backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by fsardis.. on Jul 7 at 6:56 PM


CPU-Z shot of the Athlon 64 X2 3600+ engineering sample
AMD: Ditching more cache for less, since 2006

DailyTech has managed to get a hold of an AMD engineering chip labeled "Athlon 64 X2 3600+ for AM2."  According to CPU-Z, the processor is a 2.0GHz CPU, the same as the Athlon 64 Windsor 3800+.  However, half of the L2 cache has been disabled effectively making this AMD's first dual-core processor with a total of 512KB of L2 cache.

AMD recently discontinued all of its 2x1MB L2 cache processors less than two weeks after the processors were announced.  This may be an indicator that low-bin Athlon 64 X2 processors will instead transition to 2x256KB cache configurations, instead of the 2x512KB parts that were previously the low-bin.  However, since the CPU is only an engineering sample, it’s not easy to determine if AMD will even publically announce the CPU, or if it will simply become an OEM-only component for high quantity system builders like the original Socket 939 Semprons.

CPU-Z shows the Athlon 64 X2 3600+ to still sport the Windsor CPU core, the same CPU core that was used for the 2x1MB and is still used for the 2x512KB AM2 processors.

HKEPC has also come across the 3600+, claiming it will ship in Q4'06 for a price of $139 to $159.  Given that AMD is expected to announce major CPU price cuts near the end of July, the $139 price tag fits in with the rest of AMD's pricing.   Intel's lowest-bin Conroe, the 1.86GHz Core 2 Duo processor, is expected to ship with a price of around $183.  In contrast, the 3.0GHz Presler NetBurst processor is expected to hover around $133 at the same time HKEPC claims the X2 3600+ may ship.



Comments     Threshold


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

2x1kb?
By collegeguypat on 6/29/2006 2:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
"the 2x1KB and is still used" shouldn't it be 2x1MB? j/w




RE: 2x1kb?
By bobdelt on 6/29/2006 8:46:29 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sure they are doing this for heat reasons. Less cache=less heat. That way they can still say their chips produce less heat than intels.


RE: 2x1kb?
By Scrogneugneu on 6/29/2006 9:05:56 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, right...

I have another idea : how about "cache takes a lot of room", and cutting it in half cuts the cache production costs by half, as well as reduce the size of the final chip, therefore increasing chips per wafer ratio as well as yields, which ultimately leads to lower production costs overall, enabling them to enter a price war with Intel without suffering too much?


RE: 2x1kb?
By bobdelt on 6/30/2006 7:01:25 AM , Rating: 2
Well I didnt say it was the only reason. But AMD did just come out and say that there chips will always have a lower TDP, including the quad cores. When AMD has 4 cores and 1mb of cache and Intel has 4 cores and 4-8mb of cache, of course AMD's chips will produce less and heat and will be cheaper.


RE: 2x1kb?
By GoatMonkey on 6/30/2006 10:33:14 AM , Rating: 2
The cache is not removed, just disabled. So it means they're just padding their corporate bank account on the other chips.


RE: 2x1kb?
By JackPack on 6/30/2006 1:25:34 AM , Rating: 2
LOL. If that were the case, then there wouldn't be any 1 MB Turions.


RE: 2x1kb?
By miahallen on 6/30/2006 6:58:54 AM , Rating: 4
Nobody seems to have noticed that in the screenie, this chip is running on only 1.1V...the X2 3800+ runs on 1.3/1.35v, this is awsome, and will allow this chip the headroom it needs for substainial OCing.

If the performance hit for 1/2 cache is as insignificant as the 2x512KB vs 2x1MB contest, I'd say this chip (at that price) would be a VERY hot seller! Go for it AMD!!!


RE: 2x1kb?
By plewis00 on 6/30/2006 7:52:17 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't take that for given. The Conroe ES chips which came out were showing 2.7V+ on some CPU-Z screenshots. You are right, it may well run at 1.1V which would make it very low power as the voltage increases, the wattage increases by powers of the voltage (I think if I remember right). It might just be a discrepancy of it not being a chip which is currently available. We will see...


