backtop

Hardware I'm Dreaming of a 3.0GHz Athlon 64 X2
Sven Olsen (Blog) - January 24, 2007 1:14 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 139 comment(s) - last by Pirks.. on Feb 1 at 11:55 PM
AMD isn't ditching 90nm just yet

Remember the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ processor that was supposed to be unveiled late last year?  Yep, it's still going to happen.

Earlier this week AMD added the Athlon 64 6000+ SKU to its distributor roadmap along with several Energy Efficient low power CPUs -- the single-core EE 3800+ and 3500+.  The 6000+ chips are scheduled for a late February launch and will be based on the 90nm node, while the EE CPUs are slated for the 65nm node.

AMD's previous roadmaps indicated the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is a 2x1MB L2 cache component with a 125W TDP.  3.0GHz is the next clock frequency in AMD's portfolio, so it would also be reasonable to expect the 6000+ to debut at this core frequency. The new chip will be a Socket AM2 exclusive CPU.

The Energy Efficient 3800+ and 3500+ will be clocked at 2.4GHz and 2.2GHz respectively, and carry at TDP of 45W.

The most recent roadmap updates gave no reason for the chip delay.  Barring no problems with the Stars and Cities cores slated for the middle of this year, the 6000+ will be the last Athlon 64 X2 processor on the high end.

Pricing for the 6000+ is expected at $607 per chip in quantities of 1,000.  The Athlon 64 3800+ and 3500+ will sell at $101 and $91 in quantities of 1,000.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By ScythedBlade on 1/24/2007 7:48:53 PM , Rating: 3
Well, I just spent a lot of time reading and downmodding Pirk's comments. I'm not even going to bother to outdue him, because the way I win all these comments, without even caring about mod points, is dragging them to xtremesystems.com. Then, he gets slaughtered by the legends who do know the stuff.

Anyway, a 3.0 Ghz still performs pretty poorly, and not worth 600 dollars. Heck, an E6400 with 2MB of ram still holds up to a 2.8 Ghz, while winning most (by most, I'm not talking about 2/3 ... its more like 85%) of the benchmarks. While they did release it, it's probably more for the benchmark.

Now here's the counterpost to Pick's framerates. A) There are dual core utilized games out there now ... heck WARCRAFT III just became dual-core optimized just a few days ago, so forget single core/ B) When you compared the frame rates, your comparing it to them by ratio. That's a pretty incorrect way. You can pick ANY game you want, and they're usually GPU limited. It's only on the extremely high graphic, high resolution (2k by 1k) pixels, that you start to see a GPU like 8800 limited by CPU power ... THEN you can actually compare.




By Rabbagast on 1/25/2007 3:18:21 AM , Rating: 2
You can pick ANY game you want, and they're usually GPU limited. It's only on the extremely high graphic, high resolution (2k by 1k) pixels, that you start to see a GPU like 8800 limited by CPU power

Actually its the other way around. Thats why they normally test CPU performance in games with low res...


By Rabbagast on 1/25/2007 4:34:34 AM , Rating: 2
I wasn't supporting you, just correcting a detail. You still need a fast multi core cpu for gaming. The games which take advantages of multi core are just now starting to appear. Supreme Commander and Half Life episode 2 being two examples. I can not find any good reason at all to by a single core cpu now, either for gaming or any other use! And socket 939, you can't be serious?!


By Rabbagast on 1/25/2007 5:35:57 AM , Rating: 2
The question then is, do you want to upgrade twice per year or once every two or three years?
Going with a s939 cpu that means you have to buy new memory and mb + the new cpu. Buy a descent c2d and you don't have to upgrade for a long time.
I have been gaming on a PC for 20 years so I have done a bit of upgrading in my time...


By stromgald on 1/25/2007 11:25:44 AM , Rating: 2
Oh come on, now you're bringing the monitor into the equation? Just keep it simple.

The lowest C2D available, E4300, beats the 3700+ at stock speeds (keeping things equal here) by a wide margin in just about all games. Use tomshardware, ananadtech, or any other website's benchmarks, the lowest Core2Duo (whether E4300 or E6300) will beat the single core A64 3700+. It's the same result everywhere. This is true even after overclocking is involved (which you mentioned in your first post) since the lower end C2Ds overclock equal if not better than the A64s. Quit whining for benchmarks and put up some legitimate ones yourself instead of comparing things at different costs and performance, boxed vs. OEM, and overclocked vs. stock.

The ONLY thing you've been complaining about that has any legitimacy is that the lowest Core 2 Duo is 2x as expensive and only gets less than 1.3x the performance. While this is true, its also a simple fact for almost all new technology (and most certainly processors) that a small increase in performance will have a larger percentage increase in cost.


By Pirks on 1/25/2007 1:20:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
you're bringing the monitor into the equation?
yeah, why not? if there is no practical sense in bringing your framerates above 60 because you WON'T NOTICE that on your 60Hz LCD - why waste money on expensive CPU when there are always not less expensive GPUs which DO help with making games look and feel better? why not waste money on GPUs instead of CPU? seems like more important thing for 3D games, especially on 30" 2560x1600 LCD monitors


By PrezWeezy on 1/25/2007 5:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well LCD's are notorious terrible for gamming to begin with. I prefer my old CRT with a 125Hz refresh. The picture is far clearer, much brighter, has more depth and the refresh is better. On top of that though, the human eye really only sees 24FPS. The reason you get a better picture from higher frame rates is because the image difference between each frame is less, making a clearer movement. I like higher refreshes because I can see the lines even at 75Hz, but that doesn't mean that if you have a game running at 75 FPS and a game running at 100 FPS on a 75Hz monitor you wont see a difference.


By PrezWeezy on 1/26/2007 1:16:02 AM , Rating: 2
Well I've got a 22" running 1280x1024 and I love it for my games. But it does make a huge difference. I've seen two game side by side running at different frame rates (both over 100) on an LCD, and the difference is abundantly clear. And just so you know, I have always been a fan of Intel. Not because they have been faster, but because I used to have huge problems with AMD's overheating and burning out. Even at stock speeds. They were very well known for having that problem. Intel CPU's have always been much more stable since the architecture split. I did admit that AMD was faster, but I never wanted to risk it. I did recently build an AMD 4800+ X2 for a friend and it was a very nice machine that I wouldn't mind having myself. However that was before the C2D was big and AMD was still the best. I guess I'm less of an Intel fanboy, and more of an AMD hater.


By Pirks on 1/26/2007 4:28:45 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I've seen two game side by side running at different frame rates (both over 100) on an LCD, and the difference is abundantly clear
Did you compare 120 Hz CRT with 60Hz LCD? If yes, well, maybe you can see the difference. But would you see the difference between 60 FPS game and 120 FPS game ON THE SAME 60 Hz LCD? I bet not! 'Cause 60 Hz refresh rate of LCD screen will PHYSICALLY prevent your eyes to see anything faster than 60 FPS. You CANNOT see 120 frames per second if your LCD monitor ONLY SHOWS YOU 60 frames per second, isn't that obvious??


By PrezWeezy on 1/26/2007 7:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
I, unlike you, try to keep things even for comparisons. Yeah it was the same 60Hz screen. But if you think for a second that because you have a 60Hz screen your computer will automaticaly adjust and run a game at a perfect multiple of 60 (i.e. 60, 120, 180) you're insane. Think about the overlaps. I might have a game running at 134 FPS. Now it starts to get a little different because your refresh and your FPS aren't synced up. Thats why games run smoother at a higher FPS, even with low refreshes. It doesn't just skip every other screen, it refreshes whenever it can and the more frames you have for it to refresh on the smoother the picture.


By Pirks on 1/26/2007 9:19:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It doesn't just skip every other screen, it refreshes whenever it can and the more frames you have for it to refresh on the smoother the picture.
but it's the same whether the game frame rate is 61 FPS or 6001 FPS - any game frame rate above 60 will lead to the following fact - EVERY time the monitor is about to display a new frame - the frame is there waiting. so if you have monitor that's displaying 60 frames per second - you are GUARANTEED that your monitor shows DIFFERENT frame EVERY time it refreshes the screen. THIS fact alone guarantees you as smooth gameplay as possible.

now, there is this tiny discrepancy between frames that is caused by frames in game being not in perfect sync with monitor refresh rate. I know that it does exist, however the important moment for me here is that MY EYES were never able to figure that out when frame rate was above 60 FPS. I noticed that as long as my framerate reaches 60 FPS or so - my eyes see ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between 61 FPS, 98 FPS or 122 FPS, and this was on my 120 Hz CRT monitor! so I thought if my eyes can't see the difference between 60 FPS and higher FPS - than so is true for everyone else. can your eyes distinguish between 60 Hz, 90 Hz and 120 Hz frame rate in games?


By PrezWeezy on 1/31/2007 2:43:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yes they can. I can see the difference. I can also tell the most minute difference between colors. I happen to be an audiophile as well, so I can tell the difference between a $200 system and a $500 system. Just because you can't see the difference doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


By ScythedBlade on 1/25/2007 5:04:01 AM , Rating: 3
Dude, there's a game where only c2ds can get past 32 fps nub ... XD, it was on tech report, with its 8800 GTX and GTS SLI ...


By Pirks on 1/25/2007 5:13:53 AM , Rating: 1
care to provide a link? never heard about this XD thing.


And...
By Aversio on 1/24/2007 1:29:46 PM , Rating: 2
who's going to buy it? Maybe a few hardcore AMD fans but seriously, its a little late now. And 90nm! Good luck. Had they came up with this on the 939 platform I'd probably be running one right now.