Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 15th May 2007 12:46 UTC, submitted by Jamie Luowe
AMD AMD says its badly needed quad-core desktop processors are on the way, and they'll arrive bearing a new name. Two quad-core chips will be available in the second half of the year, the Phenom FX and the Phenom X4, and a dual-core chip based on a similar design called the Phenom X2 will also appear by the end of the year.
Thread beginning with comment 240329
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Mapou
Member since:
2006-05-09

It seems that AMD's research department is only concerned with beating Intel at its own game. This is foolish, IMO. AMD is doomed to always be a follower unless its engineers can come up with a revolutionary new CPU architecture based on a revolutionary software model. The new architecture must address the two biggest problems in the computer industry today: reliability and productivity. Unreliability puts an upper limit to how complex our software systems can be. As an example, we could conceivably be riding in self-driving vehicles right now but safety and reliability concerns will not allow it. Why? Because there is something fundamentally wrong with software. Fortunately, a software model that solves these problems already exists. It is called the "non-algorithmic, synchronous, reactive software model. That's what Project COSA is about.

Project COSA:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/COSA.htm

Reply Score: 2

msundman Member since:
2005-07-06

> AMD is doomed to always be a follower unless its
> engineers can come up with a revolutionary new CPU
> architecture based on a revolutionary software model.
> [...]
> a software model that solves these problems already
> exists. It is called the "non-algorithmic, synchronous,
> reactive software model. That's what Project COSA is
> about.

Languages/systems like COSA need much more research before well-performing CPUs can be made for them. Most of the current research is focused on embedded systems with completely different goals than general purpose languages on standard processors.

Reply Parent Score: 3

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Languages/systems like COSA need much more research before well-performing CPUs can be made for them.
"""

While I am not familiar with COSA, this thread brings to mind something that I have noticed about this industry. Sad to say, but having a great product that is years ahead of its time is usually a death sentence. Although it also virtually guarantees you a permanent place in the history books, and an ongoing presence at sites like OSNews.

In extreme cases, you can even have your grand old name dragged through the mud for decades, like Amiga. ;-)

Edited 2007-05-15 15:55

Reply Parent Score: 3

Mapou Member since:
2006-05-09

Languages/systems like COSA need much more research before well-performing CPUs can be made for them. Most of the current research is focused on embedded systems with completely different goals than general purpose languages on standard processors.

I agree. All it will take, however, is a working COSA OS and development tools that a lot of people can play with. That will come. The theory is sound, IMO. COSA would be perfect for embedded apps, especially mission-critical systems such as is common in the automotive and avionics industries. In this light, I think that AMD would do well to branch heavily into the embedded cpu business. Coming out with something that leaves everyone else in the dust would certainly help. That's where COSA comes in. But then again, I'm biased.

Reply Parent Score: 1

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"AMD is doomed to always be a follower"

Actually, AMD has been leading the CPU landscape for quite a while now:

1. They created x86_64, and Intel was forced to use that technology in it's 64bit x86 products, called EM64T.

2. They had the first successful dual core x86 processor, Intel only came out with one after AMD did, and at first they were 2 separate dies in the same package. Core Duo came later.

3. They have been using Hypertransport for a while now, and Intel has not caught up with that technology, they are still stuck with the FSB, while they try to get CSI working.

4. Hypertransport allowed them to develop Fusion, which will allow gpus to be plugged into a processor socket on the MB, which will then run on the HT bus. Fusion also lets AMD build multi core chips where one or more x86 cores are replaced with gpus, physics processors, you name it. Intel just released details of thier similar plans, which are not as far along.

5. For the longest time, AMD was the only one of the 2 with an integrated memory controller, which allowed the Athlons to keep ahead of the P4 in terms of speed, as it didn't have to talk to the MC on the northbridge. Only with the Core Duo was Intel able to negate this advantage.

Edited 2007-05-15 15:44

Reply Parent Score: 5

Mapou Member since:
2006-05-09

Actually, AMD has been leading the CPU landscape for quite a while now:

I agree. I did not mean a follower in the technological sense but in the business sense. Intel can outspend them anytime.

Reply Parent Score: 1

aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Isn't both core duo and core 2 duo more or less separately kernels still? They still share data via cache and fsb, not core to core, or?

Reply Parent Score: 1

netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

(e.g., IF/THEN/ELSE, WHILE, GOSUB, GOTO, DO WHILE, DO UNTIL, etc…)

Please not back to begin eighties...

Reply Parent Score: 2

Henrik Member since:
2006-01-03

That article clearly has some good points but also displays some lack of real insight by ignorant and false statement such as "...hardware is inherently synchronous..." and similar statements regarding the brain.

Reply Parent Score: 1

irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

Anandtech has some interesting information about AMD's future plans in their article:

"AMD - The Road Ahead" by Anand Lal Shimpi
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2986

They seem to think that also AMD - especially after the Ati acquisition - may still have many new innovative and competitive CPUs and technology in development. Time will tell?

Reply Parent Score: 2