backtop


Print 27 comment(s) - last by ElJefe69.. on Feb 21 at 8:05 PM

AMD officially announces the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and energy-efficient Athlon 64 3500+ and 3800+

AMD today officially announced its Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and a pair of energy-efficient single-core Athlon 64’s. The 3.0 GHz Athlon 64 X2 6000+ arrived on retailer shelves last month. Pricing of the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ during its early release hovered around $599-684, close to the $607 volume pricing at the time.

With the official launch, the 90nm Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is priced a little lower than its early release price. AMD prices the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ at $464 per-processor in 1,000-unit quantities.

Dual-core Athlon 64 X2 6000+ aside, AMD is announcing new energy-efficient single-core Athlon 64 3500+ and 3800+ processors too. The new Athlon 64 3500+ and 3800+ processors are based on AMD’s 65nm technology for low power consumption.

AMD rates the new energy-efficient single-core products with 45-watt TDPs for energy-conscious customers. The energy-efficient Athlon 64 3500+ and 3800+ processors are available immediately in 1,000-unit quantities for $88 and $93 per-processor, respectively.

Be sure to check out our Daily Hardware Reviews for Athlon 64 X2 6000+ reviews.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hours later...
By GoatMonkey on 2/20/2007 3:29:27 PM , Rating: 2
It wasn't too long ago that this area would be massively spammed with hype following the release of a new top of the line AMD CPU. Now it's 2 hours later and nobody has made a comment yet. Not that I blame you guys, I mean my core 2 duo is supposed to arrive in the mail tonight.




RE: Hours later...
By Scabies on 2/20/2007 3:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah... This time last year I was jumping all over AMD announcements. Last month I bought a Conroe. Sorry guys.
(though I did pick the RD600 chipset)


RE: Hours later...
By idconstruct on 2/20/2007 4:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
I miss AMD...

Although I'm not going to be upgrading for awhile so it will still be cool to see what new multi-core processors they'll come out with.

(my next processor will probably be 8-core, i think the wait will be worth it, considering how many games are gonna be multithreaded. And Valve has supposedly come out with a way to make performance gains linear with each additional core, meaning 8x the performance of a similarly clocked single core)


RE: Hours later...
By idconstruct on 2/20/2007 4:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
well, I should be more clear on that... Valve didn't develop their method of multithreading, but out of the available ways to multithread, they chose the harder, more expensive option specifically to produce those linear performance gains


RE: Hours later...
By therealnickdanger on 2/20/2007 3:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, everyone knows AMD CPUs are great, but Intel is holding the aces right now. It doesn't help AMD that this particular chip is 90n. It's not a bad chip in the least, but given Intel's out-of-the-box performance and overclocking performance, AMD will have to unleash K8L to really get the masses excited again.


RE: Hours later...
By Rollomite on 2/20/2007 4:39:31 PM , Rating: 1
It's not K8L. K8L is the low power current generation chips. I think you're refering to Barcelona.

Rollo


RE: Hours later...
By therealnickdanger on 2/20/2007 5:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
My bad, I meant "Fusion".


RE: Hours later...
By Rollomite on 2/21/2007 10:46:49 AM , Rating: 3
K8L's are Turion chips. Look it up. It's great that I got downrated because I was correct. The new chips are Barcelona, and Budapest, neither of which are involved with the Fusion processor. Here comes the downrating.

Rollo


RE: Hours later...
By AstroCreep on 2/20/2007 5:43:13 PM , Rating: 2
No, he was correct, K8L refers to the new HTT 3.0-based CPUs with shared L3 cache, DDR3 support, and the like.
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2768&p=3
quote:
On a very slightly lower level architecture side, we have a slide showing the overview of AMD's next server class processor with 4 cores based on K8L. Features include a shared L3 cache, "enhanced IPC" cores, OoO (Out of Order) loads, wider data paths, HT-3 (the third version of HyperTransport), and support for DDR2 (and DDR3 or FBDIMMS in the future).


Google Search for "AMD K8L Architecture":
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff...


RE: Hours later...
By Rollomite on 2/21/2007 10:51:00 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
we have a slide showing the overview of AMD's next server class processor with 4 cores based on K8L.


Read carefully.... BASED ON K8L . K8L is not the new AMD chip, it is an existing technology. It is the TURION. The L is for Low power. Thank you.

