backtop

Hardware AMD Socket AM2 Roadmap Shakeup
Kristopher Kubicki (Blog) - February 16, 2006 10:30 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 60 comment(s) - last by bart.. on Mar 2 at 9:03 AM

The latest AMD roadmap reveals some of the finer points about AM2 launch and schedule times
Athlon 64 5400+, FX-64, Energy Efficient Athlons and AM2 details revealed

AMD has been quite the busy bee lately.  The Athlon FX-60 launched a few weeks ago, the Opteron x85 series launches in a few weeks, and the whole platform will get an overhaul in early June.  AMD's latest roadmap reveals more about all of these projects and adds several more that have not yet been disclosed.

AMD's newest roadmaps claim the new 940 pin Socket AM2 will launch at Computex Taipei on June 6, 2006... that's 6-6-6 for those of you playing at home. The AM2 socket is not compatible with existing Socket 940 CPUs, but will allow AM2 processors to utilize up to DDR2-800. 

Athlon 64, Athlon 64 X2, Athlon 64 FX and Sempron will all use the AM2 socket.  The unified socket should alleviate many of the nightmares system builders experienced during the Socket 754/939 haydays -- and will also help AMD consolidate its manufacturing.
 
AMD Desktop Processor Roadmap 2006
Processor
Socket
Core
TDP
Launch Date
Athlon 64 FX-64
AM2
Dual
???
Q1'07
Athlon 64 FX-62
AM2
Dual
125W
6/6/06
Athlon 64 FX-60
939
Dual
110W
Now
Athlon 64 5400+
AM2
Dual
???
Q1'07
Athlon 64 5200+
AM2
Dual
???
Q3'06
Athlon 64 5000+
AM2
Dual
89W
6/6/06
Athlon 64 4800+
AM2
Dual
89W
6/6/06
Athlon 64 4600+
AM2
Dual
89W
6/6/06
Athlon 64 4400+
AM2
Dual
89W
6/6/06
Athlon 64 4200+
AM2
Dual
89W
6/6/06
Athlon 64 3800+
AM2
Dual
89W
6/6/06
Athlon 64 3800+
AM2
Single
62W
6/6/06
Athlon 64 3500+
AM2
Single
62W
6/6/06

You may notice the TDP on the Athlon 64 FX-62 has been increased to 125W. 

Like Intel, there was a large emphasis on TDP this time around.  The Athlon FX series is approaching thermal envelopes reminiscent of Prescott, and it seems clear to all parties involved that something more innovative needs to occur to counter that trend. 

AMD will also soon unveil a new set of desktop Sempron and Athlon 64s specifically geared for HTPC and other low noise / low power devices.  The goal is to build processors that do not need a lot of cooling -- specifically to reduce the noise of the overall system to the 27dBA range for idle and 30dBA under load.  One of the upcoming Windows MCE requirements for CPUs is that the processor fan not exceed 30dBA for MCE certification.

The Energy Efficient CPUs will have a slightly redesigned Sleep, Power and Suspend states.  These states are controlled by the operating system, but will require BIOS updates.   

AMD Energy Efficient Desktop Models
Processor
Socket
Core
Wattage
Launch Date
Athlon 64 4800+
AM2
Dual
65W
Q3'06
Athlon 64 4600+
AM2
Dual
65W
6/6/06
Athlon 64 4400+
939
Dual
65W
6/6/06
Athlon 64 4200+
AM2
Dual
65W
6/6/06
Athlon 64 4000+
AM2
Dual
65W
6/6/06
Athlon 64 3800+
AM2
Dual
35W
6/6/06
Athlon 64 3800+
AM2
Dual
65W
6/6/06
Athlon 64 3500+
AM2
Single
35W
6/6/06
Sempron 3500+
AM2
Single
35W
Q4'06
Sempron 3400+
AM2
Single
35W
6/6/06
Sempron 3200+
AM2
Single
35W
6/6/06
Sempron 3000+
AM2
Single
35W
6/6/06

The Energy Efficient Athlon 64 3800+ rated at 35W is not a typo -- AMD actually has a dual core 35W processor on the roadmap.  This bodes well for dual core Turions. 

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I'm mad
By tjr508 on 2/17/2006 3:46:36 AM , Rating: 2
why is it that ever since intel released all those promotional pdf files about "performance per watt" people won't shut up about it. Sure it's great on laptops, expecially the really mobile ones, but who really cares if their desktop cpu is 90w or 110w. I don't see motherboard manufacturers dropping their price when they dont need the current requirements on their cpu power supplies so who really gives a damn. The high end desktop segment needs to be just that. high end. fastest. best work horse. gets the most done in the smallest time. i could care less if it consumes twice the power of a mobile chip.

Shame on intel for bringing up "PPW" expecially after the p4 and shame on AMD for now telliing us more about watts than performance on their desktops.




sorri i forgot to add
By tjr508 on 2/17/2006 3:53:35 AM , Rating: 2
As for the Athlon 64 fx 64, i can already see people buying an "athlon 64 fx" thinking they are going to get an "fx 64"


RE: sorri i forgot to add
By Visual on 2/17/2006 5:36:49 AM , Rating: 2
people who are that stupid usually dont get that rich... but if this actually happened, it'd be only just.


RE: I'm mad
By mircea on 2/17/2006 4:09:29 AM , Rating: 2
The more power it draws, the hotter it runs, the less you can overclock, the louder it gets because of cooling. Got it???


RE: I'm mad
By tjr508 on 2/17/2006 4:59:44 AM , Rating: 2
Are you suggesting x86 makers draw a line somewhere? make themselves a boundary? Sure low power has its benefits, the R&D involved eventually will lead to better performing chips, but for crying out loud, we havent seen a serious performance increase in two years now(FX51). Hell an old thunderbird 1.333 does great for most typical PC uses on XP and that was from late 2000 or early 01.

I am not about to call a dual core a performance increase just because they got the cores on the same chip. multiprocessor boards have been around forever. It is sad that we have come to a day where technology has stopped and now we must go back and change everything we thought we knew to gain a little performance by using more threads instead of faster ones.

It is nice to be able to stay on top of technology now a days with a two year old system, but i like to see bigger and better things come out of our industries and don't mind paying for them every couple of years or spending an extra $30 on top of the $300 chip for a quieter cooling solution.

Overclocking on the otherhand has a lot more to do with design than wattage. You can find a 130w p4 that will OC easily to 35% while a lot of 30w mobile chips won't be stable (or mobile) at 10% OC. On the other hand, makeshift mobile chips like the turion make great overclockers because they are more or less improvised mobiles. They are simply some of the best A64s with the lowest transients being worked well below their true capibilites to reduce power cunsumption so of course they will OC well.



RE: I'm mad
By dreddfunk on 2/17/2006 9:30:22 AM , Rating: 2
Look, I'm no expert, but performance-per-watt is a serious issue for a lot of markets: server, workstation, htpc, mobile, to name a few. It's become a big issue for big business, certainly: when you have hundreds of servers and thousands of workstations, the difference between a 130W CPU and a 65W CPU adds up to a lot of $$ over the course of a year, let alone the lifetime of the machine.

Of course it's not an issue at all for the enthusiast market, but, while prestigious, it's not a very large market compared to mainstream & business markets. It sucks that we haven't seen huge increases in CPU power recently but, given the amount of money Intel and AMD are throwing at the problem, it isn't for a lack of trying.


RE: I'm mad
By Viditor on 2/17/2006 11:31:21 PM , Rating: 2
For a server farm with 1000 servers, the difference comes to ~$57,000/year on just the power for the CPUs. Then you have to add the price of cooling, which will usually double that.


RE: I'm mad
By tjr508 on 2/18/2006 7:47:48 AM , Rating: 2
That is a good point though my initial rant was on "desktops" and not servers and laptops.

BTW modern heat pumps have a coef. of performance (COP) around 4 (This equates to a COP of 3 in reverse), so displacing (or moving) x units of heat energy will only require x/3 units of electrical energy. Therefore that 2x figure is a little off. Much more efficient pumps are available for buildings such as server farms. The figure of 4 is for standard home systems.

Maitnence and related costs are irrevalant here as they would be required with the smaller system.


RE: I'm mad
By NullSubroutine on 2/19/2006 6:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
AMD has a streamlined product lineup, this is why you see processors with lower tdp. also, unless i am mistaken, but companies buy DESKTOPs for their businesses. not every employee has a server or laptop to use, so your 'rant' on 'desktops' is null and void.

products that use less power require less power req (dont need huge power supplies), they require less captacitors and such on the main board as well.

products that use less power run cooler. products that run cooler last longer.

as for your rant on how they arent any faster than a thunderbird is completely baseless, what are you basing these benchmark conclusions on? how fast internet explorer shows you your porn?


RE: I'm mad
By Viditor on 2/20/2006 10:30:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
BTW modern heat pumps have a coef. of performance (COP) around 4 (This equates to a COP of 3 in reverse), so displacing (or moving) x units of heat energy will only require x/3 units of electrical energy. Therefore that 2x figure is a little off

For buildings you are correct...but remember that you are also increasing the displacement within a localised area (the case and the racks). Because the heat must be moved quickly, the COP is increased dramatically. I got the "double power cost" from a couple of friends that run server farms...


RE: I'm mad
By ddopson on 2/21/2006 10:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
Plus the fixed costs of that cooling equipment are not negligible.


RE: I'm mad
By del on 2/21/2006 4:56:54 PM , Rating: 2
Multiprocessor boards have been out for some time now, but multi-threaded software hasn't really been considered important until recently. Just look at Windows 98. Also, it's better to buy a dual-core processor and one HSF than two higher-clocked, and thus hotter, single-core processors and two HSFs. The only hope for increasing performance with conventional computers these days are dual-core (and later, quad- and multi-core) processors, 64-bit CPUs, and technologies like SLI. Silicon technology is reaching its limits. Maybe we will switch over to quantum computers when the conventional computing reaches the breaking point. Remember, 64-bit will also help, coupled with these serial RAM chips in another article here.


RE: I'm mad
By del on 2/21/2006 4:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
heh "shame on Intel"

...You don't know what you're talking about. Performance per watt is about watts electric, not watts thermal. What's the point of being the best work horse and all that when a lot of power is not used? Lower TDP is just a beneficial side effect of power-optimized CPUs. I'm surprised none of you noticed this. The more watts that are consumed by your power supply, the more money you have to pay each month for electricity. The only reason we still use 510 W power supplies is because video card manufacturers haven't followed suit with CPU manufacturers with technologies such as dual-core (and multi-core) and low-power designs.


RE: I'm mad
By ddopson on 2/21/2006 10:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
510W is just the maximum power rating for all the channels on your PSU combined. What really matters is its efficiency. Typical PSU's run from 75%-90% efficiency, which means that to generate 75W of DC power at 3.3, 5, and 12 Volts burns 100W of 120V AC power out of the wall.


Is there going to be a 35W dual-core?
By Furen on 2/16/2006 11:37:38 PM , Rating: 2
It looks to me like the 35W dual-core 3800+ is actually going to be a single-core CPU. If you look at the rest of the CPUs on this chart you'll notice that excepting this one all other 35W CPUs are single-core and all dual-core CPUs are 65W.




Moderated
By Knish on 2/17/06, Rating: -1
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/17/2006 12:14:16 AM , Rating: 2
It's not a typo. The fact that it is the only 35W dual core processor on the roadmap is highlighted even. It should be a neat chip.

Kristopher