers saying things on these threads? What gives?
We're scientists, not mere engineers...
Since when are scientists better than engineers? We actually create things.
kinda off topic, because I cant speak about computer engineering, but from what I've seen of mechanical engineering, its just a stupidifide version of classical physics. Not a great representative example because all I have to go on is having to repeatedly beat simple calculus and basic vector analysis into an endless supply of stupid undergrad engineers, just so they can barely pass basic mechanics and e&m. let me tell you, takes a lot of beating. For you engineers, don't take what I said seriously, I'm just a lowly physics grad student, sub-human to the rest of you.
Just wait till all the kiddies find out that you don't need multithreaded apps to use six cores.
Then where will I go to hear someone whine "Well my dual core has more Ghz than your quad, and nothing needs that many cores anyway."?
Well, where will I get that fix?
Sweet upgrade for my AM2+
With Windows 7 on the horizon, which has great support for multicore systems, this is a good idea. The scalability of the new os's is the trick to getting your money out of this one.
AMD chips are bigger; therefor the obvious.
====if they have the same Micron Tech as Intel, AMD can fit more cores on a dye.
How can I say this nicely?
Hmmmm...
No.
This is why people don't post on Engadget; cause they talk to American educated (NG) middle-schoolers or high-schoolers.
If the Micron (.45 in this case) are the same and the cores are identical obvious AMD can fit more cores on one chip. Chip L1 and L2 cached don''t take that much space [and should be lightly accounted for] but let's say AMD put as many possible many cores [with .45 micron] on a domino size game board made of Silicon and Copper.
This is why Intel should be the one stopping their commercials to the uneducated. Intel is a scammer in it's pricing. I'm an economist, btw. So get over Intel and their overpriced products.
Let's try this again shall we?
The size of the die is determined by what you put on it, not the other way around.
I.e. AMD doesn't decide on the size of the die, then try to cram as much as possible in to that chosen size.
You need to be right before you become self-righteous.
Here's the difference between Intel and AMD:
AMD is offering the 6-core CPU for both AM2+ and AM3 motherboards, for what I believe is going to be around $300 USD from last speculated price.
Intel's upcoming 6-core CPU is ONLY for the Socket 1366 Core i7 motherboards and WILL NOT be compatible with the Socket 1156 Core i5/i7 motherboards. If falling back to the price of the 6-core server CPU from Intel, this will most likely be at least two times that of the AMD 6-core CPU.
So, if you want 6-core performance at a good price, go AMD.
If you want 6-core performance (with HyperThreading, thus 12 threads together) at a steep price, go Intel.
That's why I love AMD.
That and I broke 2 pins of my Phenom IIx4 and it still works perfectly....
Woot!
Yeah, cause we all know that AMD and Intel chips have clock for clock, core for core, and Watt for Watt parity. *roll eyes*
That said, most likely the i9 will be $1500, and I sure as hell won't be buying one.
AMD's real problem is that this $300 6-core chip probably won't out perform one of Intel's $300 4-core chips.
Wait, what? Why did you break the pins? And why does it still work?
TEACH ME YOUR SECRETS YOU WARLOCK!
What jon said is pretty much true.
A 6-core AMD is still 6 threads whereas an upcoming 6 core i7 (S1366) is 12 threads and their current i5/i7 are 8 threads (not including the low-end i5 750).
In multi-core aware and dependent applications, the Core i5/i7 quad-core with HT CPUs will still outpace the AMDs by a relatively good margin. AMD's performance is relatively middle of the line-- below the i7(/i5) top end and above some Core 2 Quad/Duo of previous years. It's their price, however, that makes them attractive at the performance given.
AMD has already announced a 12-core CPU (dual 6-core dies) to be released within the next two to three years for the server market. Another nice thing about the 6-core CPU coming up is that it will have 125W TDP supposedly.
Imagine later on: a lower-powered 6-core Athlon II X6 for budget consumers without the L3 cache at what could be less than $200 if AMD ever plans on such a chip.
I wANTa 6 CORre JUST so I CAN SAY I HAve a 6 CORE OCMPUTER! :DDDD
I'll wait for the "Taliban" 8-core version.
im waiting for quad octo-cores....muhahahahahahah
/thread
It's great that WMD is cramming more gores but it would be nice if they ditched the BC for the high end.
I mean amd not WMD lol. Stupid word prediction
Yay AMD! go pwn intel like back in the day of '06
no they won't.
yes, But, the people that buy these hex things will still use the words n00b and 1337
I'll stick with my i7 920 which shows 8 cores (threads) in the task manager anyways. Who's behind now? 2 years and they are still 2 threads short ;)
As for the i9, that's just going to completely devour anything that AMD will even release for the next three or five years. Aside from the fact that it's going to be on 32nm and not 45nm design, there will be a 6-core version available as well despite anything beyound a 2-core being useless for games. Give up the performance race, AMD, you lost already.
