backtop


Print 53 comment(s) - last by Smiting Eye.. on Apr 10 at 8:34 PM

AMD's newest roadmap reveals many more Phenom processors for 2008, but tops off at 2.6 GHz

AMD's latest corporate guidance reveals a flurry of changes to the company's line of desktop processors. Most importantly, the new roadmaps indicate the arrival of AMD's higher-end Phenom processors.

AMD's first update to its performance segment will take place later in Q2 2008; the company will unveil two new Phenom processors: the AMD Phenom 9750 and the Phenom 9850. The Phenom 9850 features a 125 Watt thermal envelope and runs at 2.5 GHz, while the Phenom 9750 runs at 2.4 GHz and features a 125 Watt TDP. Around this time another configuration of the Phenom 9750 will be released, but this processor will feature a lower 95W TDP. 

In Q3 2008 AMD will release its AMD Phenom 9950 clocked at 2.6 GHz.  The Phenom 9950 is one of AMD's last high-end 65nm chips and features 140W TDP, the highest of any Phenom processor. Roadmaps indicate that there will be another processor released after the AMD Phenom 9950 though this is likely a lower TDP version of the same frequency. 

Next month AMD plans to launch two new chips for its upper mainstream market, the AMD Phenom 9550 and Phenom 9650. AMD guidance says the 9650 runs at 2.3GHz, whereas the 9550 runs at a slightly lower 2.2 GHz.

Halfway through Q2 2008 the company will release three more Toliman triple-core processors for its lower-mainstream segment: the AMD Phenom 8450, Phenom 8650 and Phenom 8750. They feature an operating frequency of 2.1GHz, 2.3GHz and 2.4GHz, respectively. All three chips feature a 95W TDP.

AMD guidance suggests all of these processors are based on the B3 stepping.  There are no more scheduled revisions to the 65nm architecture. 

AMD finally makes the jump to 45nm halfway into Q4 2008 with its Deneb and Propus-based chips.  Both feature quad-core architectures and 2MB of L2 cache. However, the major difference between the two is that Deneb features an L3 cache pool shared amongst the processor cores, Propus does not. Deneb will be targeted at AMD's performance segment, while Propus will be for AMD's mainstream chips.

Both of these 45nm processors are described as 95W TDP processors. 

As indicated in December, the company will not announce DDR3 support with the initial Deneb and Propus processors.  The initial 45nm Phenom processors will stick with DDR2-1066 until early 2009, where another revision will include DDR3 support. 
 


Comments     Threshold


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

45nm
By Desslok on 3/21/2008 12:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD finally makes the jump to 45nm halfway into Q4 2008


Things are not looking to bright for AMD, sppeds topping out at 2.6 and 45nm not coming till late 08. I am hoping for the server side of things were the large TLB can really do some good hopefully. We need AMD to stay in the game and keep Intel feet to the fire.




RE: 45nm
By FITCamaro on 3/21/2008 12:52:26 PM , Rating: 3
I'm just surprised they aren't able to get any more speed out of the 65 nm chips.


RE: 45nm
By eye smite on 3/21/2008 12:56:11 PM , Rating: 3
I'm betting it's just going to take time. Like the original athlon x2's socket 939 that topped out at 2.4 ghz. They gor those up to 3.2 ghz and I've seen forums with cpu-z screenshots showing the 5000+ black edition stable at 3.7 ghz. I'm sure they'll mature the product at a somewhat similar and slow rate in Phenom.


RE: 45nm
By Mitch101 on 3/21/2008 2:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yea sadly last year AMD roadmap was roadkill.

One would think 3ghz is possible since AMD demoed them and I'm sure they didn't have 45nm samples at the time. The machine did have a lot of fans. Really they shouldn't bother with 65nm any more since 45nm is close.

I would put all engineering on a smooth transition to 45nm above everything else and get it out in time for the back to school sales.


RE: 45nm
By MagnumMan on 3/21/2008 3:03:02 PM , Rating: 2
I've used two Phenoms now and the most I can muster out of either with water cooling is 2.75GHz. You get to a point where upping the voltage on the processor doesn't help. I think there's a major design issue on the current 65nm process. I think going to 45nm now, and not scheduling any more revisions for the 65nm is a big gamble. If they were to focus all their effort on the 45nm parts and get them out early, say in Q3, it would be worth the gamble. There is a lot of time between now and September. I'm still waiting for them to offer rebates to early adopters of their flawed B2 CPUs. I know it will never happen, but we deserve it. Hopefully they do not just shrink the die and call it a day...


RE: 45nm
By ImSpartacus on 3/22/2008 11:13:34 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, it's just a bad architecture. I hope the 45nm process brings some heavy revisions for overclockers. It's not fair that a last generation Q6600 can overclock well over the high end's stock speeds and current gen Phenoms can't even hit their [figurative] high end speeds.

At least they're catching up on chip process. AMD stayed with the 65nm's for a whole year while Intel has been working magic with the process for some time now.


RE: 45nm
By Darkskypoet on 3/23/2008 1:47:51 AM , Rating: 5
Its not a bad architecture... really, think for a second. Do you know how many bloody transistors go into the 65nm package? The issue is transistor count, not architecture so much. 450m transistors at 65nm, add to that multiple power planes, and an asynchronous L3, and HT setup. Of course its not going to scale as well as a 291m transistor c2d will.

I was looking into this previously, if you take a look at the relative complexity of the two chips, you'll see quite quickly why the Phenom doesn't scale so well. If you want to assign a part of the blame to the arch go for it. But you have to realize that when one chip carries that many extra transistors, its not going to scale as well as others with fewer.

The mistake was going monolithic quad core + IMC , and then adding L3 cache all on 65nm. They would have had a much better chip initially if they would have ditched the L3 cache, run the god damn thing synchronously, and let the IMC do its job. Instead of sitting with an L3 TLB issue, and craptacular scaling, they would have come in with a leaner meaner chip with relatively similar performance (if not better performance at the higher achievable clocks) for about 2/3rds the wafer space. Especially considering Intel has had the cache density lead forever.

It honestly seems like someone had a bit too rosy a forecast for what 65nm was going to be able to achieve. Thinking r600 here...

However, AMD has, since the K8, gone server first --> then desktop... and thus the cache, cache issues, etc. If any chip on the board was made for MCMing, it was the K8, and derivatives. HT anyone? It astounded me then, and astounds me now, that AMD didn't just MCM the K8, and do an optical half node shrink (55nm) at TSMC, or Chartered with the simplified cache K8 design they've been making at 65nm for a while.

Instead, we have k8s topped at around 3.2, and phenoms that can't hit 3. Considering the die size of a k8 at 55nm (or 45nm but they wouldn't have those yet) an MCM variety would be dirt cheap, and a great competitor to the cheaper c2ds. Further, If AM2 compatible, a direct quad core drop in with a bios update.

Sigh. How many of us armchair CEOs would love to have run AMD for the past 2 years or so?

(Note: I am thinking that the multi cpu variety opterons think 8xxx, with the extra HT link would have been able to handle mating quite nicely. This does increase the die size I am sure, but I doubt by that much. Consider a direct extremely local HT-HT link between the two dies as superior to linking through NB.)


RE: 45nm
By vignyan on 3/23/2008 9:58:22 AM , Rating: 2
And all this while I thought it used clean silicon transistors! :P

I did not know it mattered how many transistors went in. The designers well knew their targets before. In that case, you want to call the p4 EE design a marvell with its very high gate count and very high clock and very high power consumption, very high incompetency and hence a very BIG flop! In fact shame on Intel for making such a product in the first place...

My fighter plane flies but not just as fast as the enemy's because its complex... Use my plane will ya? jeez... i got to stop... Sorry pal... Bad design = not meeting targets... The Q6600 is beating phenom in most benchmarks... what else is more shameful than this! i am comparing with a product launched in dec '06 w/ product launched one full year late which by all means is only fair for AMD i guess...

AMD failed us. accept it... but it will come back... i hope so...


RE: 45nm
By Darkskypoet on 3/23/2008 9:11:54 PM , Rating: 4
That's exactly right. They did fail. It's a shame too, because honestly, AMD should've beat intel to the MCM'd Quad core. The 8xxx opteron design, as I mentioned, could've been MCM'd a long time ago. Sadly, It probably would've been able to go head to head with Phenom as well. But still not beated the Q6600.

However, quite honestly, both core 2 duo and k8 / k10 owe quite a lot to the Alpha of yore. Short and wide. The model cpu, is quite a bit different from the model human... lol.

