Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 1 Jul 2005 21:53:27 +0800
From:      Jia-Shiun Li <jiashiun@gmail.com>
To:        Guy Dawson <guy@crossflight.co.uk>
Cc:        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>