AMD isn't pushing for the top performance. They're going for value. They seem to like the middle ground. That suits me well, as I'll never spend more than 300 on any processor.
Woot for AMD!
Some people will disagree, but i think AMD made the right choice sticking to the AM2/AM2+/AM3 platform. I built my system with a Phenom X3 8450, which was great for a while, then upgraded to a Phenom II X4 920 on launch. Now i can go even further and add a 6-Core chip all without having to buy new RAM or motherboard, fantastic!
Glad i went AM2+ and not 775 back when, getting a lot more life out of the components :)
Sure, Intel's i5/i7 shines in synthetic benchies but does that really matter 99.9% of the time? It cost what... £600 to build my system and it keeps up with the i7 920 when overclocked to 3.4GHz, i'd rather spend the saving on a better graphics card or case :)
Can't wait to go 6-Core!
*looks shamefully at my single-core Pentium 4*
One of these days....
I thought the pic was a new version of "Ludo"
I gotta say, the expectation that AMD can realistically compete anymore with Intel is silly. Intel has WAY more resources and manpower to throw into R&D for new architectures. It'd take a serious defection from Intel or an even larger fine for anticompetitive behavior in order for AMD to legitimately compete.
The bigger they are the harder they fall, fannie mae was solid too, all intel has to have happen is the CEO going stupid and decide to take the wrong path, then their size will mean they'd waste billions and get years behind.
There's no indication that that's even likely though.
They kept up with Intel back in the day, besides Intel and nVidia have issues between products and everyone know Intel GPUs aren't much.
The ATI merge with AMD was one of the best business negotiations for both companies.
The fact that Intel and nVidia aren't partnering (on Intel's half) gives AMD an upper hand.
I'll admit I am a bit disappointed with AMD, but they are far from failing.
Be ready to welcome X5 series ;)
This actually isn't bad from a production aspect...if any core's are defunct, just disable and bump them down a notch just like they did with the X3.
Integrated controller is nice too, the whole architecture of multiple cores on one chip works much better than multiple chips!
well i prefer amd at the moment sure they are slower than intel top of the line but they are also alot cheaper and in most games performance difference isnt a problem as long as i get 60fps im happy and my phenom 2 940 does that for me :)
also you cant deny that amd have a fantastic upgrade path which in the long run means you can spend less for more power would i buy a 6 core amd chip to use on my AM2+ mobo most likely provided that its clocked between 3-3.5ghz stock
while i use my pc for games primarily extra cores means faster bluray encodeing as if you have done that it takes a long time at 1080p, throw in 3dsmax renders here and there and 6 cores easily is more usefull than 4 for certain people
also remember that amds market stratagies are about targeting the mid range sector and then the branch out with their tech intel and nvidia work differntly to this and strive to make the most expensive high end products first and then make the cheaper models
AMD for sure has a clearer market focus than Intel. Although Intel chips easily outperform those from AMD, its only a small (very small market) of people who care about that. What AMD has done here is, throw 2 more cores at a super competitive price with backwards compatibility, implying those who are willing to upgrade can do so without much glitch and costs. AMD is saying its backward compatible but it doesnt mean its not FORWARD COMPATIBLE!
This means you can put the X6 on your current motherboards as well, when AMD comes up with newer compatibility, you will already have a 6 core at ur service. Smart move!
Plus, AMD already has the ATI chip up and competing with Nvidia (which is a dedicated graphics proc maker) and Intel's shitty graphic chips come no way close. Intel surely has too much manpower to keep wasting on graphics RnD for no reason.
Intel's core RnD is sure very good, but AMDs core RnD is good enough to produce processors for general people. In sense, their market RnD is way better than Intel's!
All I am saying is, you cannot compare AMD and Intel anymore. They both are catering to different markets and their strategies and products are designed that way. Where there is indeed competition (server market), there AMD beats Intel.
In fact, I won't be surprised if AMD has been brewing a needle-in-Intel's-ass strategy to keep Intel pushing further and further and trying to get hold of a bigger general market!
I think this is good, because when AMD makes multi-core processor it IS a true multi-core. Nothing like Pentium D or Core 2 Quad... Therefore AMD has better scalability when processor numbers increase. Will Intel catch up? I can't wait to see...
It is crazy to suggest there are no advantages and no disadvantages when it comes to backward compatibility.
This is a plus for AMD despite what anyone is saying to the contrary.
Follow me at www.twitter.com/thecrypticone