The P4 was stupid because they threw away a good architecture (P3, Pm, etc) to make it. AMD didn't go far enough in utilizing their bag of tricks. If we want to speak of design issues, the K10 should be wider then it is, and the L3 cache (as I said above) should be gone. Hell, a 256bit memory controller, broken into 4 64bit channels, wider design, and no cache. Still a smaller chip then current, and it would have been a screamer. further, as Intel moves to a tri channel memory controller, I figure AMD will have to increase Memory bandwidth when they fuse graphics into the mix.

Yes it does matter how many transistors go in, when manufacturing for a certain process. Not that the number means anything when comparing chips, except that it'll give you an idea how something might scale, and its relative complexity. But as I've said before many times; AMD was stupid to go for a monolithic core when even the mighty intel wasn't going to go for it. Not that no one could do it, but when god and its money don't, there is usually a reason. So perhaps if you only have 2 fabs, you shouldn't be so stupidly ballsy to tie your best fab up making monstrously huge dies.

I would have thought Intel with its what, 14 fabs?, would have had a better shot at making it work, because even if it had issues, it wouldn't have hurt them as badly.

However, one thing perhaps tht my ignorance is hiding from me... does anyone know if the IMC actually makes it much harder to MCM the dies? I was just thinking about that, does it put them in a position to have to use a NUMA-esque memory architecture? Or can the Coherent local HT links do it for them? Maybe someone closer to the scene can explain...


RE: 45nm
By Proteusza on 3/24/2008 8:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
Good analysis.

I do agree that AMD's greatest problem has been its poor management. The K8 gained them a lot of ground and started to narrow the gap between Intel and AMD. But then they didnt really update the architecture, and so were caught with their pants down when Intel released the C2D and even worse, the C2Q.

I did hear about a failed project that cost AMD a few months, but really, thats just poor project management.

I do wonder why AMD didnt MCM the K8's. Given a slight die shrink and a quad core, it would have really competed well with Intels chips. I guess the problem is that if they did that, there would be no reason for anyone to buy a Phenom, since the quad core K8s would offer better performance.

I think Phenom will go down as AMD's netburst architecture. I dont think they did enough to improve IPC, and the monolithic quad core, while good in theory, has done little of them.


RE: 45nm
By Von Matrices on 3/22/2008 2:05:38 AM , Rating: 2
That increase in clock speed also took two years to achieve that 800MHz, and that 3.7 GHz OC was a process shrink after the 2.4 GHz "wall". By 2010 better processors will exist than a 3.4GHz (or 3.9GHz OC'ed) Phenom.


RE: 45nm
By ninjaquick on 3/21/2008 3:44:09 PM , Rating: 3
Really even at 45nm they might not make it beyond 3.0GHz at the nominal voltage just because they have massive transistor count and the method they use to make the transistors.
AMD sticks a massive amount of technology in their chips, but use the aging SOI process.
They really need to focus more on getting tech in their CPUs that gets used my programmers, and hardware that bleeds less electricity (which was the beauty of SOI back in the day of K8). Problem is that as transistors get smaller, they get closer together, so the electrons sometimes decide to hop from one pathway to another. It kinda makes a mess.


RE: 45nm
By amanojaku on 3/21/2008 12:53:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Things are not looking to bright for AMD


I don't agree. AMD is certainly not playing at the level of Intel, but it is still competitive, particularly around pricing. I agree that the CPU speeds need more clock and that 45nm is late compared to Core2, but who cares? If you already have an aging CPU any new AMD will most likely outperform it. If you're without a PC any new AMD CPU will certainly be a step up!

We haven't seen anything as significant as the original Athlon, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed: for a long time Intel hadn't seen anything like the Core/Core2 before it debuted, either.


RE: 45nm
By tastyratz on 3/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: 45nm
By batman4u on 3/21/2008 1:16:23 PM , Rating: 1
Me too.....never knew what happenned :(........... and then they massacred ATI by firing too much ATI personel and selling info to Nvidia is because ATI got behind and now neither of two companies are in Top of the game ........so sad......... and now intel wants to come in the graphics game..... i wouldnt be supprised if intel in 2 years is behind nvidia and ATI third.


RE: 45nm
By adam92682 on 3/21/2008 11:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
intel is already #1.


RE: 45nm
By Pirks on 3/23/2008 3:03:35 AM , Rating: 2
They are #1 in sales, but not in quality. They sell insane amount of poo-poo called "Intel Video". Yes, they sell A FREAKIN' LOT of it, but it doesn't make it anything but poo-poo.