Rollo


RE: Hours later...
By Rollomite on 2/21/2007 11:04:14 AM , Rating: 2
The name "K8L" is only used by the wider IT community as a convenient shorthand, while according to AMD official documents, it is termed "AMD Next Generation Processor Technology" [1]. Its official code name is not known with any amount of certainty at this time, but the code names of many individual revisions within the microprocessor family have been revealed by IT sites on the web (see Schedule of launch and delivery). However, it was reported that the codename "K8L" actually referred to a low-power version of the K8 chip, later named Turion 64. [2]


RE: Hours later...
By AstroCreep on 2/21/2007 5:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
I've found numerous articles stating otherwise (that it's the next-gen 4-core-native platform); can you find me something that states K8L is the low-power K8? If so I'll believe you.


Better off
By archcommus on 2/20/2007 4:42:27 PM , Rating: 3
They are better off releasing low-power and budget chips until they come out with their next generation. People will still buy those up.




RE: Better off
By knowom on 2/20/2007 5:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah conroe and pentium d 805 cover the high and low end dual core segment which almost everyone is after at this point. If AM2 had a chip set that supported DDR & DDR2 like Intel boards do AMD be more attractive on the low end, but until something like that Intel rules the roost in the meanwhile. The only thing I can think of that AMD has going for it right now is 4x4 which with the opteron loophole with some asus mobo for cheaper current quad core's and later 8 core potential which would be great for multi-threaded applications like high end DAW's for running multiple tracks, vsts, and effects all at once.


RE: Better off
By weskurtz on 2/21/2007 9:59:40 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the D805 is the cheapest dual core CPU you can buy... but, it is the worst by far as well. It's my opinion that AMD has the low end segment @ around $100 for the X2 3600. And if the price drops like speculated to $95, it would be the best dual core chip for under $100. I understand the Pentium D 805 is alot less expensive, but it is also a LOT slower. You would have to OC that thing above 4ghz to even match the performance in just about anything. I will give you that the price of the CPU is the lowest, but price/performance definately isn't.

wes


RE: Better off
By yehuda on 2/20/2007 8:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. AMD already has a power advantage at idle. Their trouble however is with load figures. I believe they should concentrate on producing more 35W chips rather than raising the thermal envelope with higher clocks. A TDP of 35W can actually be a major selling point.


RE: Better off
By GoatMonkey on 2/21/2007 6:10:06 AM , Rating: 2
I think they should continue to release socket 939 chips at this point. They have a nice install base of users who already have socket 939, and could capture their upgrade money.


RE: Better off
By ElJefe69 on 2/21/2007 8:00:02 PM , Rating: 2
yeah I agree.

the whole am2 thing is retarded. its only good if you were too poor to buy amd64 and waited until the end. I cant say its good for making mATX cases either. a 90nm 754 like 2.2ghz one from newegg is really cheap, really powerful and the chipset uses like 10watts idle to 30 watts load if use a via chipset.

a 3.0 ghz 1 meg cache 939 chip that would be priced at 350 dollars would sell like hotcakes (i never bought a hotcake before, but I hear they sell fast). There are MANY 939 owners with deep pockets compared to am2 owners. Conjecture some would say but not around Long island. its 939 land still and people await a real chip for it or K10 (the new barcelona/agena chip).

Asrock's dualvista or whatever it is called for 55 dollars is the only reason a 939 guy would switch to a 6600 intel setup as it allows them to use their 2 gigs of high speed ram and whatever vid card they owned.

Note: there are 185 opterons for sale that are much cheaper than normal athlons. they are hand picked chips and run at 2.6ghz with 1x2 meg caches. they would hold one until 2008 gaming wise. just a 939 tip.


Who are they trying to kid?
By JackPack on 2/20/2007 3:49:50 PM , Rating: 5
AMD is asking $464 for the 6000+, which performs roughly the same as an E6600 ($316). Yet the TDP is nearly double (125W) and there is basically no overclocking headroom.

"I don't think so, Tim."




RE: Who are they trying to kid?
By joex444 on 2/20/2007 5:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently with the F3 stepping, it's possible to overclock it to around 3.25GHz. At that point, the C2D overclocks more, so it's still pointless.


