Jia-Shiun Li wrote:
On 7/1/05, Guy Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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...
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.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
first of all, Intel claims to have had the original idea of dual core
which any educated hardware expert knows to be false. AMD touted
support for multiple cores months ahead of intel and it's apparent by
the hyper transport technology white paper that AMD was planning this
route when the Athlon XP was released long ago. Intel only recently
scrapped their processor roadmap. rather than attempt to hit the 4GHz
mark they re-wrote the roadmap, fabbed up a quick and dirty dual core
solution and released it before AMD claiming that the idea was theirs...
i hate that company...
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