Ever read anand's review of AMD 780G where they compared latest nVidia, AMD and Intel IGPs? In that review AMD kicked nVidia's #ss pretty good, and Intel's crap couldn't even FREAKIN' RENDER A GAME! I couldn't believe my eyes, the frame rate was like 2 FPS in Intel G35 IGP and the screen was like total grey... there goes your #1


RE: 45nm
By Sulphademus on 3/24/2008 3:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
They are number one in volume only.
How many of us have a Mobo with integrated graphics (intel) and then slap in an 8800GTX? That counts as a sale in both Intel's and NVidia's columns, even though the Intel isnt used.

And Intel's video seems to be good enough for Uncle Buck who just surfs eBay and plays solitaire.


RE: 45nm
By Tsuwamono on 3/27/2008 9:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
lol i dunno about that...


RE: 45nm
By Carter642 on 3/21/2008 1:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, basically AMD is saying that the current lackluster phenom performance that we have now is what we're going to have to live with unless they can pull a 3ghz 45nm chip out by the end of the year. 300mhz over their current fastest Phenom still doesn't make for a fast chip.

With AMD's finances taking it in the shorts I'm very worried about their future. Intel is going to be a whole generation ahead again come Q4 and that's going to mean big price cuts on Core2 chips forcing AMD to cut prices to keep pace. At this point Intel is controlling AMD's pricing. AMD can't keep hemorrageing money and cutting their margins at the same time and expect to stay in the game with Intel.

I will stand by my prediction that AMD will need restructuring or bailing out if they can't come through in a big way with their next gen architecture allowing them to take control of their processor's pricing structure and thus profits.


RE: 45nm
By Segerstein on 3/21/2008 7:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At this point Intel is controlling AMD's pricing. AMD can't keep hemorrageing money and cutting their margins at the same time and expect to stay in the game with Intel.


Well, in the glorious A64 days, Intel also controlled AMD's pricing. Intel is a "price leader" and AMD is a "price follower". In A64 days they set the highest price they could for the amount of processors they produced. They could have won a big market share, but were limited with a low capacity Fab30. Now they also sell all they produce, but now they are at a low-mid end. Except for the Opterons, but with 8core and Intel's integrated memory controller and HT clone, I don't see A64 days coming soon again.


Errors?
By imperator3733 on 3/21/2008 12:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the AMD Phenom 8450, Phenom 8650 and Phenom 8750. They feature an operating frequency of 2.4GHz, 2.3GHz and 2.1GHz, respectively.


Shouldn't the clock speeds be reversed? The 8450 should not clock higher than the 8750.




RE: Errors?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/21/2008 12:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
Fixed.


RE: Errors?
By coldpower27 on 3/21/2008 1:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
It's still wrong, except the statements are both reversed. 8450, 8650, 8750 should correspond to 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4GHZ.


RE: Errors?
By Hiawa23 on 3/21/2008 2:43:28 PM , Rating: 1
I only buy intel, but I did not know AMD was the lower cost competitor to them. Shows what I know...


RE: Errors?
By ninjaquick on 3/21/2008 3:48:15 PM , Rating: 5
The beauty of AMD is the motherboards. You can get a great, solid AMD mobo for 60 bucks. When buying intel you might spend as much as 120 just to get a basic motherboard.


RE: Errors?
By feelingshorter on 3/21/2008 6:36:49 PM , Rating: 2
Intel motherboards will come down in price soon enough, with the fact that the next iteration of Intel processors will have on die memory controller just like AMD. That means cheaper motherboards soon enough.


RE: Errors?
By theapparition on 3/21/2008 8:11:27 PM , Rating: 3
Could that possibly be because nobody is buying AMD boards right now......


Well their getting there.
By RjBass on 3/21/2008 12:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
All be it very slowly.




RE: Well their getting there.
By eye smite on 3/21/2008 12:53:01 PM , Rating: 3
Yep, watching for the tri cores. Circuit city is already selling the 8400 tri-core in a gateway with 3 gigs of ram for $549. I'm tempted to go get it, but I'll wait a bit longer and watch.

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Gateway-GT5670-Desk...


RE: Well their getting there.
By RjBass on 3/21/2008 2:04:35 PM , Rating: 2
Whats funny is that in the products description they list the 8400 as a tri core and then again later as a quad core. hmmmmmm


RE: Well their getting there.
By Visual on 3/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Well their getting there.
By ninjaquick on 3/21/2008 3:49:54 PM , Rating: 3
he prolly wanted to write albeit


Dang AMD...
By daBKLYNdoorman on 3/21/2008 5:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
/start suggestion for AMD
Why don't you just focus on the mobile CPU market for notebooks and the value CPU market for basic computing needs? It's pretty obvious that Intel is far ahead of you in the performance market so don't go after them yet.. just sit and watch and wait for the right moment. Heres what I would do if I were you: develop cheaper CPUs for use for basic applications such as internet and communication. Forget about the performance CPU market for now.
/end suggestion for AMD




RE: Dang AMD...
By eye smite on 3/21/2008 6:06:55 PM , Rating: 3
Really? I suppose that's why under intense load the quad core Opterons scale and get better benchmarks than xeons? I had no idea that anyone would believe speed alone would make a cpu victorious in this. Thought that was proven from 2k3 through 2k6, you know, A64 vs the P4 netburst pudding pop......
So the Core 2's can get better benchmarks in standard tests and AMD can get better benchmarks in Folding@home and World Community Grid. Seems like it's more preference these days, kind of like the old Ford vs Chevy arguments. I should use that old argument and refresh it a bit. " Shhh, this is AMD country.......on a quiet night you can hear an Intel rust". I bet I could sell a few thousand of those T-Shirts. Then just reverse that statement and sell even more to the Intel fans. :-)


RE: Dang AMD...
By Smiting Eye on 4/10/2008 8:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'd buy that t-shirt.


RE: Dang AMD...
By Segerstein on 3/21/2008 7:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
This is a stupid suggestion. You produce what you can and then charge for it what you can.
And selling your latest tech for less isn't really a good proposition. Do you think the R&D & production would be significantly lower if they increase the lag behind Intel by another year ???


TDP
By Jaramin on 3/21/2008 1:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
140W, 125W and 95W TDP ? If you care about power consumption (and heat/noise), this is really not so great. Intel's old Q6600 is at 95W, it's replacement, the Q9300, is at 95W too. Q9450 and Q9550 are at 95W too. Factor in the dual cores at 65W, and you can see how much of a problem AMD is having with it's performance/TDP ratio :(




RE: TDP
By Visual on 3/21/2008 1:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
Few years back there used to be a catch that Intel was reporting averages while AMD were reporting peaks. Not sure about the situation now though.

AMD does have some lower-wattage chips in the dual core segment, perhaps there will be such among the quad Phenoms too.
But it makes sense for Intel to have the cooler chips - 45nm vs 65nm.


RE: TDP
By coldpower27 on 3/21/2008 2:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
Depends, TDP is only a general ballpark figure of where to look for wattage, you actually have to measure the products themselves to get the actual values.

Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quads on the 65nm generation are mildly below their rated TDP's.
Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quads on the 45nm generation are fairly below their TDP values, a Core 2 Duo 45nm is barely 40W if that at load, while the Quad is in the 65-75W range.
Intel could have easily said 75W TDP for QX9650 and 100W for QX9770. But they chose extreme leeway in assigning a 130W and 136W TDP.

For the 65nm TDP Quad's for AMD.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/14052/17

Going from these results, AMD's TDP ratings are pretty much comparable to Intel's 65nm Core 2 Stuff. (Slight edge for Intel) The Phenom 9600 is about the same level as the 5600+.


RE: TDP
By smilingcrow on 3/21/2008 7:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
If you look at the many reviews that measure power consumption these days it seems clear that AMD’s CPUs are consuming far more power under load than Intel’s and it’s best to ignore Intel’s current TDP figures as they don’t give much idea of the actual power consumption.
The AMD platforms except for mobile are still generally more power efficient at idle than Intel’s but at load their CPUs produce a lot more heat which makes cooling much harder especially in a SFF case or if you are aiming for silent cooling. This is one of the main reasons why I haven’t use AMD since Core 2 Duo was released; I used them prior to that for 4 years or so.
Their 45nm process isn’t giving any signs of closing the gap significantly but it’s too early to call that


DDR2
By batman4u on 3/21/2008 12:56:02 PM , Rating: 2
hope AMD makes it till 2010 when fusion comes out...