RE: 2x1kb?
By nikbaj on 7/3/2006 11:13:23 AM , Rating: 2
Eh, the reason that Intel Chips run faster on certain applications with large matrix sizes involved is because of larger cache--for example in MATLAB I have a program that runs about 50% faster on a 2.8 GHz P4 HT than on my A64 X2 3800+ @ 2.5 GHz, despite A64's greater efficiency per clock. The P4 is Prescott core with 2 MB cache, and that's what makes the difference.


RE: 2x1kb?
By fsardis on 7/7/2006 6:56:24 PM , Rating: 1
sorry but you are wrong. if anything, more cache will decrease the total power requirements of the system and thus reduce the heat and power consumption. accessing ram takes more energy than accessing cache.


Athlon? No, Sempron
By sabrewulf on 6/29/2006 2:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
Based on past parts, naming, and marketing by AMD, I don't see how they could call this an Athlon if it makes it into retail. a single core K8 with 256k is and always has been a Sempron, why whould putting two of them together suddenly make it an Athlon?

Seems to me that AMD would be watering down their own model names if they did something like this.




RE: Athlon? No, Sempron
By cnimativ on 6/29/2006 2:39:21 PM , Rating: 1
It uses the same core as the rest of the AM2 Athlon X2s, so of course its an Athlon.

Sempron has different cores (Orleans)


RE: Athlon? No, Sempron
By plewis00 on 6/29/2006 2:47:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, well a Pentium M Dothan core (2Mb cache) with half its cache disabled is still a Dothan core but with 1Mb cache and goes with the Celeron M name instead. So no, it doesn't have to be an Athlon does it? Cores don't determine the processor name, the company who manufactures them does.


RE: Athlon? No, Sempron
By visaris on 6/29/2006 3:39:48 PM , Rating: 2
The sempron name implies low end tech. As this is a dual-core part, it really isn't at the low end of the product line, and I think the Athlon name is appropriate.


RE: Athlon? No, Sempron
By Scrogneugneu on 6/29/2006 9:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
You do know that Celeron were created basically to sell all those chips on which the cache had problems and couldn't be sold as fully functionnal Pentium, right?

Therefore, a Celeron was at the beginning a Pentium, without any (or with significantly smaller) cache. I don't know if over time Intel developped an architecture specifically for the Celeron but i doubt it.


RE: Athlon? No, Sempron
By coldpower27 on 6/29/2006 10:26:13 PM , Rating: 2

Well Intel is rich enough that they can just disabled cahce on Banias, Dothan, all iterations of Pentium 4 besides Prescott-2M, to just make the Celeron versions of it.

AMD did this as well with the Palermo core Sempron core, it's still a disabled Venice.


RE: Athlon? No, Sempron
By Viditor on 6/30/2006 1:54:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well Intel is rich enough that they can just disabled cahce on Banias, Dothan, all iterations of Pentium 4 besides Prescott-2M, to just make the Celeron versions of it

Actually, it makes a better profit by allowing them to use chips with cache errors from manufacturing and thus improving their yields...otherwise they would have had to throw the dice away.


RE: Athlon? No, Sempron
By coldpower27 on 7/2/2006 12:31:10 AM , Rating: 2

I guess I should have clarified, I mean that Intel has enough capacity that they can supply that channel solely on using disabled cores without the need to create a physical smaller die without the cache on it in the first place.


RE: Athlon? No, Sempron
By plewis00 on 6/30/2006 9:13:41 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I am well aware of that, possibly and also to provide another breed of chip without producing another core. So some will be chips with parts of the cache bad and others will be chips which are binned to provide the demand for Celeron. I assure you Intel wouldn't be doing that if they were losing money, once the initial R&D has been invested the actual silicon production is cheap (relatively speaking) for them.

But, if you had read previous posts rather than just blurting out, you would have seen that I was simply proving a point responding that because the core was originally an Athlon, Sempron, Pentium or whatever, doesn't mean any future derivatives of it must be one.

And no, Intel never developed a Celeron Pentium M architecture, the chips were always Pentium Ms with half the cache switched off and Speedstep disabled.


RE: Athlon? No, Sempron
By Ypub on 7/1/2006 8:10:37 AM , Rating: 2
I am agree with you. Like all others processors sempron and celeron have evolution with time... This is a sempron.
We know the performance of the conroe. This performance are displayed all over the web and even, if tomshardware respect the nda, some other great sites break it cause conroe ES are available on all the web and all the things are going to be said before...
For exemple, those sites publish results of tests that are not the intel one :
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/623-1/dossier-inte...
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/306/merom-et-co...

and the E6300 (183$) is always better than x2 4000+, generally over 4400+, and a lot of time over 4800+

So How could this 3600+ (139$) something else than a New sempron? This just a commercial name for some afficiendos


By m666guy on 6/29/2006 3:53:05 PM , Rating: 2
First they cut the 1mb parts almost completely and now they are beginning to introduce lower-end parts. While i think that it is good they are finally targeting a more mainstream audience with their dual cores. It makes me wonder though. How is it Intel is able to pretty much give away their processors? are they not making any money on the low-end pds?




By saratoga on 6/29/2006 3:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
Intel has a lot more capacity so they can afford to have low prices on reasonably large parts (though Conroe's die size is actually quite small, its not an expensive part to make).


By fxyefx on 6/29/2006 4:12:26 PM , Rating: 2
AMD is doing much better than Intel financially, at the moment. Conroe will be extremely competitive, but will only be able to ramp up to about 20% of total marketshare by the end of the year... In other words, Intel is going to have an outrageously difficult time getting rid of their netburst stock, and so they have resorted to almost giving netburst chips away, making a huge loss.


By bobdelt on 6/29/2006 7:02:03 PM , Rating: 1
What? AMD has no cash on hand and their profit margin is horrid. Intel might not be doing as well as they were, and AMD is doing than ever, but in no way is AMD doing better than Intel financially. AMD's return on Assets is tiny compared to Intels. Intel smokes AMD financially.


By Phynaz on 6/29/2006 4:38:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
How is it Intel is able to pretty much give away their processors?


There's word comming from the financial markets that AMD is having major yield problems at 65nm. Coupled with Intel lowering prices, AMD has to resort this. This gives them a chip they can sell somewhere near the price of Intel, and still have enough yield that they will not take too huge of a hit financially.

In contrast, Intel's 65nm process is fully mature with excelent yeilds. Intel can make a profit selling a $90 cpu.


By MDme on 6/29/2006 5:14:50 PM , Rating: 3
"There's word comming from the financial markets that AMD is having major yield problems at 65nm. Coupled with Intel lowering prices, AMD has to resort this. This gives them a chip they can sell somewhere near the price of Intel, and still have enough yield that they will not take too huge of a hit financially.

In contrast, Intel's 65nm process is fully mature with excelent yeilds. Intel can make a profit selling a $90 cpu. "

Where did you hear that?
AMD has only begun sampling their 65nm CPUs. If anything, their data for their Socket F quad core opterons would make you think that the process is coming along nicely with a superb power envelop (QC=DC in TDP). I'm not sure how you could say yield being an issue, if they haven't even ramped up yet.

AMD is still converting Fab 36 to 65nm. and look at the CPU-ID screen, it's a 90nm part. a 65nm part is a different core.

I don't know if intel's 65nm process is fully mature, but I do know it's been around a while.


Fud
By Tom Tom on 6/29/2006 11:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah , you know those financial guys really know all about 65nm APM ramp. Fud


By AndreasM on 6/29/2006 5:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's word comming from the financial markets that AMD is having major yield problems at 65nm. Coupled with Intel lowering prices, AMD has to resort this. This gives them a chip they can sell somewhere near the price of Intel, and still have enough yield that they will not take too huge of a hit financially.

In contrast, Intel's 65nm process is fully mature with excelent yeilds. Intel can make a profit selling a $90 cpu.


AMD's 65nm yield has no effect on their current processors, because they're all 90nm. But you did answer the original question in a way: the reason Intel can sell their processors cheaper is because they use 65nm, and AMD doesn't (yet).


By IamKindaHungry on 6/30/2006 12:25:24 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
There's word comming from the financial markets that AMD is having major yield problems at 65nm. Coupled with Intel lowering prices, AMD has to resort this. This gives them a chip they can sell somewhere near the price of Intel, and still have enough yield that they will not take too huge of a hit financially.


Ahh...the uninformed rear their ugly head once again.

However I guess AMD's yield problems at 65nm explain why all current K8's are 90nm


Why do I get the feeling...
By DigitalFreak on 6/29/2006 2:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
that even the lowly 1.86Ghz Conroe is gonna kick the shit outta this thing?




RE: Why do I get the feeling...
By saratoga on 6/29/2006 3:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
Probably because you're uninformed.

It'll probably be slightly faster but also 40% more expensive. I wouldn't call maginally faster and substantially more expensive kicking the shit.

More like slightly faster.


RE: Why do I get the feeling...
By cnimativ on 6/29/06, Rating: 0
By Scrogneugneu on 6/29/2006 9:10:37 PM , Rating: 5
Arguing over which unavailable processor is the best choice is useless.


RE: Why do I get the feeling...
By saratoga on 7/1/2006 7:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
The Tech Report numbers show a 16% IPC advantage for Conroe verses a 1MB cach A64. This chip would have 7.5% clock speed advantage, meaning that the difference would be around 8.5% + the difference from having 256KB of L2 - DDR2 improvement for small cache processors.

Anandtech's tests showed a ~10% difference between 256KB and 1MB cache. xtreview's AM2 sempron review showed a 15% improvement from DDR2 + dual channel for the 256KB processors, mostly because the small cache makes bandwidth a lot more important then on 1MB processors. Of course, not all of this gain is relevent since the A64 already had dual channel mode.

So depending on how you divide up the 15% improvement, 1.86GHz Conroe 4MB would be between 3.5% faster (DDR2 makes a difference) and 18.5% faster (no difference at all for faster memory on chips with small caches).

Clearly the 18% figure is unrealistic since the AM2 sempron results show huge gains for more bandwidth. My estimate is probably that Core2 4MB would be roughly 10% faster, which is hardly substantial.


RE: Why do I get the feeling...
By saratoga on 7/1/2006 7:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
Oh wow just realized the E6300 has only 2MB of L2, so the numbers I gave were ~ 10% too high. That puts them essentially dead tied by my math. So much for substantially faster.


By coldpower27 on 7/2/2006 12:19:22 AM , Rating: 2

You are aware that current performance numbers place the E6300 with it's only "2MB LV2 cache" at the Athlon 64x2 4200+ or higher level. It varies depending on the bench.

So we already know at stock that the E6300 will beat out the Atlhon 64x2 3600+ no math require. There will be some perofrmance degradation between the 2x256KB and 2x512KB 3800+.



kind of sad, really
By hoppa on 6/29/2006 4:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
It's kind of sad, really, what's happened these past 1.5 years with AMD. AMD struggled for years with an only slightly sub-par product that thankfully offered much lower prices than its Intel counterparts. It was the great prices that drew fans in that were willing to sacrifice 10% performance for 50% price. As AMD got better and better, prices stuck much lower than Intels, up to a few years ago, when they finally surpassed Intel in performance. Then, next thing you know, they come out with their newest, best product, and suddenly their prices are through the roof! I've been waiting nearly two years now for the prices to come down on the stupid X2 3800+ and AMD finally gives in when Intel puts out something better.

So, great! AMD is back to what they used to be! But after what! AMD has shown that they are no different than any other corp out there and that as soon as they have a chance, they will screw customers in the ass just because they can. These price drops if anything are making me consider Intel again.




RE: kind of sad, really
By Phynaz on 6/29/2006 4:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
as soon as they have a chance, they will screw customers in the ass just because they can


As a for-profit business their job is to generate maximum profit for the owners of the company.


RE: kind of sad, really
By bobdelt on 6/29/2006 7:04:35 PM , Rating: 3
No matter who is selling it, you get what you pay for.

Just like youre going to work for the most amount of money, AMD wants money too!

I don't see why people almost expect AMD to keep their chip prices low when they cant barely produce enough as it is.


RE: kind of sad, really
By hoppa on 6/30/2006 2:59:43 AM , Rating: 2
Did you at all read the parent? I think this episode is demonstrating how AMD can easily keep their price low, they are just ready to set ludicrous prices as soon as they get the chance.

It's an interesting business model, but for a company that was made succesful from faithful fans who knew how to get the best bang for their buck, it is rather dissappointing.


RE: kind of sad, really
By coldpower27 on 7/2/2006 12:25:45 AM , Rating: 2

I think they read it, and it is unfortunate.

But you would have been very naive to think AMD has your best interests at heart, their duty is to their stockholders and their directive is to become profitable. AMD does not care about it's fans, it only cares so long as they buy their product.

Both corporations CAN keep their prices low, they want to MAXIMIZE profits so they are going to charge as much as they cna get away with.

AMD is no better then Intel in this regard, from my perspective you would be very foolish to beleive they might have been otherwise.


RE: kind of sad, really
By RandomFool on 7/5/2006 2:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
It's almost like it costs more to produce better processors and AMD is trying to make money off of them or something. Weird!


Good or Bad??
By othercents on 6/29/2006 5:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
Based on the reviews I saw the 1MB L2 didn't have any better performance over the 512K L2 when using the DDR2 AM2 processors. This might still be the case with the 256K L2.

AMD probably has other things up there sleeves. Especially since the processor is going to have less transistors they might come out with a higher end component.

Other




RE: Good or Bad??
By Duraz0rz on 6/29/2006 5:41:03 PM , Rating: 4
I doubt the lesser L2 cache will impact performance significantly. The memory controller makes up for that, I believe.

That would explain the very small performance difference between 2x1MB and 2x512KB parts.


RE: Good or Bad??
By killerroach on 6/29/2006 7:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
And if they don't come out with a higher-end equivalent, I'm sure those of us in the enthusiast community will create it for them, hehe. *hugs his Athlon 64 3000+ running at 2.65 GHz*


RE: Good or Bad??
By m666guy on 6/29/2006 8:17:23 PM , Rating: 2
bah my 3000 is "only" running at 2.6


RE: Good or Bad??
By johnsonx on 6/29/2006 9:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the 1MB L2 didn't have any better performance over the 512K L2 when using the DDR2 AM2 processors.


That's not quite true. I recall at the AM2 launch there was some commenting that the 2.6Ghz/512k cache 5000+ didn't always beat the 2.4Ghz/1Mb cache 4800+ (both AM2, I'm not talking cross-platform).

Now that the 4800 is gone, that's not a problem. If the X2 3600+ is released, it will fit nicely in the lineup. A new problem could occur though if AMD tries to slot higher-clocked 256k cache chips in the slots previously occupied by the 1Mb cache X2's; for example, instead of a 2.2Ghz 1Mb cache 4400+, make it a 2.4Ghz 256k cache chip. Depending on application, such a 4400+ model CPU could be matched or beaten by 4200+.



It is an Athlon...
By Welldone on 6/29/2006 3:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
Athlon processors have 1000 Mhz HTT, instead of Sempron 's 800 Mhz.




RE: It is an Athlon...
By Myrandex on 6/29/2006 3:58:20 PM , Rating: 2
Are you sure s939 Semprons (I heard OEMs had them) are 800HTT? What about AM2 Semprons?


RE: It is an Athlon...
By Welldone on 6/29/2006 4:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno about 939 Semprons, I've never head of them... But the AM2 Semprons have 800 Mhz HTT .. 1600Mhz ( 800Mhz In/Out)

Best Sempron processor:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtool...


RE: It is an Athlon...
By johnsonx on 6/29/2006 6:48:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Best Sempron processor:


You mean biggest waste of money Sempron processor. Only the 2800 and 3000 are worth buying; the rest cost the same or more than equal clocked Athlons, which also have more cache and faster HTT.


RE: It is an Athlon...
By deeznuts on 6/30/2006 1:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
S939 semprons have 1000MHz HTT. I've bought a couple. Don't miss the cache but they oc like crazy.


Nice, I like
By snedzad on 6/29/2006 2:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
Really good idea, instead Sempron, now we have an Athlon. I bet overclockers should love it. And one thing, does this CPU support Pacifica and Presidio tech?

Pozdrav, Nedzad




RE: Nice, I like
By visaris on 6/29/2006 3:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, this chip will support Pacifica. I don't know about Presidio though.


RE: Nice, I like
By Furen on 6/29/2006 3:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I'm assuming it also has Pacifica and Presidio enabled, which Semprons don't have.


X2 3600+ would be nice for $139, if true
By Avalon on 6/29/2006 10:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't a problem for me. Going from an A64 to an Opteron at the same frequency didn't give me much of anything. Every program I benched resulted in less than a 5% performance gain, with the exception of Doom 3 gaining 8% framerate at 1024x768 on a GF6600.

I'll be more than happy to take a much cheaper processor that still performs as well as the big boys.

Also, those of you saying how a $139 X2 3600+ can't compete with Intel's budget Conroe chip (1.86ghz E6300 for $189), I wouldn't be so sure. The E6300 has half the cache of its more often benched brethren, and it will be 130mhz slower, so its performance advantage shouldn't be much more than 10-15% of the X2 3600+ at best. And, at a $50 price premium, I don't think it's worth it.

Plus, when we take overclocking into account, the X2 3600+ will actually have the advantage, since a good number of AM2 X2 chips seem to have no problem hitting 2.8+, while the E6300 will be limited by its 7 multiplier (think 350 FSB just to reach 2450mhz). It would make more sense to step up to an E6600 which will have substantially more overclocking headroom + more cache, to wait for the 800FSB E4200, or get a $139 X2 3600+.




By aznskickass on 6/30/2006 4:37:24 AM , Rating: 2
Regarding overclocking E6300, it works both ways. While the lower multiplier does limit overclockability to a degree, it also enables you to have a higher FSB/memory bandwith for a given clockspeed.

I've seen a few E6300s hit over 3GHz on air over at xtremesystems.org forums, after which FSB limitation is often an issue. It seems 975X mobos start crapping out between 400 - 450MHz... luck of the draw I guess. :/


By dilz on 7/2/2006 11:06:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Going from an A64 to an Opteron at the same frequency didn't give me much of anything.


Which begs the question: why did you make that upgrade?


Show us what it can/can't do
By Donegrim on 6/30/2006 8:44:48 AM , Rating: 4
"DailyTech has managed to get a hold of an AMD engineering chip labeled "Athlon 64 X2 3600+ for AM2.""

So you peoples have a chip... some benchmarks and overclocking would be in order I think :)




RE: Show us what it can/can't do
By plimogs on 6/30/2006 11:18:21 AM , Rating: 2

^^

what he said.


small caches...
By ElJefe69 on 6/30/2006 12:53:26 AM , Rating: 1
heres a comment:
small caches suck.

I have yet to see a sempron do anything that great except for massively overclocking it to the point where you should have just bought a faster a64 opteron.




RE: small caches...
By Avalon on 6/30/2006 1:14:59 AM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing you never used a 939 Sempron before, because those performed within 5% of their Venice brethren.


Make it a Sempron X2
By Myrandex on 6/29/2006 2:30:05 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of making it an Athlon, they should just call it a Sempron since that is essentially what it is (unless it supports virtualization, which wasn't a sempron thing, but that doesn't sound like a big deal either).
Jason




RE: Make it a Sempron X2
By visaris on 6/29/06, Rating: 0
Sempron X2?
By johnsaw on 6/29/2006 3:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they should call it Sempron X2...
But they can't launch a new line of products with just one SKU...




Should be sweet @ ~$100
By blckgrffn on 6/29/2006 3:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
Dual core is nice, this would be an 805 competitor that will walk all over that chip.

I would prefer Sempron x2 though. Carries the name forward and follows the established naming convention as well, making it easy to differentiate it from ealier Semprons, unlike the Socket A/Socket 754 versions.

Nat




Sempron??
By Alphafox78 on 6/29/2006 3:30:23 PM , Rating: 2
Did you read the name of the chip? its "Athlon 64 X2 3600+ for AM2." It allready has a name, its an athlon.




New budget company.
By JWalk on 6/29/2006 4:26:29 PM , Rating: 2
I am afraid this is further evidence that AMD is gearing their products more toward the lower "bargain" end of the scale in this new computer landscape. They have now discontinued their 1Mb cache processors and are introducing 256kb cache processors. Now, I know the business case. This makes the manufacturing cheaper.

However, from the consumer's perspective, I would rather have a 1Mb CPU rather than a 256kb one, and if their competitor's processors have more cache, better performance and a larger amount of overclocking headroom, then why would I look at AMD's line-up?

If your answer is price, then you have made my argument for me. AMD is looking more and more like they will be the budget company this time around. Unfortunate, but maybe this is the only strategy that will keep them running until K8L is ready.




By Doormat on 6/30/2006 12:18:24 AM , Rating: 2
They need more chips per wafer. They've managed to max out their wafer starts, now its up to making more chips per wafer. They need those million processors for Dell...




This needs to be out soon
By kmmatney on 7/7/2006 1:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
I would think if this is going to be available, it better come out soon if its going to sell.




"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














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