AMD Plans 12-/16-Core CPUs For 2011

History has shown that Advanced Micro Devices doesn't have the greatest track record for delivering chips as promised (at least right on schedule), but the company's looking to make a change for the better starting with its highly anticipated six-core Istanbul. Said CPU, which falls in the Opteron family, promises to provide up to 30 percent more performance within the same power envelope and on the same platform as current Quad-Core AMD Opteron processors, and while we've already seen it demonstrated and slated for a 2H 2009 launch, AMD's bringing cautious smiles out everywhere with its latest update.


AMD Istanbul Die - Image courtesy: AMD

As the company revamps and refreshes its processor roadmap, consumers are now being told that Istanbul will be shipping in June, which is not even two full months from now. There's no word on what hastened the shipment schedule, but so long as no corners were cut to get it rushed out, we won't prod for answers.

In related news, the company also made it known that it plans to ship the Opteron 6000 series for 2P and 4P servers that are designed to address the highly virtualized, high performance computing and database markets next year. Crazier still, the 'Interlagos' 12- and 16-core processor, based on the 'Bulldozer' core and manufactured on 32nm process technology, is planned to ship in 2011 and will also be supported by the 'Maranello' platform. No need to question your sanity -- you really just read that AMD is planning a 12- and 16-core CPU to ship in two years. The rest of the highlights are posted below:


  • Months ahead of schedule, AMD plans to deliver the six-core AMD Opteron processor code named “Istanbul” in June this year, with up to 30 percent more performance within the same power envelope and on the same platform as current Quad-Core AMD Opteron processors.i
  • AMD unveiled Direct Connect Architecture 2.0, the next stage of server processor innovation: up to 12 cores initially, with superior memory and I/O capability, near native virtualization performance, and a range of full-featured power bands that continue to place a priority on low power consumption.
  • AMD believes a customer value shift is currently underway, transforming the server market, with the high end moving toward performance and expandability and virtualization driving a need for more cores and greater scalability. At the lower end, AMD sees power management and overall value as primary drivers for cloud computing and ultra-dense environments that demand greater energy efficiency.
  • In 2010, AMD plans to ship the AMD Opteron 6000 series for 2P and 4P servers that are designed to address the highly virtualized, high performance computing and database markets. The 6000 series will debut on the G34 socket and the “Maranello” platform, with the 8- and 12-core “Magny-Cours” processors.
  • The upcoming AMD Opteron 4000 series is also planned for introduction in 2010 for 1P and 2P servers and designed to address virtualized Web and cloud computing environments. The 4000 series will launch with the C32 socket and “San Marino” platform with the 4- and 6-core “Lisbon” processor.
  • The “Interlagos” 12- and 16-core processor, based on the “Bulldozer” core and manufactured on 32nm process technology, is planned to ship in 2011 and will also be supported by the “Maranello” platform. The 6- to 8-core “Valencia” processor, also manufactured on 32nm process technology, is planned for shipment in 2011 on the “San Marino” platform.

“Over the past six years, AMD has transformed the x86 server industry to what it is today with the AMD Opteron processor, delivering exceptional performance per watt gains along the way. And in 2010 and 2011, AMD plans to deliver to its customers unprecedented back-to-back performance gains that remain true to our commitment on power efficiency. We’re currently working on new processors which we expect will deliver more than 35 times the performance of the original single-core AMD Opteron processor released in 2003,” said Patrick Patla, vice president and general manager, Server/Workstation Business, AMD. “With our wide range of available power bands and performance capabilities, AMD is delivering full featured, maximum value at every price point today, and plans to continue to do so well into the future.”


Via:  AMD
Tags:  AMD, CPU, Opteron, Istanbul
Comments
acarzt 5 years ago

That's a whole lot of cores...

Riks 5 years ago

stop making me and my q6600 feel bad =|

bob_on_the_cob 5 years ago

Wow. Thats a lota cores. I can't wait untill desktop software catches up with multicore support. 12 cores all ticking away at one program. That will be awesome.

Neo4 5 years ago

If AMD follows the same pattern for Istanbul they did last year with Shanghi then we can expect the first desktop versions to be released in August. Can you imagine having a dropin replacement for current AM2+ and AM3 platforms! Anybody up for some 6 core CPU awesomeness? Reminds me of what the sergent said in Alien 3. Arrr, absolutely badass! Stick out tongue

 

bob_on_the_cob 5 years ago

[quote user="Neo4"] Can you imagine having a dropin replacement for current AM2+ and AM3 platforms![/quote] Yeah I really like what AMD is doing with upgrade paths. I have though about changing over to AMD PC a few times. I might do it when these core2s I have now get to slow for my taste. I really don't like the i7 vs i5 thing. It is the reason I went socket 775 instead of AMDs random 3 sockets they have out.

I have 3 computers. One is my main rig, the my girlfriends, then the spare mess around box. I upgrade mine and move my spare parts to Jen then to the 3rd box, so I like them to be all one platform.

Neo4 5 years ago

I hear you bro, but I remember what hardware used to cost when Inhell was the only game in town. I have 5 boxes, 4 of which are connected through a KVM and 4 port router. My 5th box is a 233 MHz PII that I keep around, heck I don't know why I keep it around. My first PC was an IBM PS/2 486 SX25 (yeah, that's 25 MHz) and it cost me $1500 with a 128 megabyte hardrive. I want AMD to survive above all else. Without AMD we can all expect to pay through the nose just for lowend hardware. I really believe that. [:'(]

LoneWolf3574 5 years ago

Heh, my first PC 386SX16 that I bought used w/ just a 5.25" FDD & no HDD, I added a math coprocessor and 356Mb HDD later.  I'm currently working on making myself an AMD Dragon system, a part here, a part there, as I can afford it.  After reading this, I'm going to go with the Phenom II x4 955 AM3 now instead of the Phenom II x3 720 AM3.  It seems that the only way I'll keep up is by being about 2 cores behind, lol.

Neo4 5 years ago

[quote user="LoneWolf3574"]

Heh, my first PC 386SX16 that I bought used w/ just a 5.25" FDD & no HDD, I added a math coprocessor and 356Mb HDD later.  I'm currently working on making myself an AMD Dragon system, a part here, a part there, as I can afford it.  After reading this, I'm going to go with the Phenom II x4 955 AM3 now instead of the Phenom II x3 720 AM3.  It seems that the only way I'll keep up is by being about 2 cores behind, lol.

[/quote]

Thats the way I build my boxes, one piece at time. I think the 955 is a good choice unfortunately until Biostar releases a new BIOS it won't run on my board. [:'(]

Neo4 5 years ago

I hear you bro, but I remember what hardware used to cost when Inhell was the only game in town. I have 5 boxes, 4 of which are connected through a KVM and 4 port router. My 5th box is a 233 MHz PII that I keep around, heck I don't know why I keep it around. My first PC was an IBM PS/2 486 SX25 (yeah, that's 25 MHz) and it cost me $1500 with a 128 megabyte hardrive. I want AMD to survive above all else. Without AMD we can all expect to pay through the nose just for lowend hardware. I really believe that. [:'(]

acarzt 5 years ago

Now we just need Storage to continue to close the gap in bandwidth like it is.

I wonder if technology will eventually make it to the point that everything is so powerful you can't really notice the difference with upgrades?

It already is that way with some things... For instance... Microsoft Word... You won't be able to tell the Difference between a P4 and a Core i7... Some older video games you wouldn't be able to tell the difference because the frame rates are so high it will play the same on a 7900GT as a GTX295. It is already happening that hardware is getting so powerful people are having trouble keeping up making Software to harness the power. Physx and Cuda for example. They've both been around for a decent amount of time now but not that many people support it. I think there are like 9 games that support Physx most of which suck lol and a few games support add-ons for it.

 

bob_on_the_cob 5 years ago

[quote user="acarzt"]Now we just need Storage to continue to close the gap in bandwidth like it is.[/quote]

At the rate it is going I don't think it will be a issue for long.[quote user="acarzt"]

I wonder if technology will eventually make it to the point that everything is so powerful you can't really notice the difference with upgrades?

It already is that way with some things... For instance... Microsoft Word... You won't be able to tell the Difference between a P4 and a Core i7... Some older video games you wouldn't be able to tell the difference because the frame rates are so high it will play the same on a 7900GT as a GTX295.

[/quote]

Me and my girlfriend play a lot of Team Fortress 2 and I really can't see any difference between my 2x4870s and her 9600gt. Sure hers runs at 50ish FPS and mine is 200+ FPS, but the eye can't see that many frames and the monitor only updates 60 per second. In other stuff you can tell, but that is the only game she plays so what is the point of faster hardware.

I was talking with two of my coworkers the other day and they were asking me about laptops and I thought about it for a minute, asked them what they do with a computer(web, word, no games) I ended up telling them the cheapest laptop that fit there needs as far as screen size and keyboard layout would be more than fine. I think I can honestly say that they will be.

amdcrankitup 5 years ago

Twelve cores I would slobber right now for a Quad core!!

imAcpufan 5 years ago

One heck of a lot of cores! I could use that for rendering in Maya *mouth waters*! I'm hoping to build a core i7 rig sometime in the summer...it's seriously time to upgrade from my X2. There was a time when I was excited about 2 cores...lol

Neo4 5 years ago

I know what you mean about X2 excitement. I'm just floored that 6 core CPU's are so close to being released. I just assumed that quad cores would be on top for a year or two longer.

squid267 5 years ago

Why? Programs don't fully have support for quad cores! At least that was the issue last time I checked.

Neo4 5 years ago

[quote user="SqUiD267"]

Why? Programs don't fully have support for quad cores! At least that was the issue last time I checked.

[/quote]

Well you're right that's what they say. But, when I run Task Manager and watch the CPU loading across 4 cores 3 are used extensively while the 4th is used to a lesser extent. I guess my personal experience is that even though software is seldom multi-threaded the cores are still being used. Maybe Vista takes advantage of them for its own purposes.

rapid1 5 years ago

Yes, vista does to an extent, but from what they are doing with WIN7 I think multi-core will be more utilized. I wrote to Microsoft the other day (through the WIN7 Feedback) about what I called profiling. This would auto switch functions to enable applications or app types (video/music, animation, rendering and conversion, architecture, science, accounting, Gaming, DT Publishing etc.)Profiles to make auto registry and operation changes to benefit main running software types. If the OS which controls everything used multi cores for different functions automatically, these abilities on the software end, would then be easier for the programmers as well. Therefore we would have multi processor functioning at a much wider rate of both acceptance as well as integration.

kksonakiya 5 years ago

Intel Core i7 focusses on 8 cores isn't it? 12/16 cores are way too fine, but what about Mac users, or does Mac OS X also uses Multi Cores? I don't know this. But I doubt about the money matter again. I think it will be pricey, isn't it?

Only the games are changing, not even Maya and rendering softwares like Pixar's Renderman are at their best? They have got to develop nice softwares to utilize that too.

LoneWolf3574 5 years ago

Only partly true, the Intel i7 has 4 physical cores and 4 virtual cores because of hyperthreading, where AMD doesn't have hyperthreading (Intel proprietary technology if I remember correctly).  This article is talking about actual physical cores and if Intel were to follow suit with 12-16 cores, they would have 24-32 total recognize cores (half being virtual) because of hyperthreading.

kksonakiya 5 years ago

24 to 32!! That's way lot of cores. I think I am just over-excited. But as the rumours stick on net nowadays, AMD is really trying to take the lead in processors field.

If I am correct, (and it is just a guess) then we will have 6/8 actual cores and then, due to Hyper-threading (or AMD may name it something else) we will get 12/16 Cores to burn.

I think even games will not be so demanding. But scientific observations will definitely benefit with AMD's new processors. As a matter of fact, in a review by Guru3d.com even GTA IV could not utilize 100% CPU (core i7, 965 Extreme) on max settings.

I hope they make them cooler this time.

Post a Comment
or Register to comment