Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 21:53:27 +0800 From: Jia-Shiun Li <jiashiun@gmail.com> To: Guy Dawson <guy@crossflight.co.uk> Cc: JM <jmartin37@speakeasy.net>, =?WINDOWS-1252?B?lSCV?= <googl3meister@gmail.com>, freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 X2 Message-ID: <1d6d20bc050701065367a01e8b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <42C5220B.1000203@crossflight.co.uk> References: <200506290818.j5T8IELL002348@peedub.jennejohn.org> <42C3F72E.9070902@speakeasy.net> <8f55402905063018441217c95a@mail.gmail.com> <20050701015457.GC4460@dragon.NUXI.org> <42C5220B.1000203@crossflight.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/1/05, Guy Dawson <guy@crossflight.co.uk> wrote: > David O'Brien wrote: > > It really should be that simple. All the external interfaces and pins > > are the same for Athlon64-939 and Athlon64 X2. They have the same > > thermal specifications, etc... >=20 > It's the only way AMD could reasonably do it. To require a different > motherboard for X1 (?) and X2 chips would have the mobo makers rioting! That's what Intel did. Requiring a new i945/i955-based board for their rushed dual-core CPUs. Only use the same socket but varied pin definition. If you put the new CPU on an i915 board, it will shutdown automatically to 'protect'. In contrast Athlon64 claimed to be designed with dual-core capability in mind from the beginning. Jia-Shiun.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1d6d20bc050701065367a01e8b>