RAM movement is the logic move about sticking to DDR2 1066 even though intel has DDR3 already, i think ....DDR3 is still behind and is not until early 2009 when DDR3 will get good and DDR2 at 1066 with low latencies is lighting fast

DDR3 for me is no sense buying them sine there is no real improvement




RE: DDR2
By jajig on 3/21/2008 6:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the massive price increase of DDR3 compared to DDR2. I'd rather have more than faster RAM.


Seems I can keep my Q6600 for a while.
By Roy2001 on 3/21/2008 1:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
I just turn FSB to 300Mhz to make it faster than any AMD processors.




By Niteowler on 3/24/2008 12:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
Your exactly right! I read last week that Intel plans on producing 6 core chips in the fourth quarter this year. How is amd going to deal with that if it's true? There's only one way.....architecture! The current Intel's do 4 processes per cycle and Amd's do 3. Considering how lousy the current Phenoms scale, they would need to do 5 processes to compete. Architecture was how the athlons beat the P4's. Amd is coming up short across the board and things like the L3 TLb bug sure hasn't helped any. Intel could probably produce chips at 3.5 ghz or better if they wanted. They are poised to kick butt for quite a while. Sure is hard to be a Amd fan now days.


Isn't it ironic...
By Cullinaire on 3/21/2008 9:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
...in an article detailing the future plans of the organization, the picture is that of an ex-CEO.




RE: Isn't it ironic...
By Cullinaire on 3/21/2008 9:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, not CEO, but an exec nonetheless :D


needs moar megahurtz!
By JoshuaBuss on 3/21/2008 12:54:39 PM , Rating: 1
when can we see some nice 3.0ghz phenomz, amd??




RE: needs moar megahurtz!
By ninjaquick on 3/21/2008 3:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
youll prolly be seeing 2.0 GHz k11s before that ever happens.


Hrmm
By Pezman37 on 3/21/2008 1:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
Can it play duke nukem forever?




Projections
By crystal clear on 3/22/2008 5:59:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
more Phenom processors for 2008, but tops off at 2.6 GHz


Impressive on paper ...

It should be interesting to observe how the market responds to these products & their sales figures for the year end.

AMD should be given its time to recover as WITHOUT AMD we the buyers will loose the price/performance advantage that we have today.

Competing with Intel in the future is going to be extremely difficult for AMD technically & financially.

Just as there is a R&D alliance of IBM of which AMD is a member,this should be extended to manufacturing & marketing.
That would imply a common architecture/platforms etc.

In short only such a alliance can effectively compete in the future with Intel.

AMD alone cannot do so & eventually collapse.

In short it should be Intel against the IBM alliance in the market place,

As for the AMD roadmaps ....experience speaks for itself.

Ever changing roadmaps dont help in customer/investor confidence.

Solution-Stick to your roadmaps & shut up & deliver on time.

For those interested in AMD motherboards-

Official AMD Phenom Motherboard Support List
Written by Chris Tom
Wednesday, 19 March 2008 11:14
AMD has just provided us with their offiical Phenom motherboards list. Yes it is long, but bear with me. I couldn't get it to display correctly with the read more link. The boards that are hyperlinked have links to where you can purchase them. A number of these boards are in the $40 range. Yeah, that is cheap. Add to that that these will support triple core Phenoms as well and you have the makings of a very low cost system.


http://www.amdzone.com/index.php/news/motherboards...

Here is how they refer to D.T. on their site-

DailyNDA Break has details on AMD's Phenom roadmap.

Some humour added on......




I'll wait for the 45nm
By wingless on 3/22/2008 11:59:16 AM , Rating: 2
I've already decided I will stick it out with AMD simply because their platform is cheaper to update. I'll buy an $89 5000+ Black Edition and a nice AM2+ motherboard with SB700/750 and new chipset to tide me over until 45nm CPUs hit the market. For what I use my computer for, the AMD Phenom actually matches or exceed Intels (how rare that is, right?) at the moment so oh well. I also like the fact that in 2009, AM3 CPUs will be backwards compatible for my AM2+ motherboard so I won't have to ditch an entire system to upgrade.

Theres no question that its better to wait for the 45nm revisions of the Phenom. Those TDPs are a bit much at the moment.




By nofumble62 on 3/22/2008 12:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
Sheesh. Give the guy a break.




"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber

Related Articles
AMD Finally Ships "B3" Opterons
March 12, 2008, 1:13 PM
AMD Triple-core Phenom Processors Inbound
February 18, 2008, 1:25 PM
AMD Details Next-generation Platforms
December 13, 2007, 10:14 PM













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