backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 34 comment(s) - last by flipmode.. on Jun 6 at 11:16 AM


AMD Athlon II processor die

  (Source: AMD)
Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition and Athlon II X2 250 target the mainstream

Intel and AMD have both been touting their capabilities in the multi-core race. Each semiconductor company has been showing four core, six core, and even eight core CPUs in their bids to impress the buying public. Decreased manufacturing costs due to smaller process geometries means that they can make these multi-core CPUs cheaply, but still charge large markups for these extra cores.

Unfortunately, Windows XP and Windows Vista don't handle all these cores efficiently. Most software is still single-threaded, which means often means that only two or three cores are fully utilized, if that. Multi-threaded games and software that is designed for four or more cores is on its way, but right now dual core processors are the way to go for most users.

This has been reflected in each company's sales strategies and their successes. Although Intel talks a lot about quad-core CPUs, over eighty percent of Intel's sales are dual core or single core CPUs. AMD, on the other hand, has bet heavily on quad-core CPUs with the original Phenom launch and now the Phenom II series of CPUs. Unfortunately for AMD, Intel's Core 2 Duo lineup is still incredibly popular, as consumers are choosing higher-clocked dual core CPUs versus AMD's quad-cores.

AMD has been working hard on their 45nm Silicon-On-Insulator (SOI) transition, and they are now ready to take on Intel in the mainstream dual core marketplace. AMD is launching two new Phenom II X2 dual core processors, as well as a more affordable Athlon II X2 dual core processor.

The AMD Athlon II X2 250 has two cores running at 3GHz with a 65W Thermal Design Power (TDP), a reduction of 30W from the Athlon X2 CPUs built on the 65nm process. It has 2MB of L2 cache, but will not have any L3 cache in order to differentiate it from the Phenom II X2 CPUs. It is manufactured using the AM3 package and designed for DDR3, but will use AM2+ motherboards with DDR2. Memory support includes DDR2 DIMMs up to 800MHz (PC2-6400) and DDR3 DIMMS up to 1066MHz (PC3-8500). AMD did this specifically to reduce the upgrade costs for its customers who don't want to change their platform completely. All that is needed is a BIOS upgrade from the motherboard manufacturer.

The Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition runs at 3.1GHz, but the multiplier is unlocked. Each core will have 512KB of L2 cache, but will have access to a large 6MB L3 cache. It will have an 80W TDP and use the AM3 socket. A Phenom II X2 545 clocked at 3GHz is supposed to come later with a 65W TDP. Both will support DDR2 DIMMs up to 1066MHz (PC2-8500) and DDR3 DIMMS up to 1333MHz (PC3-10600).

Key to AMD's success will be pricing and positioning. Instead of going for Intel's high end dual core processors such as the top selling Core 2 Duo E8400, AMD is positioning the Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition at $102 against the Intel Core 2 Duo E7400. Likewise, the Athlon II X2 250 will be priced at $87, against the Core 2 Duo E5400 at $113.

Higher end models such as the Phenom II X3 720 at $125 and the Phenom II X4 810 at $175 will continue to compete against Intel's high-end dual core CPUS such as the Core 2 Duo E8400, which sells for $163.

All prices listed are either MSRP or OEM pricing. Street prices at retail stores and at online e-tailers are likely to be lower.



Comments     Threshold


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

Upgrade Path?
By InternetGeek on 6/1/2009 10:53:37 PM , Rating: 2
A few years back the rule of thumb on when to upgrade was when a CPU capable of deliver 2x the GHz of your current one became available. Before then I think you could go for a 2-4 upgrade cycle depending on your needs.

Could it be possible to establish a new 'rule' on when to upgrade based on the number of cores? The one I've been thinking about is to upgrade when a new CPU with a number of cores on a following power of two, capable of delivering 2x the performance of your current one, is available.

