backtop


Print 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.


RE: Ink.....
By maroon1 on 8/20/2007 12:49:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
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.


I strongly disagree with you

E6320 is much better than 4200+
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2...

E6320 performed better than 4200+ in almost all benchmarks according to that ^^ review!!

And did you say that tomshardware.com shows that 4200+ is neck to neck E6320 ??!! LOL

Just look at them
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx...

It seems that E6320 is neck to neck with 4800+ (Brisbane), not with 4200+


RE: Ink.....
By HaZaRd2K6 on 8/20/2007 9:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With its current price it's in rough competition with the Q6600


Well according to the launch price where I work, it's coming in about $290CAD, where the Q6600 comes in at about $330CAD. I hate to nitpick, but it seems to be filling in a gap in AMD's lineup--one that Intel has all filled up with the E6750, E6850 and Q6600. The X2 6000+ comes in at about $200CAD so it's basically just a $90 increase in price for an extra 200MHz.

On another note, why the hell are they charging to much for something that doesn't even come with a HSF combo?! I mean, I understand that it's a high-performance chip, but come on, give us something more than 200MHz and some black ink for $90 more.


RE: Ink.....
By The Jedi on 8/21/2007 8:50:04 PM , Rating: 2
I guess AMD fans would just throw something good and cheap on there like a CoolerMaster Hyper TX. But I agree - Not a 'hot deal'!


Meh
By iFX on 8/20/2007 8:32:44 AM , Rating: 2
Packaging is everything it seems. People will buy this for it's packaging and so they can list "Black Edition" in their system rigs profile.




RE: Meh
By omnicronx on 8/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: Meh
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2007 9:25:04 AM , Rating: 3
As bad as AMD's marketing team is, I'm surprised they didn't spend a few million to release the 'Paris Hilton' edition.


RE: Meh
By majorpain on 8/20/2007 10:02:10 AM , Rating: 2
ahahahahhaha.. finally some fun! :D


RE: Meh
By Donkeyshins on 8/20/2007 2:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
Shades of 'This is Spinal Tap'. I can see the promo now - AMD: Smell the CPU

"It's like, how much more black could this be? and the answer is none. None more black." N. Tufnel


RE: Meh
By johnsonx on 8/20/2007 3:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
yep, unfortunately for AMD these days it's the Core2 that 'goes to 11'.


RE: Meh
By SuperSix on 8/20/2007 10:13:08 AM , Rating: 2
Is this ADX6400CZWOF?


People will buy it.
By Hoeser on 8/20/2007 8:37:54 AM , Rating: 2
Some people will buy it just because its the "black edition" and it looks and sounds super-cool, even if it pales in comparison to the core 2.




RE: People will buy it.
By techfuzz on 8/20/2007 8:50:43 AM , Rating: 2
Those are the people at Fry's on Saturday afternoon who spend an hour talking to the salesman and are told it is the absolute best processor available because it comes in a black box.


RE: People will buy it.
By omnicronx on 8/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: People will buy it.
By Flunk on 8/20/2007 10:14:42 AM , Rating: 5
I see you've never talked to the computer sales people at the electronics store. 90% of them are really that stupid.


RE: People will buy it.
By Spivonious on 8/20/2007 11:40:58 AM , Rating: 2
The consumer walks in after hearing how AMD is the cool "underground" processor to get and doesn't even consider Intel. The salesman says "here's the best AMD proc right now." The consumer goes home and brags to his friends how he has the ultra-cool Black edition.


RE: People will buy it.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/21/2007 8:01:23 AM , Rating: 1
Shortly after he becomes the laughing stock of his computer buddies that were smart enough to do their homework and bought Intel.


Who knows
By Chaser on 8/20/2007 10:53:00 AM , Rating: 2
There could be an AM2 Motherboard owner that wants to buy just a CPU upgrade but not necessarily a whole new INTEL MB and CPU, along with a complete OS re-install.

But AMD really needs to get on the ball. But lets also keep in mind that the same doom and gloom was being stated when AMD was way ahead and there was no forseeable competition from INTEL. I can remember when a huge article was written only when the name "Core" was announced as the "new name" for INTEL CPUs and the article stated, "INTEL better do much more than just announce a new name if they want any hope of catching up to AMD".

But AMD is behind and overdue. No doubt. But once (and if) something competitive is released that reveals a CPU lineup that benches faster, is more "advanced" and hopefully cheaper than the competition all will be forgiven like waving a magic wand just like it was for INTEL when they had finally released their Core 2 chips.

Until that does come out and their next lineup of CPUS are fully tested by all the enthusiast sights then we shall see. But I won't give up on AMD until we see real world testing and use. Up until now its been mostly negative speculation based on tidbits released by AMD for the most part.

