A First Look at AMD's M2 Platform 145
Knight Thrasher writes to tell us that Tom's Hardware has an interesting first look at AMD's AM2 platform. From the article: "While Intel will be answering later this year with its Merom/Conroe processors, AMD officially says that the introduction of its AM2 platform and DDR2 memory support in the second quarter of this year will be able to maintain its current lead. Unofficially, we know that AMD will launch six dual-core and two single-core AM2 processors on June 6 - later than initially expected but well in time for Intel's Conroe, which will be introduced in September. Tom's Hardware got its hands on a stable engineering sample of an Athlon 64 X2 4800+ for Socket AM2 and will publish benchmark results as first as a first impression of the new Socket and processors tomorrow."
Ahhh yes (Score:5, Funny)
Nice to see the Editors are living up to their name.
Re:Ahhh yes (Score:3, Informative)
grammar nazi strikes! (Score:2)
I think you mean the 'Editros.' Yeesh, get it right. ("Don't call me 'Yeesh.'")
I'm more interested in announcements from PMA, anyway.
Article Vaporware (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Article Vaporware (Score:2)
Re:Article Vaporware (Score:2)
Re:Article Vaporware (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Article Vaporware (Score:2)
Re:Article Vaporware (Score:2)
Re:Article Vaporware (Score:1)
This is the first step towards duplicates (Score:4, Funny)
2) Reveal that the benchmarks won't be available until later
3)
4)
5)
6)
7) Dupe!
(Actually 4-6 are also duplicates)
Re:This is the first step towards duplicates (Score:2)
Right, but that goes without saying which, I suspect, is why is why they're blank.
Re:This is the first step towards duplicates (Score:2)
BIOS? (Score:2)
Still teh suk :( (Score:2)
UEFI 2.0 isn't fully baked yet, but it will be soon. EFI 1.10 is an 'Intel' spec, and besides, it won't do 64-bit extensions. Moral, the suk.
Look for there to be UEFI 2.0 boards later this year, most likely at the Vista launch, but not before.
-Charlie
Re:BIOS? (Score:1)
Where are the FB-DIMMs? (Score:5, Insightful)
FB-DIMMs should be available by now. If I would go out and buy a socket M2 processor, I'd have to buy a new socket and processor when FB-DIMMs came out (or the switch to DDR3 or whatever). If we had FB-DIMMs then one processor would work with DDR/DDR2/DDR3/SD/whatever just by switching out the memory since the interface is serial and built onto the memory chips. It would allow the life of boards to be extended much longer. Look how long PCI lasted. If you bought a new motherboard in the PCI era and you could keep using it all the way up to now because the socket stayed the same and the memory modules just changed (even though the physical pin out stayed the same) you could do it. Now that PCI-Express is here, we could do that easily for the future.
FB-DIMM is supposed to simplify the board layout too since you don't have to run all those parallel data/address lines to each DIMM. This is supposed to make layout much less complicated. Imagine how many pins would be needed on an Opteron if they wanted to put 4 memory banks on the processor instead of the 2 they have now. That would be a few hundred extra pins. With FB-DIMM that might be one hundred extra pins.
The only need to update the socket would be to provide additional power pins (you could future proof this a bit by putting extra power pins on) or other features (I've heard of someone, Sun perhaps, trying to put Ethernet on the processor die).
I like AMD, but isn't it time we get past these custom memory interfaces for each standard?
Re:Where are the FB-DIMMs? (Score:1)
Re:Where are the FB-DIMMs? (Score:1, Interesting)
Socket F/1207 for their server chips is rumored to support FB-DIMMs as well as some other neat-o stuff.
Re:Where are the FB-DIMMs? (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of using FB-DIMMs since it would just mean changing out the motherboard and not also the processor, but with the relation between processor and memory interface, I don't see it as being a big issue. Especially considering the fact that DDR2 is available and about equivalent to DDR in prices (about $150 for a 2x1GB DDR400 or DDR2-533 matched pair, as of two seconds ago at Newegg), whereas FB-DIMMs are unavailable right now and will probably start off pretty expensive compared to what's out.
FB is not a panacea (Score:2)
If you put more memory on one set of signal lines, you can reduce latency, but you cannot increase bandwidth.
Re:FB is not a panacea (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, with FB you can put all your DIMMs on a single set of signal lines.
That's not how it is used, so I'm not sure why you are emphasizing that. IIRC, Blackford systems have 4 FBD channels (using fewer pins than two DDR2 channels).
Oh hey, my mistake... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope, they're not. They're arranged in a big serial shift register.
The problem with this? Latency goes up as you put in more DIMMs. Why? Because data from the 4th DIMM has to pass through (not just by) the 3rd DIMM, 2nd DIMM and 1st DIMM to get to the CPU.
Sound familiar? It's just a retread of RDRAM.
No thanks. Intel boned themselves with this before. If they want to push this, they better get ready to take a backseat to AMD again. DDR outdistanced RDRAM handily on performance and price/performance, I'll be surprised if things are any different this time.
I hope you enjoy your higher clock speeds, you'll need them to try to get your latency down to managable and your bandwidth up to normal. I mean, with 1/4 as many data pins (I assume the 28 data pins carry only 16 bits of data at once, vs 64 of DDR/DDR2), you're going to have to go 4X as fast just to match the bandwidth and latency of a regular system. And as soon as that 2nd DIMM is put in, you're behind on latency and you're going to have to play catch up.
Re:Oh hey, my mistake... (Score:1)
The problem with this? Latency goes up as you put in more DIMMs. Why? Because data from the 4th DIMM has to pass through (not just by) the 3rd DIMM, 2nd DIMM and 1st DIMM to get to the CPU.
This sounds contrary to "point-to-point" as mentioned at Micron [micron.com]. What you describe is that the FB-DIMMs are in serial. The data is transmitted seria
no, you misunderstand now... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15189 [theinquirer.net]
What happens is on each clock, the 1st DIMM transfers its data to the CPU. The 2nd DIMM (if there) transfers its data to the 1st DIMM, the 3rd DIMM (if there) transfers its data to the 2nd DIMM, etc. Thus each DIMM gets the data from the next DIMM, puts it in a buffer, thus regenerating the signal electrically and emits it upstream on the next clock. You could call this "daisy chained". This limits how far each DIMM has to drive its data, which is why FB-DIMMs can claim better electrical characteristics.
What this means is to get data from the 3rd DIMM, it takes 3 clocks just to get the first bit of data (presumably 16 bits) to the CPU. The "good" news is that since this system is (semi-) serial, the clock has to be very high already, so this latency is somewhat mitigated.
FB-DIMMs are point to point, but the point-to-point doesn't mean each DIMM connects to the memory controller, it simply means each DIMM is only on a bus with one other DIMM (well, one upstream bus and one downstream bus). Each DIMM forwards data along these busses in both directions. But again, there is no way for the 3rd DIMM to get to the memory controller without going through (and not just by) the 2nd and 1st DIMM first.
Your extension of my argument to PATA vs SATA just underscores your misunderstanding. My concern is with the latency of intermediate forwarding of data. SATA (well, the version in regular use) doesn't even allow you to attach multiple devices to a single bus, let alone have the devices forward the data to the head. Note that PATA allows multiple devices per bus, but it is a true bus, in that the data from the far device just goes by the near device, not into it and back out.
SATA is taking off due to connector costs and cable routing in the case. RAM doesn't face cable routing difficulties. It does face signal routing difficulties, but these only need to be solved once per motherboard design at worst, not once per installation as in cable routing. In addition, the signal routing complexity is much higher for ultra-high speed busses and thus the problem of signal routing will be solved the same way for FB-DIMMs as for DDR or DDR2, which is one company (Intel) will make a reference design and the other motherboard designers will just leave those signal lines alone and add other signals in the I/O area where they want to put on additional SATA RAID controllers. And in regards to connector costs, FB-DIMMs don't change the DIMM connector and thus don't reduce the cost of the DIMM connector. So I don't see a parallel here at all.
Finally, as to DIMMs and busses being forward compatible forever, it's just not going to happen. You'll have the same problem you did with SDRAM (or DDR or RDRAM). All SDRAM was compatible with each other, just the speeds changed. So you can use your old slow DIMMs as long as you don't mind that slowing down all your memory accesses.