So for example, before I was running on a single core (2^0). Today, I'm on a dual core (2^1), Quad cores (2^2) are available but based on the article they are just 25% of the market and, on the same way but from different sources, are not 2x the performance of my current dual core. The next time I would consider upgrading would be for an octo-core CPU (2^3) that hopefully would deliver 2x the performance of my current one and so on.

I think this would work assuming other harware (RAM, SSDs, GPU) keep up. Right now, DDR3 is not a good idea because it's running at 1066MHz.

Is this reasonable?




RE: Upgrade Path?
By StevoLincolnite on 6/1/2009 11:35:48 PM , Rating: 5
You get diminishing returns with the more cores you add to a die, you will never get 100% scaling just by chucking more cores onto a chip, however adding more cores, plus architectural changes could potentially be potent.

Personally, I don't look at how many cores or the clock speeds, I look at Price/Performance, for instance recently I upgraded an Athlon XP 3000+, 512mb of ram and a Geforce 4 MX440 to an Athlon 7750 X2, 4048mb of ram, and the on-board Radeon 3200 for under $400 Australian, I've more than tripled my performance, and the motherboard is AM3 Processor compatible so I should be able to drop in a quad core if the need ever arises.


RE: Upgrade Path?
By SunAngel on 6/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Upgrade Path?
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/2/2009 9:11:46 AM , Rating: 3
You sold a Q6600 to downgrade to a Celeron? UGH!


RE: Upgrade Path?
By tastyratz on 6/2/2009 1:43:24 PM , Rating: 2
"I got rid of that dirty old nickle for this shiny new penny"

When your talking about selling off something used like that and downgrading you probably lost your shirt for a few measely bucks. That was not a wise decision because you are going to need to upgrade your whole system sooner. a Celeron 420 and 945 board? your several generations behind now.

But its not too late to upgrade. May I suggest an economic choice of a q6600 with a 965 based board?


RE: Upgrade Path?
By icanhascpu on 6/2/2009 3:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
lol


RE: Upgrade Path?
By rs1 on 6/2/2009 12:04:45 AM , Rating: 3
My general rule of thumb is to upgrade once every process node. For instance, a few years ago I had a 130nm Athlon64. That got replaced by a 90nm Athlon64 X2, and that was followed by a 65nm Core 2 Duo, which was ultimately replaced by my current 45nm Core 2 Quad. In another year or so I'll probably swap that out for a 32 nm Nehalem-based CPU (Westmere).

I suppose you could count cores, or clock speeds, or some combination of the two, but I've found that upgrading on the process switches has worked well. Typically each successive node brings with it better overclockability/higher clock speeds, and either more cores, more cache, or both. I've never been left feeling like my upgrade failed to accomplish anything. Each step along the way has felt significantly faster than the one that preceded it. And if the reviews are to believed, the switch from my Core 2 Quad to the 32nm Nehalem chip will be no different.


RE: Upgrade Path?
By sxr7171 on 6/2/2009 11:01:34 AM , Rating: 2
Has worked for me. In laptops it means a moderately faster machine, but lighter and better battery life with each step.


RE: Upgrade Path?
By Alpha4 on 6/2/2009 11:51:27 AM , Rating: 2
I've not noticed until now, but my upgrade cycle follows the same pattern. It appears that most 'tock' (or is it 'tick'?) iterations of the CPU update cycle carry bigger benefits than architecture changes, although we might be forgetting that the Intel Presler (9xx series Pentium D) was the first CPU built on the 65nm process node.


RE: Upgrade Path?
By eddieroolz on 6/2/2009 4:19:25 PM , Rating: 3
Makes sense to me, but for me it's more like every 3+ nodes.

My first machine was a Pentium 4 130nm. Then I went to a 65nm Core Duo laptop. Now I've moved to a 45nm Core 2 Duo and a 65nm Core 2 Duo laptop. I'll probably wait out for 22nm to upgrade in a few years.

It sucks being a budget-constrained university student :(


RE: Upgrade Path?
By Flunk on 6/2/2009 12:34:03 AM , Rating: 5
How about you just upgrade your hardware when it can no longer run the new software you want to run. It's a lot cheaper than some arbitrary rule.


RE: Upgrade Path?
By dflynchimp on 6/2/2009 1:26:26 AM , Rating: 2
That's the pragmatic way of looking at things, but the truth is most people aren't that pragmatic. It's how hobbies work; you throw exorbitant ammounts of money into an area of interest with little to no real world return. That goes for cars, sports, tech, among others. It's not that it's completely useless, but if we were all to make the most pragmatic choices in life it'd be quite boring, neh?


RE: Upgrade Path?
By thartist on 6/2/2009 2:35:06 AM , Rating: 2
it pays up to the heart, bud


RE: Upgrade Path?
By astrodemoniac on 6/2/2009 4:36:17 AM , Rating: 5
Well apparently these guys unlock their additional 2 cores super easily with AMD's overdrive. If that is the case, these new proccies are a monumental bang for buck=)

Read about it here:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1184444/p...

Hope the DT crew don't mind me linking...


RE: Upgrade Path?
By icanhascpu on 6/2/2009 2:58:59 PM , Rating: 1
Im not sure why this got a 5. This is what you call pseudo wisdom. Sounds like real wisdom, but isnt. For the majority of people, upgrade do not come when something stops running, it comes when your personal threshold in patience in combination with the health of your wallet align with Venus.

Or you can just have a general rule and upgrade every couple years. There, much better. The real world works in mysterious ways!

I for one am still running a AMD 3200+. I can play Crysis, I can boot Windows 7 64. Simply working isnt always enough.


RE: Upgrade Path?
By MrDiSante on 6/2/2009 12:55:47 AM , Rating: 2
I tend to upgrade once every major architecture. So for me it was 386, Pentium, Pentium III, Athlon 64, Core 2 and I'll probably get a Nehalem at some point in the future. My e6600 is slowly starting to show its age (although I think that it's still got a year or two left).


RE: Upgrade Path?
By thartist on 6/2/2009 2:32:00 AM , Rating: 1
No, it's not reasonable. It's just mathematical.

As an approach to a rule of thumb, jumping to at least mid-end hardware that is 2 or 3 generations newer than your current, is pretty much completely sure to be a smart move. You should wait 3 gens, unless it is really urgent for you to get more power or there is some very fast and affordable hardware out there.

But in the end don't just make up your mind on blind speculation. It will always be good to check some benchmarks and do some research.

And remember, seriously; NEVER, EVER buy a new technology at the time of release. You don't wanna be the naive guy who payed a lot to find that the technology is not still %100 mature. You will have much cheaper, much better and safer products in a few months ahead.

;)


RE: Upgrade Path?
By sxr7171 on 6/2/2009 10:58:50 AM , Rating: 2
One would think but then we hit that P4 clock speed wall. So then started doing the multicore thing. The truth is that our software is nowhere near where it needs to be to take full advantage of this new multicore paradigm. So really we depend more on architectural improvements like on die memory, QPI, new instruction sets etc. more than number of cores or clock speed.

If and when we see truly multithreaded software then maybe we'll see the cores ramping up in geometric progression and it will be worth it. But then again I wonder exactly how multithreaded programs can actually be.

For servers virtualization will be the thing let's us use those cores. For home users the only thing CPU intensive we do is play games or encode/transcode video. Those need to be written to take advantage of 4/8/16 cores but even then maybe the GPU would be better for that. In the end I think CPU and GPU will merge.


AMD Nudges Bar for it's new CPU
By MatthiasF on 6/2/2009 1:17:57 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone else notice on the productivity bars, the right two are both 112% but AMD's is a tiny bit taller?




By themaster08 on 6/2/2009 4:53:08 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah I noticed that too.

Have you also noticed in the smallprint the Intel uses DDR2 1066 RAM whilst the AMD uses DDR3 1600 RAM?


By mvpx02 on 6/2/2009 3:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously I don't speak for AMD, but depending on rounding, the taller bar could represent nearly 1 entire percentage point of better performance.

If the E5400 performed at 101.51% and the X2 250 performed at 102.49%, when rounding numerically to whole percentage points, both are recorded as 102%, but if the graph is created with greater accuracy, the one bar would be taller than the other.

Or AMD could have just made their bar bigger :)


550 BE Overclocking
By Goty on 6/1/2009 10:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'd love to see how the 550 BE overclocks. AMD's (or should I say Global Foundry's?) 45nm process seems to have come along quite nicely since its introduction, so these could be some very nice value chips even if they relatively high stock clock limits their potential somewhat.




RE: 550 BE Overclocking
By icanhascpu on 6/2/2009 10:30:10 AM , Rating: 2
3.8-4Ghz.


please dont be so specific.
By vignyan on 6/2/2009 12:54:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Each core will have 512KB of L2 cache, but will have access to a large L3 cache."


oh.. i was being sarcastic in the subject! :D




By Jansen (blog) on 6/2/2009 8:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, it should've read:

"Each core will have 512KB of L2 cache, but will have access to a large 6MB L3 cache."


Core 2 Duo ???
By DjiSaSie on 6/3/2009 1:49:59 AM , Rating: 2
This is an misleading article, since when E5300 and E5400 are categorizes as core 2 duo ?
Obviously, it's core duo and Intel even not categorized them as core duo but in an "old" pentium brand name.

Pentium
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentium_du...

Core 2 Duo
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/core2duo/s...




The Author is ignorant
By flipmode on 6/6/2009 11:16:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unfortunately, Windows XP and Windows Vista don't handle all these cores efficiently. Most software is still single-threaded, which means often means that only two or three cores are fully utilized, if that.


Seriously, who let you write for a tech site? XP and Vista are fairly terrific with multiple cores, for your information. And for you information, software that is single-threaded most certainly does not mean "that only two or three cores are fully utilized, it means that only one core is fully utilized, at least by that particular program.

It is slightly annoying to see that level of ignorance on a tech site - if this were a CNN article then it would still be annoying.




Anandtech article up
By icanhascpu on 6/2/2009 10:23:51 AM , Rating: 1
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=35...

Nice to see AMD still in the game even if they are only really hanging onto the lowend in this sector right now competitively. Right now it looks like Intel may want to think about pushing the bar of their lowend up slightly to keep too many people from moving over to AMD on their sub 100$ CPUs.




Really?
By zorblack on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Really?
By drevl182 on 6/2/2009 1:56:41 AM , Rating: 1
If you were going that route, the E5400 route, you could just get an E6300 for $8 cheaper than the E5400 @ $81.99.


RE: Really?
By psychobriggsy on 6/2/2009 9:53:09 AM , Rating: 2
Depends on how much it costs AMD to make - the 45nm die size should be quite small (under 100mm^2 I'd hope - anyone know) for that Athlon II.

I wonder how much power this X2 would use at sub 2GHz speeds, for low power systems...


RE: Really?
By psychobriggsy on 6/2/2009 11:16:42 AM , Rating: 2
117.5mm^2 apparently, due to the 2MB L2 in part.


RE: Really?
By icanhascpu on 6/2/2009 3:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
The threshold for low power is wither or not is can play 1080p. And this is not the same area of interest. If you really put more importance on watt to prefornace rations look at the ION and smiler.


RE: Really?
By psychobriggsy on 6/2/2009 6:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
Or any of the AMD chipsets, which run quite cool and incorporate the same video decode acceleration. I think Ion has slightly faster graphics capabilities however, at least until AMD twizzle their chipsets later this year. There's a lot of interest in that 10-20W "CULV" space.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki