AMD Adds More 12-Core and 16-Core Processors to Opteron 6300 Series

14

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

agello24

i can multitask already with my 1045T hexacore. the 16 core with 64 gigs of mem. i can do a whole lot more video editing and gaming etc. its not longer about speed and time. its what you can do with your cores. NO one sits and watches paint dry, so why wait to see a task done if you dont need to. intel has it all wrong. intel i7 users are not speaking on how their quad cores get choked out on RW multi tasking, cause its an embarrassment on how much money they blew on the dam chip.

avatar

vrmlbasic

Quad-channel memory? When is that going to propagate down to the consumer-grade AMD stuff? All that bandwidth would go well with the APU and, TBH, "Quad" > "Dual" ;)

Maybe AMD is holding out until DDR4, USB 3.1 and whatever will come after SATA III are finalized before making some more modern chipsets? I can hope.

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

Why this isn't released to consumers on the high end is baffling... I wouldn't mind paying for the cores for multi-threading (and for personal server stuffs).

avatar

John Pombrio

Dude, it's a 2.0GHz chip! I don't care how many "cores" you put in, it ain't going to do any normal PC stuff without a boatload of "ugh" in it. Servers maybe, but I doubt that unless your are doing blades, you don't really need that many cores.

avatar

LatiosXT

There's nothing stopping you from going to NewEgg and purchasing the hardware.

avatar

MaximumMike

Well, I'm guessing the stock of available motherboards that support enthusiast hardware is limited. Gaming PC's and Enterprise Servers have very different hardware needs.

avatar

limitbreaker

if the multiplier was unlocked on them i would buy them ASAP, imagine having a motherboard with two of these chips with 32,28 or 24 core total running at 3.2 ghz each. it may not win any single core awards but i'm sure it would smoke an intel 6 core in multithreading lol

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

+1. But I have a feeling that a 60% overclock on these wouldn't be feasible.

avatar

limitbreaker

I think it would be feasible considering that the primary reason the clock is set so low is for efficiency. And if they're sitting on the Standart 32nm die maybe you'd get even more.

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

Assuming heat scales linearly with the frequency of the chip (not that bad of an assumption), bringing the 99W 16-core chip to 130W is a 30% increase in clock to 2.6 GHz. After about 130W it becomes very difficult to cool these (good water cooling maybe even phase-change). Then you have to take into account that not all chips are good enough to go that fast regardless of heat (timing issues do to imperfections in the silicon/doping/traces/etc).

But yes, assuming you beat the odds and get the good chip and could do a 60% OC and could cool it, it would be pretty awesome.

avatar

limitbreaker

Lol don't shred on my fantasies! I don't think getting 3.2 ghz is to far fetched considering the 12 core part is already hitting 2.8ghz with turbo. I believe these chips have a lot more OC headroom (if they were unlocked) considering that they're primarily designed for efficiency and reliability.

avatar

QuantumCD

Anybody know how these compare to similarly-priced Xeon chips? I might be interested...

avatar

Innomasta

if it follows the age-old trend, they'll be inferior but more bang for the buck.

avatar

biggiebob12345

With servers "bang for buck" becomes less relevant. $3000 Xeon chip is peanuts when it's doing million-dollar number crunching. Plus Intel has a massive performance / watt advantage over AMD which is important when you're running thousands of chips 24/7. Not to mention performance / watt means you can spend less on cooling and increase your server density (real estate for data centers costs $). Basically, Intel has 95% server marketshare (somewhere thereabouts) for a reason.