Finally, the reason RDRAM failed isn't as simple as your comments that the RAM people screwed RAMBUS. The problem was the RAM people didn't feel like being screwed by RAMBUS. RAMBUS wanted license fees on all RAM made (see their grab at applying their patents to DDR) and so they tried to make RDRAM the standard. Intel also wanted more money per motherboard sold (not just happy selling the CPU). Intel's first attempt at making this happen was Slot 1, where they force-bundled the 2nd level cache memory in with the CPU (2nd level cache SRAM revenue could be $30-$50 per mobo back in the Socket 7 days). Note that 2nd level cache moved to the main CPU chip later. Intel additionally decided to license slot 1, claiming patents on it. Regular front side busses could not be patented, as they were purely functional, considered the most basic way to do something. Slot 1 was positioned so as to patent the physical connector and form factor so they could enforce their fees.
Intel decided to threaten VIA (a very popular Socket 7
I read all 3 pages thanks... (Score:2)
I consider this a typical setup, and the article does too.
The real crux of this thing is you confused "point-to-point" with each DIMM necessarily connecting straight to the memory controller and stated such. That's not the case and I wanted to clear that up. For ultimate performance, you would do such a thin
Re:Oh hey, my mistake... (Score:2)
we'll just have to see about that... (Score:2)
Re:Oh hey, my mistake... (Score:1)
The concept had to return as soon as people forgot RDRAM and moved on a little.
Quite possibly now is the time for high-latency RAM. The only reason RDRAM didn't work out is not for technical reasons (caching can handle that) but because they ran hot and were pricey.
Hot, pricey RAM anyone?
Re:Where are the FB-DIMMs? (Score:1)
They are here !! (Score:2)
What a coincidence that you ask that question now. I submitted a story yesterday to bring this article to the attention of the slashdot crowd "The Future of DDR Memory is Serial [dailytech.com]".
Guess what, the submission was rejected, and yet in the same day they let through a story about a self perpetuating miracle motor. Why do I even bother!
Re:Where are the FB-DIMMs? (Score:2)
There is the extra cost of the controller chip, per module, plus the added latency for parallel-serial-parallel data translation. For servers needing huge amounts of memory, they can deal with extra latency, but not for desktop applications and games where latency can mean the difference between 30 and 60fps.
Adds latency and Intel owns the standard (Score:2)
Oh, and yeah, Intel owns the patents so you would be paying your competitor and be beholden to them to chose your memory type.
And all the memory manufacturers would have to pony up to Intel and also be beholden to them.
I won't go into the technical details about how AMD's design is geared towards low latencies and suffers greatly when laten
Re:Where are the FB-DIMMs? (Score:1)
However, they are well suited for servers that require lots of RAM. This is the main advantage of the technology -- allowing increased capacity. FBDs provide higher bandwidth but with increased latency. This means the following:
1) Systems with 1-4 DIMM requirements are better off with standard DDR2. It's cheaper, cooler, and has lowe
Socket? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Socket? (Score:2)
I meant 2000 pin. Sorry.
Re:Socket? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Socket? (Score:1)
Re:Socket? (Score:2)
Re:Socket? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Socket? (Score:5, Interesting)
DDR2? (Score:5, Interesting)
I read that it is expected late 2006/early 2007 and Samsung claims it'll be 2x the speed of DDR2 and it'll operate at 1.5v (less power consumption).
I know NVidia is already using it on video cards...
Re:DDR2? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:DDR2? (Score:2)
Re:DDR2? (Score:1)
Re:DDR2? (Score:2)
Screw that, it's all about GODDAMNDR13.
Re:DDR2? (Score:5, Informative)
Speaking of which, how many normal consumers actually DO upgrade their processors? Maybe we should move back to the soldered on processors of the past. No socket to be stuck to, no expensive ZIP socket to put on the board (you can't tell me that 940 pin ZIF sockets are cheap), not much downside (if your CPU dies, most people would just buy a new and faster computer today for the price to get the thing repaired).
Re:DDR2? (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you think the ZIF socket is for the consumer? No, it's really about the small tech shops, which represent a significant portion of sales. Typically, you'll see a small shop stocking 2 or 3 different types of Motherboards (one for high performance, one for cheap-o upgrades, and one somewhere in the middle) and a half-dozen processor speeds.
With this scenario, the shop only has to stock 1 or 2 of each type of motherboard and maybe 5-6 processors. Stock is bad, because the deflationary index of computer gear is so high, so this lets just a dozen or so parts provide many different combinations for customer needs. This makes it more profitable for the business, and so more likely to stay in business.
This leads to more sales, and more happy customers. Probably worth the $0.45 it costs the manufacturers to have the ZIF socket.
Re:DDR2? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you say "build to order"?
If apple or hp etc find that more people are selecting the option to upgrade from 2.0Ghz to 2.116Ghz processor than they anticipated, then they can direct the assembly plant to start putting more 2.116Ghz processors in the motherboards as they assemble a notebook or processor. That is going to result in a greater supply of the faster machines in a day or two.
Such a request to the motherboard manufacturing plant to start making more boards with the 2.116Ghz processor soldiered on is not going to see a greater supply to consumers in a day or two. The assembly line might take longer implement the change, but more importantly you've a couple of steps further down in the supply chain. Once the MBs have been manufactured you've still got to wait for them to be shipped to the assembly plant and then for them to be assembled into complete computers.
Re:DDR2? (Score:2)
When you think of it, apart from dual core there hasn't been much movement in the processor indus
Lower power usage (Score:1)
When you think of it, apart from dual core there hasn't been much movement in the processor industry since ... 2003. All we've really seen is small tweaks ... and an emphasis on lower power usage.
Lower power usage is precisely what makes residential dual core PCs and blade servers feasible. The same attitudes toward lower power usage will be necessary to control heat flow once Moore's law runs out (not soon [slashdot.org], but eventually) and we end up having to build into the third dimension with stacked dies.
Remember the days (Score:2)
My father when that route to upgrade an IBM 65SX. I was amazed something so simple actually worked. It gave new life to an old machine.
I think what prevents most people from ever replacing the chip in their system is that by the time they want to they are so frustrated with their old system they just want to replace it entirely. By frustrated I mean they have loaded it down with so much junk it is just a bear to use.
Also throw in the fact
Re:DDR2? (Score:2)
Dude, have fun on your iMac...
Of course we could take it one step further and remove any discrete video memory....
---
One of the best things about Apple's move to Intel is that even they are abandoning that line of thinking. The new Macbooks and iMacs use sockets...
I can understand WRT laptop designs. Things need to be very compact. Modularity takes a back seat to weight, size, and form factor. Which is good. In a tower there's no excuse.
Re:DDR2? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:DDR2? (Score:2)
Re:DDR2? (Score:3, Informative)
Had the memory controller been on the Northbridge, a la Intel, they could have kept the old sockets, but then they wouldn't have had as much of a performance advantage.
Re:DDR2? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DDR2? (Score:2)
I'm sure there are lots of people who did what I did and hung on to their Socket A motherboards for a nice long time, ignoring the numbered sockets completely. Now we get to skip right over them to the AM2.
CPU manufacturers should indeed be much more aware of the impact that changing sockets has. I used to think AMD was such a manufacturer. Look
Re:DDR2? (Score:2)
Hell buy some Xeons.
Face it we're all in the same boat price/performance.
We keep hearing this again and again, sure there will be early adopters who make some of the good stuff more affordable eventually but really no product is designed for the absurd prices some morons are willing to pay and as far as the rest of us are concerned they are just buying up prototypes which should be left in the labs where companies can work on them.
Re:DDR2? (Score:4, Interesting)
DDR2 has some drawbacks that make it less attractive for AMD platforms than even DDR. However, it should be noted that AMD has recently announced that socket AM2 will launch at DDR2-800 speeds rather than the initially-planned speed of DDR2-667. This increase in memory clock should negate most of the latency concerns surrounding DDR2 vs DDR. Should.
Re:DDR2? (Score:1, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR3 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDDR3 [wikipedia.org]
DDR3 still is the future. I don't know why they're going forward with DDR2.
Re:DDR2? (Score:4, Interesting)
Then the bottom fell out of the memory market (Pretty late Memory is behind the curve on improvement specifically in terms of performance... so many systems are still being made with DDR333) so as a memory manufacturer of course they are going to try to stir the market into an expensive new standard... Part of doing that is hitting people up about their current performance, for AMD it matters and they are relying on AMD to push memory tech with their integrated controller.
At first it seems that it would provide a slower upgrade path but they can integrate lower latency and higher bandwidth far more easily than Intel.
AMD would have to commit to a new memory architechture because their chips will be designed to only work with it, so they want a tested solution, they're not scared of commiting to a memory architecture with low performance they're scared of commmiting to one with a high price tag.
Intel was REALLY hurt by XDR...
I mean that was a masacre, AMD has multiple developers for their chipsets so the only chink in their armor would be a new memory arhitecture.
While Intel has fsb problems they don't need to worry that Intel will find a new memory tech because they just won't be able to take advantage of it fast enough that AMD won't be able to upgrade their platform.
Re:DDR2? (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite.
The memory on the nVidia cards you are talking about is actually GDDR3, not DDR3. The name is similar, but the technology is not.
From the Wikipedia DDR3 article [wikipedia.org]:
Anandtech (Score:5, Informative)
Or Read the Actual Article (Score:2)
Why is there such an editorial delay at slashdot all the time? I'm not new here, but Jeez.
A couple of things (Score:4, Insightful)
I see the blurb mentions introduction of 6 dual core & 2 single core chips, and I wonder if this will be the new product tier differentiating mechanism: dual and single. Traditionally, we'd see the low end, which was the crippled version of the mid-range, then the high end typically added more cache and un-crippled SMP abilities. Perhaps the low end will be single core, mid-range dual, and high end w/larger caches & 4/8-way ability.
Now that the MHz "wars" seem to be behind us, it's a race to pack multiple cores onto chips, which I see as a good thing. I've always had a thing for SMP rigs (my current & previous boxes are duals), and dual-core going mainstream means several good things for us SMP freaks, the least of which is more affordable 4-way boxen!
In closing, I'd like to mention that this whole blurb about a story (which is in fact an ad vehicle) which references a yet-to-be published story, is rather silly and bizarre. And poorly written. Like my post.
Re:A couple of things (Score:1)
Evil (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Evil (Score:1)
Re:Evil (Score:2)
I set mine to 666 and kept it as long as I kept that case. If anyone asked, I told them the machine was beastly fast.
Re:Evil (Score:2)
This is nothing to complain about (Score:4, Informative)
Nobody believed them when they said that they won't make you buy a new mobo to upgrade to dual-core processors. Amazingly, AMD kept their promise! They even migrated some Opterons to 939 so you can upgrade your home computer with a real server chip. Now compare this to Intel and you'll see how disciplined and customer-friendly AMD have been.
Of course, they want to make use of DDR2, and since your old motherboard doesn't have DDR2 slots, you'll need to buy a new motherboard to use DDR2. That's the end of the story! You'd have to be high to think you could keep your board and just upgrade to DDR2. AMD switched the pinout a tiny bit so that you don't make the mistake of plugging in an incompatible processor into the board. There's nothing more to it than that.
So maybe people are complaining about being forced to go to DDR2, but I don't think that will happen. I'm quite sure there will be several new AMD processors for Socket 939, probably priced at the same level as their AM2 counterparts. The only difference will be the memory controller. Of course, it won't make much sense to buy 939, with DDR2 being almost as cheap as DDR.
Maybe people were complaining about the extra burden on mobo manufacturers to retool, but this is absolutely minimal, as the Anand article [anandtech.com] makes clear. We will see many cheap AM2 boards almost right away, because they are so similar to Socket 939 and 940.
Really, this is a great illustration of how a socket change should look.
Re:This is nothing to complain about (Score:4, Insightful)
478 to 775
umm...
I should have posted as AC because Im going to be modded down to hell, but whatever.
Mod parent +5 AMD Fanboy (people on slashdot call it Insightful for short)
Re:This is nothing to complain about (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is nothing to complain about (Score:2)
Dave
Re:This is nothing to complain about (Score:2)
You can't be a trve Intel fanboy, or you would know about Socket 479.
Also, what good is keeping the same physical socket around for years when the newer processor just won't run (or worse) in older mainboards due to voltage/power supply/whatever differences ? Might as well get a new socket change the socket then to keep the ijjits from frying their hardware.
