Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:03:13 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> Cc: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>, David Gilbert <dgilbert@dclg.ca> Subject: Re: Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache Message-ID: <20060427190313.GB2741@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <007901c669eb$4a28d9a0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> References: <44503AC6.3060609@rogers.com> <007901c669eb$4a28d9a0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 12:11:05PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Jakubik" <mikej@rogers.com> > > >>No! Socket AM2 is the DDR2 939-pin Athlon64 desktop replacement. > >>Socket F(1207) is DDR2 the 940-pin Opteron server replacement. > >> > > > >Same crap, different pins. The change simply allows AMD cpus to use DDR2 > >memory, nothing more. > > Getting off topic now but I'd submit to you that a 1207 pin vs 940 pin > is setting up for the access requirements of quad core something that > AM2 is not going to be capable of hence quite different indeed. Nope. Quad core is internal connections between cores - not external. So you don't need extra pins to support quad-core vs. dual-core. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is top-posting (putting a reply at the top of the message) frowned upon?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060427190313.GB2741>