AMD won't be mass producing any 45nm stuff anytime soon. Their 45nm chip tapes out in january. Validation takes a long time, especially for server targeted parts. Despite their "catching up with intel on 45nm" claims, I don't see them mass producing this till end of 2008 earliest. early 2009 or later is more realistic. It's all marketing speak.

for consumer like us maybe not really realise wat native quad can do, i juz finish my research on multicore for my assignment, licensing will be a prob for MCM processor like core 2 quad, the charge for software is double as many company accept a MCM processor as 2 processor instead of 1 for native quad, therefore licensing cost for business is considerably high. the performance for native quad will outperform non-native in a multiprocessor system.

---

Added on December 30, 2007, 2:12 pmthats same goes to intel as it wont go to native till tat period.

This post has been edited by timljh: Dec 30 2007, 02:12 PM

Please show me some licenses that support your claim.

AMD's per core performance is so far behind that even with the deficiencies of being non monolithic the intel chip performs better in dual chip configs, and even for many quad chip configs. For the consumer space it doesn't matter. Per core performance is still much more important.

check here
i lost other links only found this after check back history, maybe some say wiki is not trust able but the point for the licensing part makes sense, if they juz pack more chip on one module the company can saves millions for license, they willing to pay tat incentives to processor maker for tat saving.

---

Added on December 30, 2007, 7:32 pmper core performance is better but the links between cores broke when it is non-native, they need to travel from die-die instead and power consumption is higher as well. u pay more for tat core performance as well as electricity for long term. for us maybe few bucks of electricity doesnt matter but try to think on the point of view for business, they can save a lot for electricity per month basis.

This post has been edited by timljh: Jan 3 2008, 01:52 PM

is it better than intel quadcore series ... whats the advantages and disadvantages....
Hmmmmmmmm .. which to get....?

not tat Intel Celeron can't fix tat problem... performance per core Celeron also beat AMD Athlon...

This post has been edited by t3chn0m4nc3r: Jan 4 2008, 07:36 PM

any news over b3 stepping yet?

After all that research for your assignment which you just finished, the only thing you can cite is a wiki link which itself doesn't have a citation?

Your claim about power is also moot. Have you seen the perf/watt figures? By the time the K10 is out in any decent volume, it will be up against the penryn. It can hardly be called competition even.

Phenom Black Edition for the overclocker is out

newegg

In fact I wish AMD would come back on track. I currently end up in the Intel camp as AMD processors these days are less fun to o/c than of Intel

I think that B.E still suffering of TLB issue right??

-pWs-

TLB issue will only be revised on B3

i really think BE no different than normal one..
in term of oc.. unlock multiplier won't give any credit..
i need speed..

I'm not sure for these days but running higher FSB is more beneficial. Hypothetical example:

500 x 6 is better than 300 x 10

How much is it just produce an unlock multiplier cpu compare to locked cpu?

Same thing, they just don't burn some fuses. Not having to burn fuses probably even costs them less lol.

if all unlock then noobies like me also wanna oc.. but then if 1k or 1m of me oc then so many people

want to claim rma. just 2 cents though

I dont think the unlock multiplier will burn your cpu if you use high number or max it, it will only affect the stability. Now here is where you adjust the voltage <-- the danger part. Still the possibility is there.

I dont have much knowledge in oc, but i think this is correct.

Anyway even if AMD afraid of end users rma their cpu from oc fault, why do they even release the AMDoverdrive software that clearly a support for oc?

i dunno bout AMDoverdrive but usually there are limitations of how far u can OC wif official software from hardware vedors... which only allow OC of around 10% increase... which is considered safe by the vendors... and also OC seem to be a trend these days and more and more noobs want to follow so AMD decided to use it as a gimmick... ever since ATIoverdrive...

bad news again...