Replies to post #8057 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[j3pflynn]

kpf, the only way it would seem to make sense to me would be if it were one pin short of Socket940 if that were a pin that enabled MP configurations. That would enable the dual channel memory interface and full HT link. But then how would they justify going back to Socket754, unless that's introduced later as the new Duron/opponent to Celeron? Hmmm.....
In any case, it seems way too late to do anything but minor changes from either of the two layouts long since established. The MB makers would throw a hissy fit! And justifiably so.
Paul

[Haddock]

2. AMD learned more about Prescotts capabilities and concludes 128-bit memory channel is indeed needed for launch already to prevent from any QS-rants after Prescott-launch - unless anything above 2 GHz is achievable.

This is most likely the reason - they have decided to launch A64 with dual memory channels, ie with the same socket as Opteron 14x. Socket 939 could be an attempt to bring back the lost market segmentation between A64 and Opteron motherboards.

Disappointing that they make this decision so late if true.

[sgolds]

j3pflynn, kpf, that Inquirer article is rubbish! In addition to the typos noted, the content makes no sense. Last week I posted a simple calculation here showing that when you subtract the number of pins required for two HT channels from 940 then you get a number less than 754, implying that there are enough pins for dual DDR already in the smaller socket. And 939 pins? What is up with that?!

theInquirer has gotton inaccurate to the point where it is more misleading than enlightening. I think that they are so willing to print anything that they are now a source of misinformation by companies who want to keep the public guessing.

I can just see Jerry and Hector now:

Jerry, you mean they really believed that???

Pay up, Hector!

:)