backtop


Print 147 comment(s) - last by Viditor.. on May 9 at 11:38 PM

AMD prepares its Phenom FX, Phenom X4 and Phenom X2 lineups for launch

AMD is preparing the launch of its next-generation K10-derived Stars-family single, dual and quad-core processors. The next-generation Stars-family splits into three different brand names – Phenom, Athlon and Sempron. Ringing in the flagship are three Agena FX-based AMD Phenom FX processors. AMD has yet to confirm clock speeds for the three models; however, the latest roadmap reveals ballparks for the processors.

The top-end AMD Phenom FX processor clocks in the 2.4-2.6 GHz speed range. Slotting below the top-end Phenom FX is a 2.2-2.4 GHz model. These two models occupy AMD’s upcoming Socket 1207+ and current Socket 1207 Quad FX platforms. AMD also has a Phenom FX for single-processor customers as well, clocked at 2.4-2.6 GHz.

AMD further differentiates its Phenom FX processors with different Hyper Transport 3.0 clock speeds. The flagship 2.4-2.6 GHz model features a 3.6 GHz HT 3.0 clock speed while the two 2.2-2.4 GHz models have a lower 3.2 GHz HT 3.0 clock. All three models share the same 4x512KB L2 cache and 2MB L3 cache configuration. AMD has yet to determine the TDP of its Phenom FX processors.

Catering towards high-end user are two Socket AM2+ AMD Phenom X4 processors. AMD remains undecided on its model numbers; however, clock speeds on the Agena-based Phenom X4 processors are set. The two AMD Phenom X4 processors clock in at 2.4 GHz and 2.2 GHz. These models share the same 4x512KB L2 cache and 2MB L3 cache configuration as the Phenom FX processors.

HT 3.0 speeds differ on the two models, the 2.4 GHz features a 3.6 GHz HT 3.0 speed while the 2.2 GHz model features a 3.2 GHz HT 3.0 speed. AMD rates the Phenom X4 processors with 89W TDPs. AMD plans to start taking orders for its Phenom FX and Phenom X4 processors in Q3’2007.

AMD’s dual-core Kuma processors will carry the Phenom X2 name and drop into Socket AM2+ and AM2 motherboards. There are three AMD Phenom X2 processors in the pipeline with 2.8 GHz, 2.6 GHz and 2.4 GHz clock speeds. HT 3.0 speeds vary on the AMD Phenom X2 processors. At the top with the AMD Phenom X2 2.8 GHz model. The HT 3.0 bus clocks in at 4.2 GHz – higher than the Phenom FX and Phenom X4 models. The two lower models have 3.8 GHz and 3.6 GHz HT 3.0 clock speeds, respectively.

All three models feature a 2x512KB L2 cache and 2MB L3 cache configuration. The higher end 2.8 GHz has an 89W TDP, similar to the Phenom X4 models, while the 2.6 GHz and 2.4 GHz receive a lower 65W TDP rating. AMD plans to take orders for its Phenom X2 processors beginning in Q4’2007.

If low power is a concern, AMD intends to offer three low power AMD Phenom X2 models. AMD rates these models with 45W TDPs. The low power Phenom X2 clocks in at 2.3 GHz, 2.1 GHz and 1.9 GHz with 3.4 GHz, 3.0 GHz and 2.8 GHz HT 3.0 speeds, respectively.

Although AMD plans to launch its new Phenom branding for high-end processors, the Athlon 64 X2 name lives on with Rana. There’s one Rana model in the pipeline clocked at 2.2 GHz. The Rana-based Athlon 64 X2 does away with L3 cache and only has 2x512KB of L2 cache, differentiating it from the Kuma-based AMD Phenom X2.

At the bottom of the Stars-family are the Spica Sempron models. Two Spica Sempron models occupy AMD’s value lineup. The new Spica Sempron models clock in at 2.4 GHz and 2.2 GHz with 512KB of L2 cache. As with the dual and quad-core products, the two Spica Sempron models have 3.6 GHz and 3.2 GHz HT 3.0 clocks, respectively. AMD rates the Spica Sempron models with 45W TDPs, as with the low power Phenom X2 models.

AMD plans to take orders for its low power Kuma Phenom X2, Rana Athlon 64 X2 and Spica Sempron models beginning in Q1’2008.


Comments     Threshold


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

People who pick sides crack me up.
By SavagePotato on 5/4/2007 11:26:51 AM , Rating: 3
I really do get a laugh at the kiddies that vehemently and brainlessly stand by "their" brand. Personally right now I own an E6400, which I got because it was fast, very overclockable, and just a really awesome chip. Fantastic upgrade from my Opteron 175 which was also a chip I got great usage out of.

What I have a hard time with is the notion that some people can be so short sighted as to cheer for one company to be beat out by "their" company. If you think for a minute without a competitor Intel won't be severely hiking prices think again.

It's just like the NVIDIA ATI war with people cheering the expected failure of the X2900. Have you looked at the costs of the 8800 series cards lately? Without competition you will be paying 2 grand for high end cpu's and 1k plus for video cards in very very short order.

Think of that while you are making your haw haw I hope they go bankrupt comments.




RE: People who pick sides crack me up.
By Shadowmaster625 on 5/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: People who pick sides crack me up.
By zsouthboy on 5/4/2007 2:35:17 PM , Rating: 5
Why is that?

I have a 6300 render box at home, next to my 165 server, and the 6300 blows it out of the water doing ... well, rendering, as it's supposed to. On order of 20-30 % I would assume his situation is similar.


By bjacobson on 5/8/2007 10:27:30 AM , Rating: 2
Well...there really aren't that many of these hardcore fanboys, as evidenced by AMD's latest quarter earnings.


By SavagePotato on 5/4/2007 4:46:24 PM , Rating: 1
Eh? Think again. For one I made a mistype there, I have an e6600 2.4ghz. However a 6400 will smoke an Opteron 175 as well.

In addition to that, my Opteron was good for about a 200 mhz overclock, just didn't get the pick of the litter. My 6600 I slapped with a 1 ghz overclock without even trying hard

For that matter even at stock the 6400 is damn near as good as an FX 62. and the 6600 at stock will crush an FX 62.

Oh my Thermalright ultra-120 extreme is on It's way too, so well see if we cant turn that modest little 3.4ghz into something a little more respectable like 3.6 or 3.8.

So I guess "lol" right back at you kiddie.


RE: People who pick sides crack me up.
By dnosferatu on 5/5/2007 1:09:45 AM , Rating: 2
...then why your "brainy" failed to compare Opt175 to E6400?
you can wait for K10, K11, or K-Whatever, but you can't deny the fact, those numbers are real, in case you don't have those numbers in your "brain", go google kid!


RE: People who pick sides crack me up.
By just4U on 5/5/2007 1:50:50 AM , Rating: 4
While I don't have my amd fanboi tee shirt on I can definitely say in all honesty that I would like to see them have continued success. I think it would be pretty good over all if both companies had close to the same hold on this market instead of the lopsided affair it's always been.


By dnosferatu on 5/5/2007 2:09:15 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, we need the competition along with the fanboy, not to mention that fanboy's posts are enjoyable to read.

My main reason is the price, boy i love price-cut everytime it happens, LOL.
Been with AMD since the day Athlon XP 1800+, only because i care for price/performance so much, not the performance crown-go digging dollar.

No point to talk the numbers we don't know yet but those kid already "i'm sure this, i'm sure that..", LOL
everything can happen..


RE: People who pick sides crack me up.
By Pythias on 5/9/2007 2:14:12 AM , Rating: 2
Then amd needs to build quite a few more fabs. Even if they gained majority market share, they couldn't supply it.


By Viditor on 5/9/2007 11:38:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then amd needs to build quite a few more fabs. Even if they gained majority market share, they couldn't supply it

Not true actually...
Many people look at the total number of Fabs that Intel has rather than the number of their Fabs that can actually produce modern CPUs...that number is 3 BTW.
AMD (when the Fab 38 conversion is complete in Q1 08) will have easily enough Fab capacity to deliver more than 60% marketshare.


RE: People who pick sides crack me up.
By crystal clear on 5/5/2007 2:26:39 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Without competition you will be paying 2 grand for high end cpu's and 1k plus for video cards in very very short order


1)Yes competition is essential for higher quality products & lower prices.

2)For us the buyers we need an a market, where the market share of the 2 companies should be-(Intel)70% (Amd)30%.
In such conditions the buyer always stands to gain to enable you get higher quality products & lower prices.

3)EXCESS of competition & LACK of competition is BAD for us-we the buyers, the ULTIMATE DECIDERS of market share for these companies should maintain the above RATIO !(70 to 30).

4)Higher quality products & lower prices is an incentive or motivator for buyers/users/consumers to UPGRADE.

5)The lack of incentives to upgrade, means people simply dont upgrade-thats all ! they prefer to make do with what they have & wait for prices to drop.

6) Example for the above is VISTA !
People are just not motivated to upgrade & prefer to make do with XP & prefer to wait.They simple DONT BUY !

But let there be Apples O.S. "X" (tiger/leopard) up for sale
without the Apple hardware-Then watch !
If Apple sell its O.S. like M.S.-then see what happens-
YOU will see real WAR-Intel/Amd style.

We will get higher quality & lower prices !

7)Just remember-People are not that stupid-If the prices are HIGH they simply DONT BUY.So Intel can charge in your scenario "2G" & Nvidia "1K"- result-NO BUYERS !
I am sure there are millions out there who say this-
"I can live without a 8800 series card-Whats the hurry"
So Nvidia can charge what it wants-NO BUYERS !

Summary-WE the buyers decide the FATE of Intel & Nvidia !
They need US more than WE DO !


RE: People who pick sides crack me up.
By just4U on 5/5/2007 2:57:45 AM , Rating: 2
Actually crystal, I'd like to see it even more even say 55-45 either way with a constant struggle for that 10% That way we'd see less of the doom and gloom posts along with the bankruptcy scares.. provided they both were making money as you know even the more profitable companies can find ways to lose it all sometimes.


RE: People who pick sides crack me up.
By crystal clear on 5/5/2007 3:45:34 AM , Rating: 2
YES & NO

"Yes" indeed but unfortunately AMD is comapritively weaker financially to take on Intel to reach that ratio !
They need IBM(as a partner) to take on Intel to reach that levels-
It requires R&D+Finance+Marketing+Support etc that all put together as package.

"No" that struggle for that 10% is bad for STABILITY as MOBO manufacturers need to adjust their product offerings-they have to have time.
Too many new CPUs coming out into the market in short span is fine on paper,but in reality its upsetting everybodies(OEM/ODM) product cyles & schedules.Just count how many Cpus Intel released in short span (Core2duo)till today.

In short a period of stability is needed for all-from Buyers to Vendors to OEMs to ODMs & the whole industry itself.Thats the reason I quoted-

quote:
EXCESS of competition & LACK of competition is BAD


Fine tuning that ratio is the key !


RE: People who pick sides crack me up.
By KernD on 5/5/2007 10:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
About even market share wouldn't cause more architectural change than we have now, I don't think Intel would get them out faster than one a year, they wouldn't have the money to make it any faster than they are now. 45-55% split would obviously be ideal, they could have a similar R&D budget, just look at the graphic side of things, they have a balanced market and it works fine, the OEM aren't complaining.


RE: People who pick sides crack me up.
By crystal clear on 5/6/2007 12:47:59 AM , Rating: 2
You have a valid point there,but some very interesting news is on its way that could change everything.

ASSET LIGHT ! AMD !

quote:
asset light is code word for the company moving toward more of a "fabless" model of doing business in which computer chip companies outsource their manufacturing to factories called foundries, many of which are located in Asia.


This model frees up a lot of resources for both the companies(AMD/Intel),enabling them divert these resources to more essential/crucial areas namely R&D.
Resources I mean Money/Manpower/Time that will bring about as you say-

quote:
"more architectural change" & "would get them out faster than one a year"


The race for more & more "CORES" has already started-
today its 2 & 4 cores-up it goes to 8 then to 16 & more.
Even though, there isnt sufficient SOFTWARE around to exploit the full potential of these cores & what each cores does in the design.

So in a such scenario as you say-
quote:
45-55% split would obviously be ideal


RE: People who pick sides crack me up.
By Viditor on 5/6/2007 5:35:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Asset Light...This model frees up a lot of resources for both the companies(AMD/Intel),enabling them divert these resources to more essential/crucial areas namely R&D

Unfortunately, Asset Light doesn't work for companies like AMD and Intel. Both companies are far ahead of the independant Fabs in Asia as far as technology goes, and that Fab technology is a major part of their R&D budget because it has to be. If it weren't for their Fab tech, we wouldn't have things like HKMG, SOI, APM, Copper interconnects, strained silicon, etc...


RE: People who pick sides crack me up.
By crystal clear on 5/7/2007 4:11:27 AM , Rating: 1
I had made a comment recently on Asset Light & gave the source from where I picked this information-see below

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID...

Details are vague & I asked the Ed(Kristopher Kubicki) to check on this as he has his ways to check up.

Yes in a way you are right-but who knows what AMD has in mind.
They are expected to release details on this in June.


By Viditor on 5/7/2007 9:12:10 AM , Rating: 2
The link doesn't work for me...


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/7/2007 7:03:45 PM , Rating: 2
Link no worky. Email it to me direct.


By crystal clear on 5/8/2007 12:37:14 AM , Rating: 1
The new strategy, which Ruiz calls "asset light," is still being developed by the Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company. Caudell is part of the management team that is working on asset light, and the company has said it will give Wall Street analysts a better idea about how that strategy will work in July.

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID...

I hope now its ok.


RE: People who pick sides crack me up.
By crystal clear on 5/8/2007 12:54:03 AM , Rating: 1
Whats you E-mail by the way-helps- could send you a lot of stuff(news)-off the web communications.


RE: People who pick sides crack me up.
By Viditor on 5/6/2007 5:28:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Higher quality products & lower prices is an incentive or motivator for buyers/users/consumers to UPGRADE

But consumer upgrades based on affordability are only a very small portion of the market. The larger ones are
1. Business upgrades based on need (to remain competitive)
2. New systems for both consumer and business

While I agree that even these would be affected negatively by large increases in cost, if there was no competitor then the profits from a price increase would easily surpass the resulting drop in overall market size...and remember that those who waited are still guaranteed customers at some point.


RE: People who pick sides crack me up.
By crystal clear on 5/7/2007 4:47:39 AM , Rating: 1
I made a comment on diffferent article- (on IBM)

Client-Server Computing Is Dead -IBM's view of business computing's future.

"The PC client-server model has run its course," proclaimed Palmisano, speaking in St. Louis at PartnerWorld, IBM's annual gathering of software developers and technology resellers.

As an alternate to the classic IT setup in which workers use applications stored locally on PCs while expensive servers are reduced to the role of traffic cop, Palmisano said IBM wants "to offer a new architecture for data centers

Source of information-

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jh...

IBM road plan is worth reading about.

quote:
and remember that those who waited are still guaranteed customers at some point.


I wish I could quote you the link-I dont recall where I read it,but it says a consumer survey recently taken shows on an average the consumer spends around USD 1200 per annum
on high tech goods.
Spread this on cell phone/cameras/mp3/computer components etc.Depends on what & how much.

So money doesnt come out of the wallet so easily.


By crystal clear on 5/7/2007 8:04:18 AM , Rating: 1
A study conducted by the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) has determined that the average American household spends approximately $1,200 annually on electronics products. The study, which also provides insight into the popularity of various kinds of consumer electronics products, was devised and conducted by CEA Market Research in February.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070430-cea-...


RE: People who pick sides crack me up.
By Viditor on 5/7/2007 9:14:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
IBM road plan is worth reading about

I can't get this link to work either...is it just me?


By crystal clear on 5/8/2007 12:42:36 AM , Rating: 1
Hey something is not OK here-strange

I clicked on the link & I got the page -no problem !


RE: People who pick sides crack me up.
By Viditor on 5/8/2007 8:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks Crystal...both of those links are now working for me.


RE: People who pick sides crack me up.
By Some1ne on 5/7/2007 4:04:56 PM , Rating: 2
Hello, cache? Get an E6600 next time, and then you won't have to try as hard to justify your purchase of a lesser chip with not enough cache to random people on the Internet.


By crystal clear on 5/4/2007 7:35:01 AM , Rating: 6
In an interview Wednesday with InformationWeek, Randy Allen, corporate vice president of AMD's server and workstation division, said performance and ease of adoption by computer makers were behind AMD's confidence in Barcelona.

Over the last couple of years, AMD has built the launch pad for Barcelona with the success of its current dual-core Opteron, which until the end of last year boosted AMD's market share at Intel's expense. Opteron today is offered by all the major x86 server makers, such as Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard, IBM and now Dell.

In moving OEMs from dual-core to quad-core machines, AMD is using the same no-design-change strategy as its move from single-core to dual-core several years ago. Manufacturers only need to change the BIOS on new machines. Barcelona will fit into the same socket as the older chips. "There's a very low resistance path to adoption," Allen said.

Of course, better performance without increasing power consumption will be key to corporations, particularly one of AMD's key sectors: financial services. AMD believes it has that base covered; claiming Barcelona will deliver a 70% performance boost over its duo-core Opteron, while consuming the same amount of power.

AMD plans to release a full set of third-party benchmarks for Barcelona vs. Intel's Xeon quad-core -- codenamed Clovertown -- when Barcelona launches. In the meantime, AMD is tossing some numbers that it says back the argument that Barcelona will be better.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jh...




By ObscureCaucasian on 5/4/2007 9:49:35 AM , Rating: 5
I think I may be the only one here who thinks that K10 will become a competitive chip. Everyone's so quick to take sides on who they think is better when we have absolutely no data.


By Targon on 5/4/2007 1:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
I think there are a good number of people who feel that K10 will be competitive, but a huge number feel that AMD needs something MUCH better than Core 2 Duo in order to regain market share and recover. They don't know how well the K10 based processors will perform clock for clock, let alone in overall cost/performance, so they have been claiming that Intel will be able to hold a large lead.

So, let them doubt, since we only have another few months before real benchmarks are available.


By crystal clear on 5/5/2007 1:09:34 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
In moving OEMs from dual-core to quad-core machines, AMD is using the same no-design-change strategy as its move from single-core to dual-core several years ago. Manufacturers only need to change the BIOS on new machines. Barcelona will fit into the same socket as the older chips. "There's a very low resistance path to adoption," Allen said.


Just think on this-

Manufacturers only need to change the BIOS on new machines. Barcelona will fit into the same socket as the older chips.

Same SOCKET but a different BIOS.

So the vital factor is "BIOS"-it better be very good.


By raven3x7 on 5/6/2007 12:31:29 PM , Rating: 3
What the hell are you talking about? It needs a new bios so it can recognize the CPU. just like when 939 X2s came out. Or any newer CPU for that matter. You could update most mobos to have support. And those that didnt were not limited by design but rather by the (un)willingness of their manufacturer to update the bios


By crystal clear on 5/6/2007 4:48:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Same SOCKET but a different BIOS.


Different or new Bios is the same thing.

Whatever the terminology,the whole point is "Quality".


By Viditor on 5/6/2007 5:38:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whatever the terminology,the whole point is "Quality"

I must admit that I'm confused by this as well...could you maybe give an example of bioses that were "lower quality"?


By Verran on 5/4/2007 2:17:47 PM , Rating: 1
The problem is that being "competitive" isn't good enough anymore. By the time K10 hits the desktop, AMD will be at least a year late, if not more. In the processor market, being "competitive" with a chip that's a full year older is a joke.

We will have waited over a year past C2D for K10. People are going to need to see a year's worth of progress past C2D, or K10 will be a let down.

When you figure Intel's 45nm should hit this year, K10 has some big shoes to fill.


By AMDJunkie on 5/4/2007 11:24:30 AM , Rating: 3
I'm not going to argue the timing of EOLing Socket 939, but the early swap to Socket AM2 makes a lot more sense now since you can just drop in a dual-core Barecelona with just a BIOS flash...


By Targon on 5/4/2007 1:57:54 PM , Rating: 5
The reason for the move to AM2 in the first place was because Intel was pushing DDR2, and OEMs didn't want to support two different types of memory. AMD would continue to support Socket 939 if and only if there was enough demand for systems based around the older DDR memory, and at this point, that demand just isn't there anymore.

There will be a big complaint about the move to DDR3 memory as well, since a new socket will be needed there as well, but the move will only happen if there is a HUGE performance advantage, or if Intel pushes hard enough to move to DDR3.


By leexgx on 5/5/2007 11:53:16 PM , Rating: 2
i see alot of users complaneing about amd Droping support for 939 socket for am2 but it needed to be done for DDR2 support, when thay moved to am2 system builders OEM computer comps was alot happyer to use AMD as it ment thay did not have to have DDr2 and DDR1 for ordering as it costs more to do it that way now thay can go Mass ordering DDR2 only
thay only need to pick the motherboad and the CPU and heat sink as dif in the build amd or intel

i just Slided to an 5600+ X2 now, sold my 3800 X2 to some one so the upgrade was only realy £60 to me just for the performace boost

when this New cpu comes out i should be able to keep the same motherboard and Drop and x4 in (if all goes well in the performace of it)


This is a bit Strange
By subhajit on 5/4/2007 5:04:46 AM , Rating: 2
Why a quad core processor should have lower HT Speed than a dual core one?




RE: This is a bit Strange
By billeman on 5/4/2007 5:10:58 AM , Rating: 2
It appears to be in direct relation to the processor's clock speed, not the number of cores


RE: This is a bit Strange
By subhajit on 5/4/2007 5:20:53 AM , Rating: 2
That's right. But shouldn't 4 cores need more data transfer rate than 2 cores?


RE: This is a bit Strange
By TodX on 5/4/2007 6:09:23 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, thats why socket 1207 has 3 HT links.


RE: This is a bit Strange
By AntDX316 on 5/4/2007 1:23:03 PM , Rating: 1
thats some insane bus speed

tho my proessor running at 1600 to 1800 fsb made absolutly no difference in super pi time and sometimes made it worse

but its set to 1800

1600 x9 = 3.6
1800 x8 = 3.6


RE: This is a bit Strange
By PlasmaBomb on 5/4/2007 6:10:51 AM , Rating: 2
I would put it down to thermal limitations with the quad cores, I guess we will find out when they are released.

It could lead to nice overclocks if the HT link is capable of running at 4.2GHz and is only clocked at 3.6GHz


RE: This is a bit Strange
By Zurtex on 5/4/2007 6:17:21 AM , Rating: 2
One would think, but it shouldn't provide a problem on benchmarks given the amount of data transfer HT 3.0 has is insane, the current HT 2.0 that K8 uses has much much more bandwidth than any of Intel's CPUs.


RE: This is a bit Strange
By PlasmaBomb on 5/4/2007 6:41:48 AM , Rating: 2
I was just thinking if the boards can run really high HT speeds then there is less need to fiddle. Certainly from the S939 days dropping the HT down to let you overclock made little difference.


RE: This is a bit Strange
By leexgx on 5/5/2007 11:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
HT speeds do not get used that much untill 3x (600Mhz/1200Mhz) is used, thats why lowering it does not do any thing to benchmarks

HT in K8 has plenty of bandwith in it K10 HT 3.0 going to be insane be intresting if it even needs it


On a positive note ...
By MartinT on 5/4/2007 6:19:17 AM , Rating: 3
Seems like AMD managed to wring another 100 MHz out of their <100W SKUs. Good for them.




RE: On a positive note ...
By PlasmaBomb on 5/4/2007 6:44:34 AM , Rating: 2
89 W seems good for a quad core, do we have any idea when they will be released yet?


RE: On a positive note ...
By GlassHouse69 on 5/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: On a positive note ...
By kamel5547 on 5/4/2007 12:08:02 PM , Rating: 3
Seeing as this is a core re-design I don't think a MHZ comparison makes any sense... I mean just look at P4 -> Core2.

Unless I missed something?


RE: On a positive note ...
By mkruer on 5/4/2007 1:38:49 PM , Rating: 1
You are missing something; The P4 is an entirely different branch of the design line. The Core 2 lineage is P3 > PM > Core > Core 2

AMD K10 lineage is K7 > K8 > K10

The K10 has more design changes then the Core to Core 2 yet the Core 2 is considered a major design change, go figure.


RE: On a positive note ...
By MartinT on 5/4/2007 5:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
I was actually referring to earlier roadmaps that had shown Barcelona to top out at 2.3 GHz / 95W, needing a 120W thermal envelope for 2.4 GHz and up.

Seems like AMD has bested their estimates in that regard, at least.


RE: On a positive note ...
By coldpower27 on 5/6/2007 2:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, a little though this is talking about Agena, and not Barcelona, Server being 1 grade behind is right where they should be more or less for AMD at least.


RE: On a positive note ...
By raven3x7 on 5/6/2007 4:53:01 PM , Rating: 3
Huh? AMD's priority have been server chips ever since the first K8. It does not make sense for AMD to release a server chip with an increased TDP rating compared to standard desktop chips. The Barcelona TDP you are citing was released quite some time ago and was probably only simulated. Quite a few things could have changed. I guess only time will tell. Barcelona should be close now, maybe late June.


RE: On a positive note ...
By coldpower27 on 5/6/2007 10:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
No, AMD has had these Socket F TDP ratings for awhile now, and the 2 bottom ones are higher TDP at 68W and 95W compare to the desktop ones of 65W and 89W.

AMD's priority is server chips, but higher TDP doesn't mean unstable chips.

I am just saying 2.3GHZ for 95W TDP is normal because stability is more important then speed on the server side of things.

2.4GHZ for 89W on the desktop is probably achievable where things aren't quite as mission critical.

Barcelona will arrive, in Q3 2007 and will use Opteron TDP's not desktop numbers.


HyperTransport
By DesertCat on 5/4/2007 10:13:04 AM , Rating: 2
All of this talk about the various speeds of HyperTransport 3.0 really has me wondering if the AM2 upgrade path is viable with only HT 1.0. I know they are supposed to be socket compatible with AM2+ systems, but are these older AM2 boards going to severly cripple the performance of Stars processors? I was really hoping that HT 3.0 was just going to be room to grow for the future and not be super critical. If dropping a Kuma into an AM2 board throttles it back to the speed of a Pentium III, it really doesn't matter to me if it can fit in the socket or not.

All along I figured HT 1.0 might be too limiting for quad core, but I was hoping it might be adequate (as in no real performance penalty) for the Phenom dual cores. I'm not sure that's very hopeful after reading this piece. Or maybe I'm more concerned than I should be?




RE: HyperTransport
By Hoser McMoose on 5/4/2007 1:22:44 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
but are these older AM2 boards going to severly cripple the performance of Stars processors?

I highly doubt it. The only time this should have any effect at all is if the current Hypertransport bandwidth (4.0GB/s in either direction) is insufficient for your I/O. The one time that it's likely to have a noticeable (easily 10%) effect will be on system boards with integrated video when playing 3D games. Such a setup sends a LOT of data between memory and the motherboard chipset and right now Hypertransport is a bottleneck (4.0GB/s of bandwidth vs. up to 12.8GB/s from main memory). There may also be a TINY difference in really high-end 3D video setups with add-in cards, particularly if you're talking about Crossfire or SLI setups. However considering that a single PCIe 16x video card is limited to 4.0GB/s in each direction as well, HT 1.0 isn't much of a limitation here, we're probably looking at less than a 5% difference in performance.

The real advantages for HT 3.0 will only be realized in server and I/O intensive workstation applications in the near future. If you've got a 16+ 15Krpm SCSI disks in multiple RAID arrays and dual 10-gigabit Ethernet adapters, then HT 3.0 will be a godsend. For desktops though there just isn't that much I/O and Hypertransport 1.0 already provided a LOT of bandwidth.


RE: HyperTransport
By DesertCat on 5/4/2007 11:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
That's exactly the kind of technical information I was hoping for. Thank you very much!


RE: HyperTransport
By leexgx on 5/5/2007 11:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
i agree good post


Well I'm excited
By Zurtex on 5/4/2007 6:29:09 AM , Rating: 5
Well this has perked my mood up about AMD CPUs, I was dreading the horrible situation of them only being able to come out with 2.0 - 2.3GHz CPUs and not being able to improve on that for sometime. I realise that in FP it's supposed to out perform Intel's current CPUs by 50+%, which would make AMD's 2.3GHz equivalent to Intel's 3.45GHz, but life isn't just about FP performance and Intel aren't far off that and they'll be getting a 5-10% boost clock for clock off Penryn and Penryn will be getting a higher clock speed.

Seeing 2.6GHz on launch for the Socket 1207+ and 2.8 and 2.6GHz CPUs in the pipeline for AM2+ socket is rather pleasing. If AMD can make a continous effort to keep refining on this CPU at manufacture level and working on minor architectural improvements (1 - 2 year boosts) and work on their next generation tech at the same time, AMD might yet have a bright future *fingers crossed*

Intel has shown it works best well it feels threatened by competition, so I hope AMD provides really tough competition in the later half of this year.




RE: Well I'm excited
By Mitch101 on 5/4/2007 10:48:49 AM , Rating: 5
Ive heard similar bechmarks. A 2.5ghz K10 is supposed to outrun a 3.0ghz quad. That not the fudzilla link someone else posted as there are about 3 sources now on the web confirming this but dont go into details.

The cool part is K10 will improve dramatically in all applications while the Penryn will only improve on those with SSE4 instructions otherwise Penryn is just a slight improvement over the existing conroe core.

It comes down to IPC and efficiency and the K10 is really an excellent design. If I recall 70% of it has been redesigned from the existing K8 thats a pretty huge design change so its not a mere K8 redesign like the Penryn is a speed bump of the Conroe on 45nm.

Either road one chooses lets just hope AMD makes enough cash to return to profit and be around for a while.


Order availability vs. availability
By defter on 5/4/2007 8:27:23 AM , Rating: 2
I have one question:
Does "order availability" mean that distributors can order those chips from AMD? What does that mean for actual availability on the shelves? Can you tell approximately how much later (a week, month or quarter) actual availability will occur?




RE: Order availability vs. availability
By flatout on 5/4/2007 8:37:48 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Order availability vs. availability

It simply means they can be ordered nothing else .. delivery of actual product can be like six months away.


By Viditor on 5/4/2007 12:59:37 PM , Rating: 3
Order availability means availability to the channel (OEMs are pre-contracted). Ironically, this means that "shipping" happens before "order availability"...


So AMD did it again
By Khyron320 on 5/5/2007 2:26:10 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe i am missunderstood but what im reading is that if i want a quad core AMD i need yet another new socket. AMD is so frustraighting with all the socket changing i never understood why they didnt plan ahead more.




RE: So AMD did it again
By Viditor on 5/5/2007 3:52:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe i am missunderstood but what im reading is that if i want a quad core AMD i need yet another new socket

No...the AM2+ chips will work just fine in current AM2 mobos. The "+" means that if you want access to HT3 you will need a mobo that supports it, but other than that it will be just about the same.


It doesn't matter
By Domicinator on 5/4/2007 11:52:36 PM , Rating: 1
In the computer hardware world, being a fanboy makes no sense. It doesn't matter which one is faster, which one will be faster, or which one used to be faster. If you're blowing a bunch of money on a processor, it only makes sense to buy the fastest one you can afford. Who cares which company made it? If it's the fastest one you could afford, then you came out on top, whether it's Intel or AMD.




RE: It doesn't matter
By Zurtex on 5/5/2007 7:46:40 AM , Rating: 2
Because the people with lots of money buy the fastest, they also shape the market, whether they be server administrators that have to continuously buy 1000s of high end computers, or whether they be games enthusiasts. They make a big impact on the rest of the market as to what company makes quality goods.

AMD needs these CPUs to be faster than Intel's, both the high end to just be plain faster and the lower end to be better on price / performance. If this happens AMD can seriously compete again, if we have 2 strong competing companies we have a better market. We all know what happens when Intel feels secure that it has a more or less monopoly on the market.


Amd
By jlanders646 on 5/4/2007 9:59:08 AM , Rating: 2
Amd has always been my personal favorite processor, even now I would rather own an amd processor than an Intel one.
Hopefully this will pan out for them.




Wildcard
By Slaimus on 5/4/2007 6:08:46 PM , Rating: 2
While the increased execution units and bandwith is much needed, the real wildcard here is the L3 cache. Seeing how the onchip memory controller is what made the K8 so fast in games, I think the L3 cache will be the thing to watch.




Good to hear
By athfbum on 5/4/2007 7:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
I am glad AMD has finally unveiled K10. Hopefully it will be the C2D punisher it has been hyped up to be. K10 will definitely be in my Q3 2007 build :]

I know Intel fanboys are going to mock my above statements, but remember this: Without AMD, Intel would be charging people as much as they wanted for CPUs. Nobody wants a $500 E6320 now do we? :P




HEY NOW
By Phenick on 5/4/07, Rating: -1
Yawn!
By drunkenmastermind on 5/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Yawn!
By bubbacub616 on 5/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Yawn!
By Griswold on 5/4/2007 5:52:38 AM , Rating: 5
Use your brains. AMD is not in the position to ruin their own business before they can actually deliver that product by telling everyone how much better it will be than their current offerings. Intel did that last year and paid for it with horrible quarter figures until they actually launched C2D.


RE: Yawn!
By defter on 5/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Yawn!
By flatout on 5/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Yawn!
By Viditor on 5/4/2007 1:04:02 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
AMD has told that "K10" ramp will be relatively slow

No they didn't...they said that PROFIT from K10 would be slow. They don't expect K10 to make a big dent in the bottom line till early 08...
quote:
Horrible means >$1B profits per quarter?

Yes...if you view that as a return on investment.


RE: Yawn!
By Phynaz on 5/4/2007 1:54:32 PM , Rating: 3
Wrong. They said ramp (sales) would be low.

From Hectors own mouth:
"CRN: You mentioned the importance of Barcelona. What will be its impact on AMD this year?

RUIZ: This is an incredibly important product transition. We don't expect the ramp [this year] to be dramatic because it's a new core, new micro architecture and platform."

http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/dailyarch...


RE: Yawn!
By Viditor on 5/4/2007 2:05:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Wrong. They said ramp (sales) would be low

He said the ramp of Barcelona would be slow and that it would follow the same pattern as Opteron...
Barcelona is a server chip, but it's not the only K10 chip. Server chips take 6 months for validation, so they are ALWAYS slower. The same thing happened to Woodcrest.


RE: Yawn!
By Phynaz on 5/4/2007 3:03:29 PM , Rating: 2
So then you are expecting large shipments of desktop K10 chips this year?

How about a number? What percentage of desktop chips shipped will be K10?


RE: Yawn!
By Le Québécois on 5/4/2007 4:32:02 PM , Rating: 3
I doubt Viditor have number on this. But you didn't get the point of his comment. He was stating that it was Barcelona, not Agena, that would begin with slow sales numbers because of the way the servers market works. He was simply explaining what was the meaning behind Hector Ruiz quote.


RE: Yawn!
By defter on 5/4/2007 5:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to forget K8 ramp:
Opteron: April 2003
Athlon64: September 2003
Mid-range Athlon64s: early 2004

Use some common sense, server CPUs have significantly higher ASPs than desktop CPUs. It's logical that AMD will sell majority of initial K10 shipments for server market. Which means that if server ramp is relatively slow, desktop ramp will not be fast either.

Or do you think that AMD wants to sell 95% of K10 production to desktop marker for $200-300 if they can sell significantly higher portion to server market at $500-$4000?


RE: Yawn!
By Viditor on 5/5/2007 12:34:55 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's logical that AMD will sell majority of initial K10 shipments for server market. Which means that if server ramp is relatively slow, desktop ramp will not be fast either

One has nothing to do with the other...
The reason server ramps (for all companies) are slow is that servers are far more "mission critical" than desktops. OEMs and companies looking to purchase large quantities will test them (called validation) in a system first for at least 6 months before taking the large order.

The fact that the server ramp will be slow no matter what has no bearing on the desktop ramp though...over half of AMD's chips currently in production are already 65nm, and there is no reason why AMD would have made all of those K8s. I would bet that AMD has already begun a buildup of Agena and Kuma for Q3 release...


RE: Yawn!
By defter on 5/4/2007 5:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No they didn't...they said that PROFIT from K10 would be slow. They don't expect K10 to make a big dent in the bottom line till early 08...


LOL, how can the volume be high if the revenues/profit will be low?? Do you really think that K10 will have lower ASPs than K8 line? K8 line will have very low ASPs in H2 2007...

quote:
Yes...if you view that as a return on investment.


You mean Intel's investment? Intel has very high margins, which means very high return on investment.


RE: Yawn!
By Viditor on 5/5/2007 1:29:31 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
how can the volume be high if the revenues/profit will be low

Mainly from the price war...but the majority of profits for AMD come from the server lines, and they will be limited by the time it takes for server validation.

quote:
Intel has very high margins, which means very high return on investment

Intel's margins have been dropping like a stone over the last year or 2...
Q1 07 is down 10% from Q1 06 and 15% from Q1 05...


RE: Yawn!
By ijakings on 5/6/2007 1:29:33 PM , Rating: 4
I felt the need to create an account over here just to reply.

Put down your fanboy stick. He said the ramp on barcelona would be slow. Barcelona is meerly the Server part of the K10 lineup. Server Ramps are always slower due to validation as was posted above.

Also Its quite easy for Profits to be low when Ramp is high. I Wonder if you actually know what ramp is?

In any case profits measured on a part will only come after the R+D and other pre release expenses on that part has been taken out.

In future when posting you need to

a) Stop being an Intel Fanboy
b) Research what your about to post so you dont do what you have done here and make a complete idiot out of yourself
c) If you cant understand something after you have researched it dont post it anyway.

Also.... Fuad? Is that you? If its not the amount of BS that spews from you is in an equal amount to his. You should go into Business.


RE: Yawn!
By jazkat on 5/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Yawn!
By bubbacub616 on 5/4/2007 10:12:44 AM , Rating: 2
dude chill out it ain't worth getting that stressed about. Just an opinion I had. I hope you have a good day also!


RE: Yawn!
By Adonlude on 5/4/2007 12:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
Your ignorance is laughable and I think you need to check the history books before you start spitting your nonsense...

Maybe you didn't know that AMD was originally just a fab house and that Intel had to have a second source back in the day in order to deal with IBM. Intel gave AMD their designs but eventually AMD started price waring Intel with their own products so Intel decided to cut them off. AMD then sued Intel and basically stole some rights to 386 and x86.

The moral of the story is that AMD is the ultimate copier of Intel. Intel invented x86 and the founders of Intel created the personal computer. AMD stole its existence from Intel and has been a competitor ever since.

Intel was also first to use an integrated memory controller contrary to what you seem to believe, but thats another story.

An ignorant kiddie such as yourself is probably to young to know these things.


RE: Yawn!
By Viditor on 5/4/2007 1:48:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The moral of the story is that AMD is the ultimate copier of Intel

That's the silliest thing I've heard yet...you do know that AMD has just as many (or more) patents as Intel on today's CPU designs, don't you?
Have you ever heard of Nicolas Joseph Cugnot? You should have since every car made (according to your theory) "copied" him...
He invented the first automobile (it was steam powered). So just how relevant is that to Team Ferrari??
quote:
Intel was also first to use an integrated memory controller contrary to what you seem to believe, but thats another story

I see you didn't say "commercially use"...they couldn't get Timna to work well enough.


RE: Yawn!
By Shadowmaster625 on 5/4/2007 2:25:08 PM , Rating: 2
They didnt want Timna to work because it would have cut into their chipset business


RE: Yawn!
By MartinT on 5/4/2007 5:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Timna worked just fine, it was its limited performance potential (not that important given its low-end target market) and mostly the outragously high prices of RDRAM at the time that killed it.

In the same line of thought, on should probably also blame the horrible embarrassment that was the (last and only memory fallback) MTH.


RE: Yawn!
By Adonlude on 5/8/2007 3:26:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Have you ever heard of Nicolas Joseph Cugnot? You should have since every car made (according to your theory) "copied" him... He invented the first automobile (it was steam powered). So just how relevant is that to Team Ferrari??


If NetKiddies were all presently shouting "Nicolas Joseph Cugnot copies everything from Team Ferrari!" then it would be very relevant.


RE: Yawn!
By clemedia on 5/4/2007 2:14:27 PM , Rating: 1
You know, before going and calling people ignorant you should at least be competent enough to know the difference between 'to' and 'too'.

Also you sound like a 15 year old, who are you calling a 'kiddie'?


RE: Yawn!
By TxJeepers on 5/4/2007 3:34:03 PM , Rating: 2
And Intel invented the internet and controls the government along with the other Fortune 100 companies.


RE: Yawn!
By RW on 5/4/2007 9:46:44 PM , Rating: 2
Theoretically AMD should outperform Intel with the new CPU architecture, they did it several times over the past with every major architecture change so why they should not do it again ?

And I don't think that AMD has other option than to outperform Intel because if they don't do it they could go out of business.


RE: Yawn!
By Amiga500 on 5/4/2007 6:11:16 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't lose interest just yet.

By my amateurish reckoning, the 2.6 Agena will be approximately equal to a 3.33 Ghz Yorkfield. [if you use the 40% clock for clock advantage AMD claims, and assume its on a 2.6GHz comparison - it checks out].

So, in my view, its pretty much game on.


RE: Yawn!
By flatout on 5/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Yawn!
By Locutus465 on 5/4/2007 8:51:23 AM , Rating: 3
Considering AMD already has chips that handily beat that processor I'd say you made an error in your calculations... Honestly, I don't get why people keep saying they've lost faith in AMD....

They've kept CPU prices down, introduced x64 (AMD64) architecture, designed a chip that pwned intel for 3 years, and it appears that same design with minor tweaks is more than capable of competeing with C2D.


RE: Yawn!
By ObscureCaucasian on 5/4/2007 9:07:01 AM , Rating: 3
Lol it's like they're saying "Ha! Goliath finally beat David. Man whats wrong with David I guess he just can't compete with Goliath.


RE: Yawn!
By bubbacub616 on 5/4/2007 10:14:01 AM , Rating: 2
They kept CPU prices down during the days of the athlon XP. but a64 was always priced very close to P4


RE: Yawn!
By Locutus465 on 5/4/2007 6:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They kept CPU prices down during the days of the athlon XP. but a64 was always priced very close to P4


Apparently you don't remeber how much CPU's cost back before AMD enterend the CPU market... I remember low end P-II's going for $500+ back in the day.


RE: Yawn!
By MartinT on 5/4/2007 6:09:14 PM , Rating: 3
Apparently you have forgotten that AMD existed before the Athlon.

Also, you seemingly have forgotten how AMD has milked the market when it was on top with K8. DCs starting at $300? FXs at $1200? That was but 9 months ago.


RE: Yawn!
By coldpower27 on 5/4/2007 10:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
Actually if you remember the Dual Core launch, it was 500-1000USD for Dual Cores, only after awhile was the 3800+ introduced at 350US or so.


RE: Yawn!
By KernD on 5/4/2007 10:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
And you seem to forget that Intel has far more production capacity than AMD, deeper pockets and 80+% market share, they could afford to sell there dual core at a lower price and cut the profit of each sale. As we see right now when AMD does that they go in the red.

If AMD ever reaches 50% of server market share then you would see very different things from both companies.


RE: Yawn!
By Locutus465 on 5/5/2007 1:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, actually my very first AMD chip was a K6-II 300... Totally awesome chip, and the coolest part is I could actually afford it! AMD has always had affordable extreamly good performing chips out on the market. The market is consivbly better off because of compitition from AMD.


RE: Yawn!
By Martimus on 5/5/2007 10:08:39 AM , Rating: 2
It took a long time for AMD to get enough publicity to be able to milk the market. The first AMD chip I bought was a K6 233, which cost me around $200 and was faster than any Pentium Pro that Intel had out. It also cost somewhere around 1/5 what the top of the line Pentium Pro cost. I have continued to buy AMD ever since because they have always had the best price to performance ratio, and early on it wasn't even close. I have grown a trust with the company after so many years of good products at good prices, that it feels wierd that Intel now has the best processors at an affordable price. I hope that AMD makes it through these lean times, because their low cost, high quality parts have really changed the home computer industry around so that anyone can afford to buy a computer.


RE: Yawn!
By Adonlude on 5/4/2007 12:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
You dont know why people have lost faith in AMD??? Well I can't speak for the CPU consumers but I can easily tell what the people with the money think of AMD by looking them up on Google Finance.

Huge multiple quarter losses, a stock price that dropped from 40 to 14 in the last year, huge debt from buying ATI... I think it is safe to say that people have lost faith in AMD, worse than that though people have lost money in AMD, haha.

Meanwhile Intel is gaining market share and posting huge profits.


RE: Yawn!
By Shadowmaster625 on 5/4/2007 2:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
All that means is that people are getting out of the way of the steamroller. It does not mean the steamroller is good.


RE: Yawn!
By Locutus465 on 5/4/2007 6:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
For now... If these new chips do what they're supposed to the situation could turn around fairly quick. Besides, I think the poster I was replying too was referring to their abilities to manufacture a processor capable of competeing with Intel...


RE: Yawn!
By defter on 5/4/2007 8:33:39 AM , Rating: 2
Those benchmarks were server benchmarks. It's very hard to estimate Agena's desktop performance without having additional data.


RE: Yawn!
By flatout on 5/4/07, Rating: -1
NDA Breakers strikes again !
By cornfedone on 5/5/07, Rating: -1
phenominal turd squared
By flatout on 5/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: phenominal turd squared
By Lightning III on 5/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: phenominal turd squared
By otispunkmeyer on 5/4/2007 10:44:20 AM , Rating: 4
ummm its just a cpu mate. its not gonna do a dance or anything


RE: phenominal turd squared
By Adonlude on 5/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: phenominal turd squared
By Martimus on 5/4/2007 1:12:16 PM , Rating: 3
AMD and Intel have been swapping the high end performance crown since the 486 days. AMD made a faster 486 than Intel, Intel came out with the Pentium and Pentium Pro which beat anything AMD had. AMD came out with the K6 which beat anything Intel had until the P2 was released. It has been a back and forth battle as far back as I remember, or at least as far back as I started paying attention in the early 90's.


RE: phenominal turd squared
By Lightning III on 5/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: phenominal turd squared
By dnosferatu on 5/5/2007 1:54:06 AM , Rating: 2
quite silly as i remember the day that athlon XP failed to take performance crown from PIV HT /C edition.

as far as i remember, PIV 2.4C also overclock too well to 3 Ghz range.
AMD simply did not have anything left to battle out intel's flagship, though i thought amd did actually win MHZ to MHZ battle,

i'm too old to remember thing exactly the way it was, so correct me if i'm wrong.


RE: phenominal turd squared
By Viditor on 5/4/2007 1:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel made AMD, dont forget that

Well no, Fairchild made both AMD and Intel...
But at the end of the day, who cares?
Semiconductors are all about "what have you done for me lately?".


RE: phenominal turd squared
By MartinT on 5/4/2007 6:04:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
why is intel dropping their quad 6600 to 266 price point before agena hits the streets its because its going to kick your cd2 ...

Just look back at the Core 2 Duo introduction, and how everyon was surprised and sceptical when the first prices appeared on Intel's roadmaps. To paraphrase: 'An E6600 for just $316? - Can't be. That's X2 3800+ territory. Must mean that it's a really slow piece of crap!'

I guess we all know how that turned out, the $316 Core 2 Duo E6600 equal or beating AMD's top of the line, $1200, FX-72. And by now, I'd have expected the last one to realize that Intel isn't pricing it's products to match AMD's existing CPUs in price/performance.

Intel's goal is to regain market segment share and to limit AMD's financial options to the point where they run out of cash for their ambitious CapEx plans. So far, it has worked perfectly.

Q3's E6850 / Q6600 combo at $266 will limit any DC AMD can come up with to $250 tops, and force them to ship huge (28x mm²), monolithic QCs above that.

Endgame - Quite fascinating to watch if your not invested in either party.


RE: phenominal turd squared
By fake01 on 5/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: phenominal turd squared
By coldpower27 on 5/6/2007 2:46:47 PM , Rating: 3
Your remembering completely wrong on that, the E6700 was $530 at launch, while the E6600 was $316 from the beginning of when it was launched and it was not only faster then the $1031 Athlon FX-62, it also ran at much less energy.

The E6600 and E6700 have both dropped in price now and are $224 and $316 each respectively.

FX-72's were $800 per pair when they came out, were not talking prices now, AMD has dropped prices to compete alot since the past Feburary, and now things are pretty much even on price right up to the E6600 on the desktop side, with the 6000+.

The fact that it's MCM or Monolithic design doesn't matter what matters is what performance it provides.

AMD so far has no plans to do MCM in a Single Socket, so that isn't happening, and Intel doesn't have any plans to do any more then 2 dies on 1 Socket.

Well you are coming off as biased when you don't know your facts and are falling for the AMD's marketing drivel.

Times will be tough for AMD, it's won't be till Q4 till the bread and butter Dual Core K8L/K10's come in the more mainstream price points. They aren't going away though.


RE: phenominal turd squared
By fake01 on 5/6/2007 6:37:11 PM , Rating: 1
ya, well i live in australia, so pricing is a sh*t load higher than American pricing and elsewhere. You say the e6600 is $224, well its roughly $315 in Australia at its cheapest. And the e6700 is roughly $400+.

And about C2D consuming less power, well that maybe true on the high end side, but low end i believe the X2 3x00 is very competitive against the C2D, not only in consuming power, but its cooler. Well, at-least the benchmarks I've seen. Besides, power usage is not a concern to me, power here in australia is very cheap. Well at-least i think it is, my mums buying me a bar fridge, i asked her about power, and she said its not a concern.

I have no idea what MCM is, but it sounds like your talking about the duct tape method. Yes AMD has no plans to add one core on top of another. But i remember reading a .pdf from AMD stating that if they wanted to they could.

Like i said, i don't mean to be biased, I just don't like it when people think just because one product annihilates another its the end for them. Well the athlons annihilated the pentium 4's, and people where saying the exact same thing about Intel. All this is is a fanboy war, AMD is not finished, Barcelona WILL as AMD stated be faster than both C2D and possibly Penryn, AMD will atleast take back the performance crown atleast in gaming. Intel will counter so on and so forth.

The only reason I'm against you because you said it was Endgame, lol it won't be endgame for a very, very, very long time, many years after my death.

The only reason i went for an AM2 board for is because i had a funny feeling AMD's next cpu will be backwards compatible, and as i can see im right, so not going C2D may be a disadvantage to me now, will become an advantage later this year.


RE: phenominal turd squared
By coldpower27 on 5/6/2007 10:18:37 PM , Rating: 1
Living in Australia, is not relevant, you can probably find isolated scenarios where certain products are cheaper or more expensive then what Intel or AMD charge them at. Fact of that matter is when talking about hardware you refer to official pricing set forth by Intel or AMD in US currency, preferably on the North American continent since prices tend to be stable there.

Nice try, $316 AU for E6600 is about 260USD, so I am not off too much aren't I, this would be a little more then what I would pay for in Canada, as I have E6600 at $266 CND, which is $240 USD. Other countries don't get the luxury of being very close to the stated USD pricing, but that's how it goes.

MCM refers to Multi Chip Module, and is the scientific term for more then 1 die implementation on 1 Socket. Not the crap AMD spews on the "true" nonsense. Actually it was more like they wished they had, since people don't care whether the implementation is MCM or monolithic (outside of AMD fanboys as it's one of the paper advantages they have now), only the speed of the implementation matters. There are advantages to using the MCM designs, performance is only 1 consideration when making a processor.

Athlon 64's and Pentium 4's were effectively a tie, each was better at certain tasks, and comments about Intel being finished are orders of magnitude more into insanity then AMD being finished as Intel despite having a product that wasn't as competitive as they do now, they were still able to make lots of cash, during the entire NetBurst reign Intel never had a Net loss. They also had their marketing department behind them giving the perception they were superior, it took a very long time for AMD to break that shield down. It's a different scenario with AMD, once Intel is firing on all cylinders, you can see what drastic effect it's having, AMD has had a net loss for the last 2 quarters, and now they have to take measures to raise cash to keep the company alive till Barcelona can arrive.

I don't think I will believe anything that comes out of AMD's mouth, unless it can be independently verified by websites such as AnandTech, TechReport, or XbitLabs. Unlike Intel they haven't shown any benchmarks besides synthetics, and those are downright useless, as in certain synthetics Core 2 Duo beats Athlon 64x2 by a factor of 2 at times.

Do you know who your even replying to? MartinT said it was end game, not I.

That depends on if you can afford an AMD Quad Core, as unlike Intel, they can't afford to charge such aggressive pricing on their just released new architecture unlike Intel.


RE: phenominal turd squared
By raven3x7 on 5/6/2007 12:42:54 PM , Rating: 3
Lol really. Did you even look at the specs for the cpus? 89W(thats 67W if you use Intels method for TDP) for a QC! If it really turns out to be as fast as AMD says, Intel will have a very hard time ahead of them in the server space. Also the DC cpus are clocked higher than the QC. This should alow them to outperform Intels desktop offerings at least until Nehalem.


RE: phenominal turd squared
By coldpower27 on 5/6/2007 3:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
Tigerton is a bigger jump from Tulsa then Barcelona is over Santa Rosa, so Intel will be pretty much closing the gap, rather then falling too much behind.

89W only refers to the performance desktop Agena SKU's, the Server TDP is 95W, and isn't a big problem to contend with.

As well Harpertown is coming in Q4 2007, so the moment of opportunity for Barcelona isn't too much.

Tough to say, and again only 1 quarter advantage (if any) since Wolfdale is coming in Q1 2008, which should bring Intel back to parity or the performance crown, as Intel will have had the E6850 3.0GHZ/1333FSb since Q3 2007 and Wolfdale will be faster then that.

Kuma even at 2.8GHZ won't have much of an opportunity, as it is coming during a time of Quad Core transition.

I think Intel knows that once Barcelona arrives AMD will likely have the crown in the server, but with Intel's 45nm offerings coming hot on the heels, Barcelona's advantage isn't going to be too significant.


RE: phenominal turd squared
By Viditor on 5/6/2007 4:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tigerton is a bigger jump from Tulsa then Barcelona is over Santa Rosa, so Intel will be pretty much closing the gap, rather then falling too much behind

You need to be cautious there CP...
While I agree that the difference between Tigerton and Tulsa is huge in the cores themselves, remember that even Clovertown is exhibiting a significant platform bottleneck at 8 cores. It's quite probable that Intel won't be able to close the server gap at all until Nehalem is released...

As to the desktop, I don't think that any of us will know until we know...i.e. until the K10/Penryn benches come out. Certainly K10 should outdo the C2D, but Penryn at lower cores is still a big unknown. (personally I think that Penryn will come close, but not exceed K10...but that's pure conjecture)


RE: phenominal turd squared
By coldpower27 on 5/6/2007 10:25:29 PM , Rating: 2
I should have worded my phrases my carefully, I meant that Tigerton will close the gap, but I don't expect it to close it fully, I still do expect Barcelona to come out on top overall, but it won't be enjoying as large an advantage as Santa Rosa does over Tulsa.

K8L/K10 should outdo the current iteration of Conroe and Kentsfield out now, but I am not expecting it to be significant.

I expect Penryn to pretty much brings thing back to parity, I don't expect it to outperform K8L/K10, Penryn can leverage Intel's better manufacturing costs, for better pricing flexibility.


AMD's new name system is a copy of Intel's.
By Roy2001 on 5/4/07, Rating: -1
By Le Québécois on 5/4/2007 4:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
Would you please care to elaborate on this?


By aftlizard01 on 5/4/2007 4:50:04 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think he can as I can't recall intel ever using stars. Rivers and cities yeah, but even there I cannot recall Intel using a European city.


Better late than never
By verndewd on 5/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Better late than never
By verndewd on 5/4/2007 6:53:46 AM , Rating: 2
As far as the stars go I would hope its not all paper.


i am thoroughly confused
By otispunkmeyer on 5/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: i am thoroughly confused
By CK804 on 5/4/2007 2:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
And you are one ignorant fanboy. Why don't you learn what all that means before posting idiotic comments like that? It's not that hard, really. Oh, and how about this - not all 775 processors are compatible with all 775 boards (try slapping a C2D in a 955X board) while all AM2 and AM2+ processors are compatible with all AM2 and AM2+ motherboards. So much for ease, eh?

Celeron, Pentium, Core
Sempron, Athlon, Phenom

Look familiar?


RE: i am thoroughly confused
By EndPCNoise on 5/4/2007 7:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
I currently have an Athlon X2 4200+ socket AM2. I would like to "drop in" the Phenom X4 Agena quad as an upgrade when it is released later this year. This article states this processor is designed for the AM2+ socket, but it does not address the AM2 socket for this particular processor.

Could someone please verify whether this particular processor is compatible with AM2 boards with a bios flash?

Please cite reputable sources.
Thank you


RE: i am thoroughly confused
By Zurtex on 5/4/2007 8:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
Well the CPUs aren't out yet and manufacturers haven't released BIOS updates, so anything is possible at this point. But if you search Dailytech you will find statements from AMD saying that AM2+ CPUs will work in AM2 sockets, however you won't get the full range of features like HT 3.0.


RE: i am thoroughly confused
By leexgx on 5/6/2007 12:11:51 AM , Rating: 2
unless your useing your PC as an Heavy file server or somthing that can stress the the HT link (4GB/s) and that be Very hard to do on an gameing rig or an norm desktop

when this New cpu comes out i should be able to keep the same motherboard and Drop and AMD x4 in (after bios update) this 5600+ X2 will keep me happy untill then (unless performace sucks then i probly Jump to the intel side)


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher

Related Articles
AMD Talks Details on K10
April 14, 2007, 11:46 AM
AMD Beyond "Brisbane"
November 14, 2006, 6:31 PM













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