Re:This is nothing to complain about (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, shut up with the fanboyism already (Score:2, Interesting)
First off, you left out several currently used Intel sockets, including the mobile one(s). The AMD side has been very simple: Budget (754), Mainstream and Workstation (939), Servers (940). That's it. It's not hard. The mainstream S939 offering spans everything from 1.8GHz super-cheap CPUs to dual-core opterons and monster (2.8GHz) FX62 CPUs. If you can't get an upgrade out of your S939 board you're not planning it right. Mobile? Shit, you can put your low-wattage Turion64 in (almost) any old 754 board! How'
Re:Oh, shut up with the fanboyism already (Score:2)
Re:This is nothing to complain about (Score:1, Informative)
Originally joe blow got 754 and high-end people paid for dual-channel 940.
Then the AMD marketing shmucks decided to migrate dual-channel to the masses while still artificially making the market distinct from servers/workstations. Socket 939.
There is no difference whatsoever between 939 and 940 except artificial incompatibililty. (The "socket 940 registered ECC" requirement is a lie---that is a function of the newer CPUs' better memory control
Re:This is nothing to complain about (Score:3, Informative)
940 is DDR Dual channel registered memory with ECC support
vs
939 is DDR Dual channel non-registered memory
Reference: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjI2 [hardocp.com]
One was designed for server/workstation requirements; registered and ECC support.
The other was designed for desktop requirements where price is and total system costs (ECC memory is significantly more expensive) are more important.
Re:This is nothing to complain about (Score:1)
googling for benches, not much to go on here. What exactly are the advantages of DDR2? It's actually cheaper than the old stuff already, so I'm very curious
Anybody?
Re:This is nothing to complain about (Score:1)
Re:This is nothing to complain about (Score:2)
For performance:
On the Intel platform, definitely. Thanks to their external memory controller, they already suffer from high latency. A little extra latency over DDR1 does not hurt them.
For AMD, it may yet be better. Keep in mind, these platforms being tested today are not yet optimized, and aren't using DDR2 800. I expect some performance improvement with the final product using DDR2 800. The key point is, even with DDR2 667, the release product should perform about the same
Maybe its just me.... Is that a good thing? (Score:1)
Hmmm and less heat dissippation is good how?
It's probably just me!
DDR2 (Score:2, Funny)
How about something like.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Processors would be sold in cards not that different from vid-cards these days. They would connect to a slot, and they would fhave the CPU, and attached to that CPU would be about 512MB (maybe more, maybe less) of very, very fast RAM on 256bit bus. Of course, it would cost a bit, but not more than video-cards do today (I bet that GPU's are more expensive to make than CPU's are). Yes, there are issues of memory-expansion, but what if there were regural DDR2 mem-banks attached to the northbridge on a "normal" 128bit bus that could be used for additional memory?
If we had a SMP system with this kind of setup, it would offer A LOT of bandwidth. Each CPU would have very fast RAM attached directly to it. And they could access the RAM attached to the other CPUs. AND they could also access the RAM attached to the northbridge.
Or maybe if they used the locally attached RAM as L3-cache? 512+MB of cache, anyone?
Is this idea completely stupid, or does it have some sense to it?
Re:How about something like.... l3 cache (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2006Jan/bch2006
Re:How about something like.... l3 cache (Score:2)
Slot 1 / Slot A anyone? (Score:1)
Of course the reason for it then was because they couldn't get the enough L2 cache on the chip itself so they built an external cache at 1/2 CPU speed. As soon as they could fit the L2 cache they wanted onto the chip they moved away from the slot design because it's far more expensive to make.
Re:Slot 1 / Slot A anyone? (Score:2)
Yes. However, in those cases, the memory was L2-cache, not system RAM (or L3-cache for that matter).
Re:How about something like.... (Score:1)
Damn (Score:1)
my wallet hates how fast the IT insdustry moves!
AM2 not MII (Score:1)
Jeeze, what a poor naming choice from AMD's standpoint.
Re:AM2 not MII (Score:1)
Re:Annoying Writing (Score:1)
Re:Oh good! (Score:1, Interesting)
in a few months for Half Price! Hooray for the inexpensive future.
Re:Can AMD Save Apple? (Score:2)
So where do we get AMD boards with something other than BIOS? Apple needed features which EFI could provide while BIOS could not.
Re:Can AMD Save Apple? (Score:2)
Re:Can AMD Save Apple? (Score:2)
(and don't even get me started on why Cell wouldn't make a goood desktop processor)