One thing for sure, AMD's next lineup better deliver or they are in serious trouble. But surely they know this also. We shall see.




RE: Who knows
By Regs on 8/20/2007 1:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that upgrading to a new platform persay is a pain. I would love just to plop in a K10 right now in my AM2 and get a nice 25% boost in all applications.

AMD was behind as soon as Intel released the Pentium M to be fair. While AMD was offering nothing but re-spin after re-spin of the K8.


RE: Who knows
By totallycool on 8/20/2007 1:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
There would be many more buyers, if they just release it for s939.

Well thats a dream ;)


RE: Who knows
By Alexvrb on 8/20/2007 6:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree. I know why they aren't releasing it for Socket 939, but there are a lot of 939 users that could benefit from a good upgrade for a good price. Pulling out a single core 3200+ and plunking this in would be a good $240 upgrade!


RE: Who knows
By mindless1 on 8/20/2007 8:03:04 PM , Rating: 2
An overclocked 4000+ might be a good upgrade for 939, but it's seldom a good upgrade to sink over $200 into a platform over 2 years old unless your time is really valuable and it's only a matter if it being quick and easy to pop off the 'sink and slide in the new CPU.


Price/performance
By penter on 8/20/2007 10:03:20 AM , Rating: 4
I don't know what everybody is telling about that AMD is sucking at price/performance.
Just compare what intel is offering and what AMD is offering. You can see the price/performance at Tom's Hardware http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx...
Guess what: The first 11 cpu's are from AMD. The last being an ahtlon X2 5000+. It costing like 130$. Nowadays i don't want to buy a cpu that costs more than 150$. And let it be in that pricepoint that AMD still rules even with everybody worshipping the core duo.
People are blind! They follow the biggest player even if they know that AMD has a better offering at a better pricepoint. Watch out when barcolona and derivaties come. It is going to be a good time for the masses.




RE: Price/performance
By SuperSix on 8/20/2007 10:13:46 AM , Rating: 2
Is this ADX6400CZWOF?

I see there may be a 5000 "Black edition" too.


RE: Price/performance
By mindless1 on 8/20/2007 8:13:56 PM , Rating: 2
They're just being too subjective, somehow assuming that if they deem their use and performance needs to require a $150+ CPU, then everyone else MUST aspire to be like them. Since we know the low-end CPUs sell in largest volume I have to agree that consumers are often bind (Or really ignorant) when so many ended up wanting Intel but (for example) were only willing to pay for a Prescott based Celeron.

It's really amazing today how much performance can be had for under $100, but on the other hand it's not such a large % of total system cost to jump up to the $150 mark so it just depends on how cheap someone is as well as their ignorance. If they don't know what their extra $100 will get, they're not going to pay it.


haters
By rbuszka on 8/21/2007 10:43:16 AM , Rating: 3
Why don't you wait for some freaking benchmarks before you de-rate the 6400+? Sure, it's the last gasp of AMD64, and it will probably only be able to compete with some C2D models, but there will be other C2D models that it will outperform. Let's wait to see hard performance benchmarks, and only _then_ determine where the X2 6400+ fits within the current gamut of CPU offerings, hmmm?




RE: haters
By maroon1 on 8/21/2007 1:06:12 PM , Rating: 1
Here is a benchmark for you
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-3115-view-Athlon...

E6750 performed better most of the time

E6750 performed better in all of the gaming benchmarks

E6750 is cheaper and overclocks much better than 6400+ as well


RE: haters
By rbuszka on 8/21/2007 2:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
I mean a real benchmark, not one from a site that offers virtually no interpretation of the data, gives almost no information about the methodology or other hardware involved, and looks like it's run by teenagers.

I have to agree with their conclusion, however -- the processor is too expensive to compete.


RE: haters
By rbuszka on 8/21/2007 2:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
I mean a real benchmark, not one from a site that offers virtually no interpretation of the data, gives almost no information about the methodology or other hardware involved, and looks like it's run by teenagers.

I have to agree with their conclusion, however -- the processor is too expensive to compete.


Once you go black ...
By psychobriggsy on 8/20/2007 8:47:59 AM , Rating: 5
Well it's interesting to see how far AMD managed to take their 90nm process eventually.

That's about it. AMD really need to get their next architecture going soon, it's sad to see their high-end consumer product at under $250 because they haven't got anything to compete above that.




RE: Once you go black ...
By HrilL on 8/20/2007 1:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
heh I remember back in I think 2000 or maybe it was 2001. Anyway whenever the athlon xp 2000+ was the best offering AMD had. I got it for about $260. So really I think the prices now days are completely inflated for the markets top offerings. top models now are $1000+ Just that AMD is only offering an out dated architecture now it is so cheap again.


