From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 27 19:29:07 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13AC716A401; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:29:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from multiplay.co.uk (core6.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC0243D48; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:29:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from vader ([212.135.219.179]) by multiplay.co.uk (multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) (MDaemon.PRO.v8.1.3.R) with ESMTP id md50002510428.msg; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:28:53 +0100 Message-ID: <00b101c66a30$ceb32820$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> From: "Steven Hartland" To: References: <44503AC6.3060609@rogers.com> <007901c669eb$4a28d9a0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <20060427190313.GB2741@dragon.NUXI.org> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:28:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:28:53 +0100 (not processed: message from valid local sender) X-MDRemoteIP: 212.135.219.179 X-Return-Path: killing@multiplay.co.uk X-MDAV-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:28:55 +0100 Cc: Mike Jakubik , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Bill Moran , David Gilbert Subject: Re: Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:29:07 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David O'Brien" > On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 12:11:05PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: >> 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. There was talk that there would be an enhanced memory controller or possibly dual memory controllers in quad core cpus which would be supported by the extra pins in Socket-F. Either way I suspect that the additional pins will be used to provide additional external bandwidth to successfully supply the upcoming multi core CPU's with enough data so they aren't starved. All hearsay though as I've not see any real specs :) Steve ================================================ This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk.