backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 30 comment(s) - last by Aymincendiary.. on Jul 5 at 11:25 PM
AMD drops the Phenom X2 TDP to 45-watts

AMD plans to cut power consumption of its mainstream Phenom X2 processors with the Phenom X2 GE-series, according to the company’s latest roadmap. The Phenom X2 GE-series joins the Phenom X2 GS-series in late Q1’2008, after the Phenom X2 GS-series makes its debut. AMD has three Phenom X2 GS-series in the pipeline with launches beginning in Q4’2007 and more models added in Q1’2008.

The new Phenom X2 GE-series matches the recently released Athlon X2 BE-series in terms of thermal design power, or TDP, at 45-watts. AMD Phenom X2 GS-series processors have 65-watt and 89-watt TDP ratings.The low power Phenom X2 GE-series will have three models – the GE-6600, GE-6500 and GE-6400.

AMD’s Phenom X2 GE-6600 clocks in at 2.3 GHz, coincidentally, the Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 clocks in at 2.4 GHz. The middle of the Phenom X2 GE-series consists of the 2.1 GHz Phenom X2 GE-6500 while the 1.9 GHz Phenom X2 GE-6400 occupies the bottom of the lineup.

AMD Phenom X2 GE-series
Model
 Core
Frequency 		L2 Cache
L3 Cache
HT3 Bus
GE-66002.3 GHz 2x512KB2MB
~ 3200 MHz
GE-6500 2.1 GHz2x512KB2MB
~ 3200 MHz
GE-6400
1.9 GHz 2x512KB2MB
~ 3200 MHz

All Phenom X2 GE-series processors share the same features. AMD equips the Phenom X2 GE-series with an HT3 bus with speeds equal to or in excess of 3.2 GHz. AMD has yet to set the official speeds of the HT3 bus on Phenom X2 GE-series processors. Phenom X2 GE-series processors are identical to the GS-series, in terms of cache configurations. The Phenom X2 GE-series feature 512KB of L2 cache per core and 2MB shared L3 cache.

Expect the AMD Phenom GE-series to drop into a Socket AM2+ platform in Q1’2008.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Amd is not bad
By OrSin on 7/3/2007 9:19:34 AM , Rating: 2
I have benn using AMd chips for 6 years now and jsut recently gone over abd build 2 C2D PC. I'm not sure it its intel or if it thier chipsets. But AMD chips have been rock soild for years and these last 2 PC have benn give me head aches for months now. I both are Asus, one a P965 and thew other P35. I had both ATI and NV chipsets for amd.
Really if you dont need the top of the line CPU ( and most really do) then AMD is price competative and Motherboards are lot better to me anyway.

Next year AMD just might have my business back. Now if we can get decent ATI/AMD video cards :).




RE: Amd is not bad
By zsdersw on 7/3/2007 10:11:50 AM , Rating: 3
Your experiences with Intel chipsets are not typical.


RE: Amd is not bad
By Samus on 7/4/2007 5:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, his experience with all chipsets isn't typical ;) I'd take a Intel chipset over ATi or nV anyday for stability.


RE: Amd is not bad
By fake01 on 7/3/2007 10:56:07 AM , Rating: 1
Please read over your statement before posting it. And in your case, make sure you do it at least 3 times cause your grammar is shocking.

But for what I did manage to make out, I rather agree with you. I have used an AMD machine for going on 2-3 years now and its been very stable.


RE: Amd is not bad
By KnightProdigy on 7/3/2007 12:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
Ever since Intel axed the PII by locking the multiplier and the core speed, It's been AMD all the way for me. Although Intel has finally made a comeback with their processor designs, it's taken them 10+years to do it. The Cyrix and AMD K6 series began the demise of Intel in the enthusiast market.

I am not saying Intel is bad, I was an Intel fanboy for many years after but I have only seen disappointment until recently. Penryn will finally do a lot of good for them but the architecture is still not up to par with AMD (simple fact that AMD has the more efficient designs while maintaining integrity). I have also been an NV fan since its inception as STB. Needless to say I was disappointed when they acquired ATI, but stream processing is the future and AMD / ATI are far more advanced than Intel and NV.

These new HT3 processors are very nice and benchmarks will probably put them comparable if not faster than Intel. Integrated processors are just around the corner and technologies like HT3 are prep stages to eliminating bottlenecks. A 3.2Ghz HT3 will make it very nice to see OC speeds in upwards of 4Ghz.

I'm also excited to see TRUE quad core in action, this platform with AM2+ and a 3.2Ghz HT3 looks promising compared to the planned releases from Intel.

Time will only tell.


RE: Amd is not bad
By PaxtonFettel on 7/3/2007 12:11:31 PM , Rating: 3
Cyrix! Pffffft.

That is a joke right?


RE: Amd is not bad
By Belard on 7/5/2007 4:40:59 AM , Rating: 2
There was a time when Cyrix made some good CPUs. They made low-end ones (386) and high-performance types (486) - but when Pentium came out, Cyrix never ever made a CPU as fast or reliable since.

I used to SELL tons of Cyrix 486 (Real ones, not the upgraded 386 type) because I believed in the product. They were:
1 - As fast or faster than intel. (80mhz, 100mhz, 120mhz)
2 - They Overclocked very well.
3 - Run very COOL. A i486/66 would burn your finger, you couldn't touch it for a second. A 100mhz Cyrix, was warm to touch - you could hold your finger on it for 30seconds.

4 - They cost a lot less, about half price.
5 - They were as reliable as Intel and I had no compatiblity issues.

I did buy the Cyrix 586/166... it was mostly reliable. It was my last.

Will say one thing... Core2 Duo is a far cooler name than "Phenom"... sounds like the "Phantom Processor" ;)


RE: Amd is not bad
By LogicallyGenius on 7/5/2007 7:20:55 AM , Rating: 2
I think AMD is making the same mistake that cyrix did.

Back then there were pentium pro motherboards that could support two CPUs(i cant remember of 4 CPUs though). So if cyrix had made 2, 8, 32 etc processor motherboards then ...


RE: Amd is not bad
By soydios on 7/3/2007 1:22:11 PM , Rating: 3
Let me set some things straight.
For years, AMD's K8 architecture was beating Intel's Pentium 4 across the board: in raw performance, in power efficiency, in price, and in overclocking. Then, Intel released the Core 2 Duo, and left all of us with our jaws on the floor as Chipzilla beat AMD at their own game, in every possible fashion.

Intel is now dominant in the enthusiast market. The K8 architecture has run out of headroom for overclocking, yet overclocks to 50% above stock are not uncommon for Core 2 Duo. Intel's Conroe family is more efficient in power and performance clock-for-clock than AMD's K8.

Time will only tell what Phenom will bring to the table. Current benchmarks and chip yields are somewhat disappointing, but keep in mind, this is exactly where Athlon 64 was back in the day when it was introduced. I'm going to wait and see what they look like after production ramps up first quarter next year.

The true quad-core versus a pair of dual-core dies is only relevant in a theoretical debate or synthetic benchmarks designed to test core-to-core latency. In real-world benchmarks and usage, the difference is negligible.

AMD's fabs are running at 100% capacity. They aren't going away anytime soon. I really hope that my next system in two years will have an AMD processor in it, for their sake, but I'll buy whatever gets me the best performance/price ratio.


RE: Amd is not bad
By bolders on 7/5/2007 7:26:37 AM , Rating: 2
Good post with a balanced perspective. Dont know why u have been rated down :(


RE: Amd is not bad
By ultimaone on 7/3/2007 12:34:34 PM , Rating: 3
I find its the ASUS boards that is the issue

I went through 3 different kinds, all with little
quirks, mouse not being detected, random reboots,
lost bios configs

Friends of mine getting blue screens, swapped out memory,
hard-drives, cpus....finally swapped out motherboard for a different brand and all the issues went away

I know lots of people who have no issues, but after having gone through 3 asus boards myself and my various friends through another 6. Usually not anything major, just little things that make no sense.


RE: Amd is not bad
By JTKTR on 7/3/2007 12:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, as much as it pains me to say it, ASUS boards look great on paper but they have the tiniest glitches that make them hard to work with. I currently work on an ASUS board and I get a BSoD at least once a day, if not more. I also have to deal with random reboots (that always seem to come at the worst time lol)

I've gone through 2 processors, 3 hard-drives, 2 sets of memory, a video card, and even an optical drive! I've spent about $1000 trying to fix it, more than it cost when I first bought it. I'm running all the current drivers but for some reason I just keep getting a BSoD and sometimes random reboots as well.


RE: Amd is not bad
By dubldwn on 7/3/2007 2:20:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I get a BSoD at least once a day, if not more. I also have to deal with random reboots

quote:
I've gone through 2 processors, 3 hard-drives, 2 sets of memory, a video card, and even an optical drive! I've spent about $1000 trying to fix it

Why don't you just get a new board? You really had those symptoms and you bought a new hard drive, and when you still had the same symptoms, you bought yet another hard drive?


RE: Amd is not bad
By cheetah2k on 7/4/2007 12:01:14 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, doesnt make much sense to spend $1000 on other stuff, when he could have had 4 new mobo's for that price...

Sounds like he was secretly building another system on the side and using the mobo issues as an excuse to get additional funding passed the boss ;-p


RE: Amd is not bad
By JTKTR on 7/5/2007 1:59:27 AM , Rating: 2
Or past my wife ; )


correction
By Screwballl on 7/3/2007 9:44:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD has yet to set the official speeds of the HT3 bus on Phenom X2 GE-series processors.


shouldn't that read CS, not GE... you just listed the GE series HT3 bus




RE: correction
By Screwballl on 7/3/2007 9:47:01 AM , Rating: 2
correction to my own post....

not CS... I meant GS

sorry

shouldn't that read GS, not GE


RE: correction
By Anh Huynh on 7/3/2007 1:09:09 PM , Rating: 2
I messed up on the chart, it was supposed to be a greater than or equal to symbol in front of 3200 MHz, not an =.


RE: correction
By Screwballl on 7/3/2007 2:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
aha ok

so the numbers are stating the HT will run around that speed range but with no official release or report as to the speeds on these GE procs.... the only official word is for the GS line. gotcha!

Bah GE, GS, BS... What is this, Intel?

also I am curious if there will be a lawsuit against AMD using a patented term or abbreviation for another company... General Electric (GE)


RE: correction
By Chaca on 7/3/2007 10:21:03 AM , Rating: 1
I am sad to say that after years of opting for the AMD platform, I've temporarily switched to Intel Core. I don't like the fact that AMD fell for Intel's multi-platform game (939, 940, 754, AM2, AM2+, AM3, 1207, F, etc) and nVidia's chipsets have not been nearly as stable anymore. I hope AMD gets its act together soon.


RE: correction
By Belard on 7/5/2007 4:56:53 AM , Rating: 2
The 939 CPUs only talked to DDR RAM. Remember, the memory controller is ON the chip. AM2 chips have DDR2 memory controller... so it made sense to come up with a new socket to ALSO prevent accidents. AM2 is a good name. Also cool is that AM2+ and AM3 CPUs and sockets ARE cross compatible.

754 = Lower cost version (never should have made it IMHO)
940 = Early/Opteron socket.
939 = Mainstream and had been for years.
1207/F = Same thing. Socket F has 1207 pins... used for multi-CPU setups. You cant put 2 C2D CPUs on the same board. Xeon supports multi-cpu boards.

Intel has done well to keep LGA775 for so long... but typical of Intel, backwards compatiblity doesn't happen often. Not all intel boads support quad-core... or even C2D chips. All 939 chips worked on ALL 939 boards. AM2~AM3 will work.


I'm confused
By MonkeyPaw on 7/3/2007 4:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
The article says:
quote:
The Phenom X2 GE-series feature 1MB of L2 cache per core and 2MB shared L3 cache.


But the table above this comment says the CPUs will have a 2x512kb configuration. All the data I've read suggests each core has 512kb.




RE: I'm confused
By Anh Huynh on 7/3/2007 5:09:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's 2x512KB.


Something Funny
By Durrr on 7/3/2007 11:56:03 AM , Rating: 3
I just recently picked up a cheapo uATX MB w/ AGP on it, an allendale processor E2140 and 2GB of Ram for less than 200 bucks. Stole the vid card out of my old system and whammo, HTPC :). The previous computer was an Athlon XP 2000+ which I built in 2001. The MB was a Gigabyte and it literally had 2 fires before it died. First one due to a bad power supply, and this last one due to the molex connector being damaged in the past fire creating another one (lol). It was a tough little machine, and I miss her. Main reason I went with this Allendale was the overclockablity (for the meantime until I build my new machine at the end of the year) and it runs REALLY cool.

My decision on what I build at the end of the year is really gonna be determined by why kind of value the new AMD chips have vs. tried and true Intel Core2 architecture. Though I loved my AMD system, I'm not a fanboy and live in reality. If something is slower for the same price, I'm not gonna be buying it, sorry.




What a Joke
By 13Gigatons on 7/3/2007 6:04:54 PM , Rating: 3
So many models and series it makes your head spin and yet none are for sale.

I like Intels modeling system better:

21xx series = value

e4xxx series = value/midrange

e6xxx series = midrange/high end

It's simple and effective.

Sigh....these new models seem to be a cluster****.




Intel
By yehuda on 7/3/2007 11:13:56 AM , Rating: 2
I believe Intel could also release a 45W TDP dual-core model if they wanted. When MATBE tested a whole range of Intel and AMD processors on early June, they found that E4000 parts consistently peak at a much lower wattage than E6000 parts:

http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/385/core-se-dec...

It seems to me the gap is wide enough to warrant a 45W rating.

Not that they need that much voltage anyway; I've seen a person run E4300 at 0.875v.

http://www.silenthardware.de/forum/index.php?showt...




Am I the only one...
By exanimas on 7/3/2007 7:35:47 PM , Rating: 2
who is sick of seeing what CPUs AMD is planning for the next 6 years yet I've yet to see a reliable Barcelona benchmark? If I knew how well (or how bad) these CPUs would perform THEN maybe I could get excited to see all the different models / variations they are coming out with. Until then, all of these things are nearly irrelevant.




AMD CPU July Price Drop
By derrettlee on 7/4/2007 9:52:46 AM , Rating: 2
Well it is July and on the 22nd Intel is supposed to drop the prices of their processors. Does anybody have any idea when AMD plans to drop their's???




Phenom..
By Frags on 7/5/2007 5:51:35 AM , Rating: 2
Is Delayed. Suprised?




By Aymincendiary on 7/5/2007 11:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
2.3 GHz? My 5200 has a 2.6 GHz clock; what's the big performance advantage with the Phenom?

I've been an AMD fan since Hurricane Katrina and my P4 Hewlett Packard took a bath. Even though Intel's in the lead today, I only paid $200 for my AM2 processor. A $200 DirectX 10 video card like the Asus 8600 would suit me fine for my next upgrade as I'm not much a gamer.

The actual work of setting up a computer and a network interests me more than raw performance.

Keep me posted on AMD!

Chris




"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









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