backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 63 comment(s) - last by The Jedi.. on Aug 21 at 8:50 PM

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Black Edition packaging  (Source: OC Workbench)
No this isn't a special edition Mercedes

AMD today silently resuscitated its 90nm Windsor core with a bump in clock speed in the form of the Athlon 64 X2 6400+. The latest Athlon 64 X2 runs at 3.2 GHz – higher than any available Core 2 Duo offering. Each core has access to its own 1MB of L2 cache.

AMD labels the new Athlon 64 X2 6400+ as the Black Edition, in matching black packaging. The new model does not have the lower 89 watt TDP as the upcoming Windsor refresh. Instead, the processor carries a 125 watt TDP rating, nearly three times higher than the Athlon X2 BE-series.

Since AMD is aiming for a silent launch with the Athlon 64 X2 6400+, it will not make it into reviewer’s hands. AMD will not offer the processor to PC manufacturers either, according to Scott Wasson, Tech Report. The only way to get a hold of the Athlon 64 X2 6400+ is through the channel.

AMD prices the Athlon 64 X2 6400+ at $239, per unit, in 1,000 unit quantities. At that price point, the processor will have to take on Intel’s Core 2 Duo E6750.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Interesting Quote
By Shark Tek on 8/20/2007 8:57:54 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The latest Athlon 64 X2 runs at 3.2 GHz – higher than any available Core 2 Duo offering.


I don't want to sound like a intel hore because almost all my machines at home use AMD but is funny to see this.

The truth is that it has a higher clock speed but still slower in performance than the competition.




RE: Interesting Quote
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/20/2007 9:08:41 AM , Rating: 4
Which is an ironic twist of fate as the roles were reversed during the P4/Athlon era. Ah the sweet sweet smell of irony.


RE: Interesting Quote
By StevoLincolnite on 8/20/2007 9:45:23 AM , Rating: 3
I don't know why you were rated down, but your statement is correct, AMD had lower clockspeeds, but better performance than the Pentium 4/D at the time.

Still I find that the budget oriented Athlon 64 4000+ is a bargain, and should be ample enough horsepower for Crysis and StarCraft 2.


RE: Interesting Quote
By GlassHouse69 on 8/20/2007 12:09:04 PM , Rating: 3
if the processor did more than 5% from the 100 dollar level up past the 400 dollar level, I would be shocked.

8800gtx vid card at real, 2007 resolution of 1920x1200 with eye candy on.... cpu means nothing.

ram speed means nothing as well.

yay.

anyone with a 2.2ghz AMD dual core or higher should not bother upgrading anything besides for a video card.


RE: Interesting Quote
By leexgx on 8/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting Quote
By Treckin on 8/20/2007 10:27:25 PM , Rating: 3
the most illiterate and nonsensical post ever. Please refrain from reading or writing in the future... Wouldn't want to hurt yourself...


RE: Interesting Quote
By Rampage on 8/20/2007 2:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
Thats why I still use a FX55 with a 8800GTX.. :)

quote:
anyone with a 2.2ghz AMD dual core or

Why dual core unless you are moving from a very slow single core..?
If you're building for gaming, the 2nd core on the C2D/X2s essentially means nothing. Unless you play Quake4 or one of the other very slim pickings for multithreaded gaming.

When the majority of games go multithreaded, so will I.

In the meantime, I know people with C2D CPUs and GPUs slower than my 8800GTX that I stomp out in real-world gaming benchmarks.
Paid $650 on launch day, one of my best decisions ever honestly.


RE: Interesting Quote
By Surak on 8/21/2007 12:47:08 PM , Rating: 1
dumbass.

Windows XP is multithreaded.

The second core helps single threaded game performance by having the capacity to do whatever background work Windows needs done while you happily game away on the other core.

I thought everyone learned this about 2 years ago.


RE: Interesting Quote
By headbox on 8/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting Quote
By slickr on 8/20/2007 7:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
Depends. If you mainly use your PC for gaming go for the best video card, the chipest processor and not more than 1GB of normal 667MHz ram. But some need that extra speed in compresing or decompresing files, faster virus scan time, lower rendering high quality images and so on...

But anyways AMD is still in deep trouble. Even with theit next native 4x4 core they are going to have hard time beacose Intel is also refreshing processors and will continue to do some every 6 months. Don't forget while AMD are still 90nm, intel is 60nm and going for those 45nm in early 2008!


RE: Interesting Quote
By idconstruct on 8/20/2007 9:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
lol thats a terrible gaming machine XD

i agree on everything else, but don't skimp on the processor, get at least a 5200 or equivalent, and don't get 1gb... this is the era of 1gb minimum ram, 2gb standard... and damn just get the full ddr2-800... (you can find 2gb of gaming quality ddr2-800 for 80 bucks easily)

no flame intended... but thats just not good advice for a gaming machine since gamers tend to be the most demanding users


RE: Interesting Quote
By Alexstarfire on 8/20/2007 10:10:30 PM , Rating: 2
Except for the amount of RAM he suggested everything else is basically fine for a gaming machine. The keyword there being "gaming." I'm sure most people don't run strictly a gaming PC. I know I sure as hell don't. I recently upgraded to the bottom of the line dual-core for AMD, the X2 3800+. The reasons: video encoding and file compressions mainly. I do some other stuff that dual core helps with though. When you're trying to convert nearly 75 hours of video at a 5:2 time ratio, that's time to convert by the amount of video to convert, then getting dual-core basically cuts it in half. Even if the program isn't multithreaded I can still run 2 at the same time and convert different video files at the same time with no performance hit.

BTW, the thing that limits most people on visual quality in games is the monitor, if LCD, which I believe most people are now. If your monitor can only do 1280x1024 then an 8800GTX is basically useless. Also, at that resolution if you had the 8800GTX you'd be CPU limited for sure. When that happens nearly everything else becomes a bottleneck: CPU speed, RAM speed, RAM latencies, your chipset, etc.. But even though all those things can limit your performance, if you can get CPU limited you're going to have a really high FPS anyways. The CPU is going to be the last thing you really have to worry about in terms of gaming performance. Of course if you have something like a P3 or lower then that's probably going to limit you in all the latest games. But if you have anything even remotely recent then you're gonna be fine. Sure you may not get like 200 FPS if you stare at a wall, but guess what? It doesn't matter.


RE: Interesting Quote
By Treckin on 8/20/2007 10:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
AMD offers many products at 65nm, and some (including their highest models) at 90nm. Intel fabs their procs exclusively now at 65nm... NOT 60nm!

Anyhow, all of the new offerings from AMD this coming quarter are going to be 65, and Intel will have some of their products at 45. That has always been so, that Intel is 6 months ahead AMD in fab process.


RE: Interesting Quote
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/21/2007 7:58:20 AM , Rating: 2
Actually Intel is a year ahead in fab process but who's counting?


RE: Interesting Quote
By Samus on 8/20/2007 8:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
this strategy sold millions and millions of pentium 4 crap, so maybe it'll help AMD move a few thousand.


RE: Interesting Quote
By DeepBlue1975 on 8/21/2007 8:53:11 AM , Rating: 2
Not only that, but it also costs almost as much as a quad core Q6600...
AMD was great from the beginning of the Athlon era till the moment when Intel came with core2 architecture.
From that moment on, AMD is looking more pathetic each time.

Besides, this kind of launch suggests that maybe Barcelona for desktop will be facing further delays until it hits the channel... Which is no good at all.


Ink.....
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/20/2007 8:23:36 AM , Rating: 5
Gonna steal a line from one of the guys on TR and say that it's only black because AMD ran out of red ink :)

In any case, I expect some reviewers to get their hands on this and show (as expected) that it gets beaten senseless by Core 2 offerings. With its current price it's in rough competition with the Q6600 which AMD should be trying it's best to avoid.




RE: Ink.....
By Dharl on 8/20/2007 10:43:31 AM , Rating: 1
"The Black Edition our hope to get back in the black." new AMD slogan.

You're right too bad they used all their red... on the financial reports.


RE: Ink.....
By killerroach on 8/20/2007 11:13:22 AM , Rating: 2
I've heard the term "Black Edition" used as to mean "this is the last Athlon X2 model", signifying the death of that line before moving toward Phenom. That or the death of the 90nm process (which should've been killed off ages ago). Or, for the real cynics, the end of AMD.

Either way, it's a chip in a pretty black casket, if you ask me. Just don't know yet what goes in the casket after you install the chip.


RE: Ink.....
By encryptkeeper on 8/20/2007 11:44:29 AM , Rating: 2
AMD needs to just put a needle into the arm of it's marketing department. I don't think they could sell a pair of gloves to an Eskimo. Without overclocking, their midrange line (4200+ to 5200+) holds pretty steady with Intel. Take the 4200+. Bench tests on www.tomshardware.com (not trying to troll on you DT,) show the 4200+ and the E6320 neck and neck in the trials. The 4200 is almost HALF the price of the 6320. Now of course, the 6000+ can't even beat the higher end C2D (to say NOTHING about C2Q). The whole "40% more efficient" thing from Intel is a pretty giant stretch here as well.