RE: Who are they trying to kid?
By Oregonian2 on 2/20/2007 9:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I've a e6600 and from what I've seen it's a bit under "6000+"
for some uses, and a bit over for other uses (like for video rendering) so I'd also say it's a rough overall equivalence performance-wise.

A bit surprised at AMD's pricing though. I had been a pure AMD'er between the 486 and my current e6600.


Shame on AMD
By daftrok on 2/20/2007 5:15:07 PM , Rating: 1
What the hell happened? Did they even test the 6000+? Did they SEE these prices? Who in their right mind will pay 150 dollars more for these processors? AMD desperately needs to step it up before they go down Motorola's path.




RE: Shame on AMD
By Oregonian2 on 2/20/2007 9:40:51 PM , Rating: 2
Or actually, Freescale's. :-)


RE: Shame on AMD
By TechLuster on 2/20/2007 10:12:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Who in their right mind will pay 150 dollars more for these processors?

There's a simple answer to your question daftrok: people who are upgrading.

I agree that if you're building a brand-new system, then an E6600 (especially after the price drops by ~$100 this spring) is a better choice than any high-end AMD chip. However, if you've already invested in a nice AM2 board and you're running an OEM copy of Windows (OEM versions are tied to the first mobo they're installed on), then having to spend $100-$200 on a new board plus $100 for a new copy of Windows eats up Intel's price advantage. You also may have a nice AM2 cooler you'd don't want to give up, and installing a new CPU is a lot less time-consuming than replacing a mobo and reinstalling Windows.

Furthermore, "people in their right mind" would probably just upgrade to a 5600+, which is currently priced about the same as the E6600 and is just slightly slower and slightly more power-hungry.

Finally, some people have a conscience and are buying AMD right now mainly so that AMD doesn't "go down Motorola's path"--not because we love AMD, but because we love seeing competition in the x86 market. After all, fierce competition from AMD is what gave us the Core 2 architecture, and fierce competition from Intel is what gave us the $109 X2 3800+ and $230 5200+ (the FX-60, you may recall, was priced a little higher than $230 a year ago, which was before Core 2 came out).

Shame on YOU for not thinking before you post.


RE: Shame on AMD
By Visual on 2/21/2007 5:18:43 AM , Rating: 2
since AM2 came quite recently and with conroe already on the horizon, not many people have am2 setups that they'd want to upgrade now.

i'll grant you one thing - if AMD released a 939 6000+ for the same prices, i'd buy it in an instant. AMD instead screws up the old 939 owners with a new socket and RAM requirements, "forcing" me to go for a brand-new system instead of upgrade, and at a time when intel has a much better offering for a brand-new system too. you yourself admit that for a brand new system AM2 isn't much of a choice now... well, it's been the same for quite a while. so "who in their right mind has bought an AM2 board" in the first place?


By Le Québécois on 2/21/2007 12:43:05 AM , Rating: 3
Unless you've been hiding under a rock for the last 8 months, you all know for a fact that AMD, with its current design, can't really hope to compete against Intel's Core 2.

But still, what would you do if you were AMD? Stop producing any current generation CPU and wait for your new K8L to come out? I don't think so.

You would probably do exactly what AMD is doing right now. Slowly shift your production from 90nm to 65nm and use the more mature 90nm process to release new revision of the K8 and hope you don't lose to much market in the process. Then when you are ready to release the K8L you hope your 65nm process is now mature enough and you start shipping your new design "en masse".

Intel did the same thing with the P4 and its price/performance ratio VS the AMD 64 was much more worst than the AMD 64 VS Core 2Duo right now.




By ElJefe69 on 2/21/2007 8:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
I agree here. there is no rush for 65 nm or for speed bumping. I am confident that they will make a 65nm 939 chip. I dont care what people or press releases say. It would make money and that is the only thing that matters to a business. 754 has NEW chips that are awesome. 90nm 2.2 ghz chips. that combined with a via k8T800 pro board will be fast and run ice cold. (i know ;) )

65nm means more profit and more overclockability normally. Right now oem's are selling a lot of amd low end chips with am2 boards.

K10 is my next system, and many who have a 939 system agree with that and will skip these intels for a future hope of a real quad core with some advanced fancy stuff. I have read though that clock cycles will be lower than currently offered. So, no 3.0 k10. which is lame but new architecture means less ghz to make it go anyways.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki