Replies to post #8081 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[CombJelly]

"And 939 pins? What is up with that?!"

I am very dubious about a 939 pin socket. The only explanation I can think of is that AMD has decided to allow for a dual A64 system with a 16 bit cHTT link. Even that is real shakey, since they could still use the normal 940 pin socket. I know, the argument is that AMD wants to have product differentiation, but they could do that with a 940 pin socket, just don't bond the pins for the other HTT links. The BIOS could check the processor ID to make sure the system was set up properly.

[kpf]

sgolds

And 939 pins? What is up with that?!
The differenciation of Athlon64 to Opteron 1xx?

Well, could be you are right at the end. However, some tidbits of the article (e.g. 512KB L2, afaik the very first time coming up in the press for the upcoming Value-model) fit well into what I would consider fairly probable - at least more probable as 256bit world and dog copies from older AMD-Roadmaps for it.
It is at least not impossible to combine the figures given to Mike by somebody who believes to know something in a way that makes sense.

K.

I personally dont care too much about sockets and pins at all. Just want to see a superior product to be launched in this quarter. However they do that.

[Haddock]

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.

I think perhaps that calculation was too simple.

It's not just the number of pins involved, but their definition. Even if there are enough pins for dual DDR on Socket 754 it seems they are not defined for that use (certainly I never heard it if they are). Suddenly changing the definition of pins on Socket 754 would be much worse than moving to Socket 940 for the premium version of A64.

Anyway there may be extra ground an power supply pins needed for the dual-DDR version. Or there may be routing issues that mean you can't use arbitrary pins.

theInquirer has gotton inaccurate to the point where it is more misleading than enlightening.

I'm sure you can find things they got wrong, but your argument would work better with just one example that has actually been proved wrong, rather than one you don't like the sound of.

[Haddock]

Looks like Athlon64 on socket940 is pretty much confirmed now, so do you regret your harsh words on the Inq when they got a scoop on that story?

Here's a nice collection of Opteron and A64 boards. If you click on image 2 of the K8D Master2-Far board you can see it is a socket-940 board for Opteron or Athlon64. From image 4 it appears it is single or dual with Opteron, but single-only with Athlon64.

http://www.amdboard.com/opteron_boards.html

[Haddock]

that Inquirer article is rubbish! In addition to the typos noted, the content makes no sense

Another source talks about Athlon64 with 939 pins and 940 pins:

http://www.tech-report.com/onearticle.x/5453

Looks more and more like their 'rubbish' was a scoop again.

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!

Perhaps that's not exactly the way it played out, huh?

[Haddock]

> And 939 pins? What is up with that?!

> theInquirer has gotton inaccurate to the point where it is more > misleading than enlightening

Well, the 939 story came true, as they often do:

Here are links to the pictures of real live Socket 939s. And they even have 939 pins, so they live up to the name.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13970