Black Edition?
By Verran on 8/20/2007 9:30:22 AM , Rating: 1
Why is it the black edition? Is it from Detroit?

I get that it's in a black box, but why? Does that make my Opteron a green edition? Is my Winchester an orange edition?

Lamest. PR. Ever.




RE: Black Edition?
By MasterYoda on 8/20/2007 12:28:19 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone know what the stock voltage is on this?


RE: Black Edition?
By johnsonx on 8/20/2007 1:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why is it the black edition? Is it from Detroit?


Come on, is that the closest anyone's going to get to saying something racially offensive?


6400+ is the worst processor for the price
By maroon1 on 8/20/2007 12:26:51 PM , Rating: 2
Here are some reviews for 6400+
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-3115-view-Athlon...
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/hwdb.php?tid=842214&tp=AM...

E6750 is cheaper, and it beats 6400+ in gaming and in most of the real world applications.

Not to mention that E6750 overclocks much better and consume much less power




By Regs on 8/20/2007 1:17:14 PM , Rating: 3
For some reason I thought the 5 year old technology was going to pull through.

(sarcasm)


Black Pearl
By brownzilla786 on 8/20/2007 11:20:23 AM , Rating: 3
They should have just called it the "Black Pearl" edition and ship it in combination with the Pirates of the Caribbean movie, now that would be cool
:b




RE: Black Pearl
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/21/2007 8:04:50 AM , Rating: 1
Shit son that would have been a "smart" marketing decision, you should go work for AMD, you couldn't do any worse.


Too little, too late
By Proteusza on 8/20/2007 8:25:16 AM , Rating: 3
Seems like a waste to spin a new SKU, when (hopefully) in a few weeks or months, Barcelona will launch.

Also, who is going to be stupid enough to buy one? If its channel only availability, the target audience will know enough to overclock a lower specced X2, or simply buy any Core 2 Duo and overclock it to 3 Ghz, which will result in something that beats the X2 at every single benchmark.

I currently own an AMD CPU, it is my third AMD CPU, and I've never been disappointed, but their business sense of late, release schedules, SKU's, and lack of information concerning Barcelona have me worried.




ridiculous
By Visual on 8/20/2007 11:24:59 AM , Rating: 3
The situation for AMD is really ridiculous if their just launched top of the line special edition cpu is this cheap. Damned buggers... I wish they did something about it. And no I don't mean "raise the price", rather "launch k10 already".

If they could put out some of these chips for socket 939, i know a bunch of people (incl. me) that would buy it.

I wonder how high it can clock - would it be better than the previous models?




Black Boxes at Discount?
By teckytech9 on 8/20/2007 12:55:05 PM , Rating: 3
Thank you AMD for answering with your Black Box product at a much lower price point than your competitor. Yes, it still does compete, but does not surpass performance benchmarks with your competitors offering. Your presence in the market is vital to ongoing competition and future innovation in the marketplace. Without your presence, we would have to succumb to lack of innovation and higher prices, which will result in inferior products from your competitor.




An old new
By Regs on 8/20/2007 8:34:41 AM , Rating: 2
That's all AMD can sadly offer right now. It's like getting the 200th edition of monopoly. Though it would of been ok 2 years ago when the processor wasn't grossly outdated.




Benchmarks
By Setsunayaki on 8/21/2007 7:30:10 AM , Rating: 2
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-3115-view-Athlon...

I did find a review for it. At least we can see some comparisons....Don't know if this is the black edition, but it did have a 6400+ in there.




Update
By crystal clear on 8/20/2007 11:29:04 AM , Rating: 1
AMD has today rolled out a fresh top-of-the-line mainstream desktop dual-core processor and - - bizarrely - extended the same Athlon 64 X2 family into the mobile market.

The new desktop part is the 6400+, clocked at 3.2GHz, fitted with 2MB of L2 cache and priced at $251,

AMD is also offering an Athlon 64 X2 for notebooks. With the model number TK-53, the 1.7GHz chip has 512KB of L2 and a 1600MHz HyperTransport bus. That's the same frequency as the member of AMD's current Turion 64 X2 dual-core mobile processor line-up, all but one of which contain 1MB of L2 and clocked from 1.6GHz to 2.3GHz.

The cheapest Turion costs $154 in batches of 1000 CPUs, while the TK-53 costs $144 in the same quantities.



http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/08/20/amd_3-2ghz...




"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

Related Articles
"Windsor" Breathes Last, Again, Really
August 5, 2007, 4:05 PM
AMD "Windsor's" Last Breath
July 31, 2007, 6:00 PM
AMD Prepares 45-watt "Brisbane"
May 30, 2007, 1:00 AM













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