Talk:AMD K10
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on August 29, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
How about adding a section for rumors concerning K10? =(
Contents |
[edit] I doubt about the report from The Inquirer
The Inquirer was famed to report misleading information in the industry. Many have proven that. Why delete the original introduction, according to the information that The Inquirer reported? I think that paragraph should be kept.
- EDIT*: PLUS the article in the Inquirer was dated "Thursday 03 November 2005, 07:20". The article reported that the K10 was dead OR delayed, it was just mere speculation, and does not reflect the true status of the project in AMD. What we know is that K8L will be released between 1Q07-2Q08 (from the article), which will surely be staying in the market for a while (at least 18 months), but it doesn't mean that the K10 was dead, as K10's not even confirmed as K9.
- EDIT 2*: reference to the Inquirer: Wiki Article about the site
202.71.240.18 10:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- The Inq is an interesting site for rumors, and they're occasionally correct. But rewriting an article around something they claim is extremely unwise. They are principally a rumor site, not a news site. Everything I've heard out of AMD leads me to believe K10 is going forward, and K9 is not. It's plausible K10 has been cancelled, and that kind of rumor is worthy of being briefly noted. Aluvus 12:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Something interesting...
TechReport: AMD outlines future technology directions. What will they make at that shiny new fab?
Something interesting on the ppt slide... "Future goals", should it be added to this article?
[edit] For the sentence below, I shall nominate this article for AfD.
According to this edit (revision ID: 71706208) from user Timharwoodx: "This would tend to confirm the claim that the original complex 8-issue K9 and K10 chip have been cancelled, and replaced with a multicore IPC enhanced Athlon 64 derivative."
With cited source from The Inquirer.
K10 are reported cancelled in the source, and now I'm convinced that K9 and K10 does not even exist at all. Thus this article and K9 (Yes, both articles) should be nominated for AfD, and redirected to AMD/K8L (Depends on the final discussion results).
I think that Timharwoodx should start writing an article about "a multicore IPC enhanced Athlon 64 derivative" though.
Anyone who wanted to prevent this page from deleted, should give users (at least me) proof of existence of the project (I don't care the type of the proof, or the codename of the project, just an official proof from AMD, not news reports and interviews from The Inquirer, DigiTimes, or any kind of "Tech Tabloid".). If no proof(s) given, then I'll go nominate this for AfD for the reason of "Non-existence" product based on speculations.
BTW, as K10 doesn't exist at all, I removed the future product tag. --202.71.240.18.
[edit] Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point
| Cleanup Co-ordination | |
|---|---|
 |
This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that:
For a full list of possible problems see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. As part of the cleanup process, the automated bot PocKleanBot has generated this notice as a focus of cleanup efforts, and also contacted several contributing editors of the article to bring their attention to the problem. You should use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. Only when there is a consensus that the article is now cleaned up should you then de-list it by deleting the cleanup tag from the article, this causes the article to drop off the monthly cleanup-needed list page. |
[edit] This article may eventually need to be merged, if K10 continued to be absent from official roadmap of code names |
|
It seems that K10 has never really been any more than a speculative code name for a future AMD microarchitecture. K9 "Greyhound" was discussed by a number of reliable sources in the time frame of 2003 to early 2004. But no reliable sources has ever divulged the name K10 as an actual microarchitectural design. The name K10 likely came by speculation in the industry based on PAST AMD naming conventions. After K9 cancelling in 2004, it is not likely that a product named K10 was actually in advanced stage of development, other than some vague discussion of some former AMD employee named Andrew Glew. Other bits of information in this article points to various times when AMD execs discussed future uarchitectures beyond K8, while providing no specific code name.
The chip we know as K8L (merely for convenient shorthand) may still be named K10, but there has been no robust evidence to that effect. Nor has the "New Mobile Microarchitecture" form AMD been indicated to adopt the K10 name. I think that we should keep most of the contents of the article, for some important historical information. Some of the technologies here are already in the process of being relized (such as chip level multiprocessing), some have proved to be impractical for the near to medium term (such as 10GHz frequency), while others have been refined (huge caches correspond well to possible use of Z-RAM technology). It's probably the best to eventually merge this article into K8L or "New Mobile Core from AMD" article, or if one of these proved to be code named K10, then do the reverse. Most of the information here are good and important as historical reference of the process of development in the industry, but non of it is really up to date any more.
--letowskie
- Agree. --202.71.240.18 10:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
