Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 12:27:17 -0400 From: JM <jmartin37@speakeasy.net> To: Jia-Shiun Li <jiashiun@gmail.com> Cc: Guy Dawson <guy@crossflight.co.uk>, freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 X2 Message-ID: <42C56EE5.3010608@speakeasy.net> In-Reply-To: <1d6d20bc050701065367a01e8b@mail.gmail.com> References: <200506290818.j5T8IELL002348@peedub.jennejohn.org> <42C3F72E.9070902@speakeasy.net> <8f55402905063018441217c95a@mail.gmail.com> <20050701015457.GC4460@dragon.NUXI.org> <42C5220B.1000203@crossflight.co.uk> <1d6d20bc050701065367a01e8b@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jia-Shiun Li wrote: >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... >>> >>> >>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. >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hardware-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > first of all, Intel claims to have had the original idea of dual core which any educated hardware expert knows to be false. AMD touted support for multiple cores months ahead of intel and it's apparent by the hyper transport technology white paper that AMD was planning this route when the Athlon XP was released long ago. Intel only recently scrapped their processor roadmap. rather than attempt to hit the 4GHz mark they re-wrote the roadmap, fabbed up a quick and dirty dual core solution and released it before AMD claiming that the idea was theirs... i hate that company...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42C56EE5.3010608>