Talk:Rock (processor)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

It is the next generation following the UltraSPARC T1 and T2 series. This is not true. The T2 is going to be available concurrently with the Rock, and targets quite different workloads. Actually, most of the information on this page is wrong. The Rock is expected to debut with 16 cores (not four) per chip. David Chisnall 00:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is no citation for this: "Each Rock processor chip includes sixteen cores, with each core capable of running two threads simultaneously, yielding 32 threads per chip"

The "two threads" part especially needs a citation—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.147.153 (talk • contribs) 20:46, August 9, 2007

Rumors that the Rock has been canceled are not rumors, they are an embarrassing truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.18.200.37 (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Then, if it's the truth, citate it, please. The only "citation" I have seen so far is an article on the times, full of speculation. Unless I receive news from some reliable source, the cancellation is not official for me. The internets speculates Oracle may be dumping the Rock, but so far, it's nothing but that: speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.251.197.100 (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

On August 06, 2009 the support for the Rock-CPU was removed from the OpenSolaris Project."6858457 Remove Solaris support for UltraSPARC-AT10 processor". 2009-08-09. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/onnv-notify/2009-August/010037.html. --79.236.44.229 (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ouch! So, it's cancelled? Should somebody update the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.46.131 (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

(I actually proposed this a few years ago, but neglected to tag the proposal here, so I'll give it a little more time.)

Since Supernova never saw the light of day and is bound rather tightly to Rock, without any significant features of its own that stick out to me, I don't think it's necessary to have its own article.

All the content in the Supernova (server) article was already contained in the Rock article -- I did just trim the content back here a bit, but I'd do the same thing in the Supernova article, too.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

...and done.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

For things such as the AT&T Hobbit CPU, etc.... Family Guy Guy (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply