backtop

Hardware AMD Announces "Brisbane" 65nm Processors
Anh Tuan Huynh (Blog) - December 5, 2006 1:27 AM
Print 80 comment(s) - last by maynardc.. on Dec 11 at 3:20 PM
Athlon 64 X2 gets the 65nm treatment

AMD today announced its long-awaited 65nm Brisbane core Athlon 64 X2 processors. This begins AMD’s transition to 65nm from 90nm. AMD expects to transition its complete product lineup to 65nm in mid-2007. Nevertheless, four Brisbane core Athlon 64 X2 processors are launching today—the 5000+, 4800+, 4400+, and 4000+. All 65nm Brisbane core processors are equipped with 2x512KB of L2 cache.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Brisbane 
Model
 Core
Frequency 		L2 Cache
 TDP Pricing
5000+ 2.6 GHz 2x512KB 65W
$301
4800+ 2.5 GHz 2x512KB 65W $271
4400+ 2.3 GHz 2x512KB 65W $214
4000+ 2.1 GHz 2x512KB 65W
$169

With Brisbane, AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual-core processors equipped with 2x1MB of L2 cache will become a thing of the past as AMD completes its 65nm transition. While AMD has announced its Brisbane core 65nm processors, the processors only available in limited quantities. Expect mass availability in Q1’2007.

OEMs are expected to deliver Brisbane powered systems as well. These OEMs include Acer, Dell, Founder, Gateway, HP, Lenovo, Packard Bell and TongFang. Dell is expected to adopt Brisbane 65nm processors in its Optiplex and Dimension desktops while Acer is expected to have Brisbane powered Aspire systems too.

Pricing for Brisbane 65nm processors start at $169 for the 4000+ and goes up to $301 for the 5000+ in quantities of 1000. Do note that Brisbane core processors are still K8 based and not K8L like the upcoming Stars core processors.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
im bitter
By anothercanadian on 12/5/2006 2:51:06 AM , Rating: 2
good for you, amd. maybe you could try making some 939's? seriously. you cannot get a 939 x2 in canada anymore. im so screwed, and bitter.




RE: im bitter
By cochy on 12/5/06, Rating: -1
RE: im bitter
By hadifa on 12/5/2006 6:59:29 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Why would they want to do something silly like manufacturing discontinued products? lol


To meet all the demand available for better 939 CPUs. All the people who have a 939 system would be interested to upgrade and so there is a high demand for higher end 939 CPUs.

If you have a 939 system now and want to do a complete upgrade, then it makes more sense to buy a core 2 due instead of AM2, but if you only want to increase the performance and have a nice dual core processor with the least hassle and cost, then you need a high end 939.


RE: im bitter
By Cogman on 12/5/2006 7:28:55 AM , Rating: 2
It is a little irritating to see AMD switch from 939 to AM2 to Socket F (I think it is) all within the last 2 years. I bought one of my computers 2 years ago when Socket 939 was the way to go with everyone saying something to the effect "Don't go with Socket 754 because 939 will be the standard that AMD sticks with".

Really, I relize that More powerfull and newer Processing technologys require you to have a new Socket, But as far as I've read and understand the AM2 Platform Provides no preformance increase over simular Socket 939 Processors. Socket A, Where are you?


RE: im bitter
By Frank M on 12/5/2006 8:31:24 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'll be waiting at least until the next socket to upgrade from my 939.


RE: im bitter
By othercents on 12/5/2006 8:50:47 AM , Rating: 2
There definitely is a market for 939 processors. AMD is going to be doing a disservice to themselves by requiring people who have 939 motherboards to upgrade their equipment. Basically if you are 939 you need a motherboard, memory, and processor. If that is the case I would just go with a Core 2 at this point.

By producing one more high end 939 processor AMD would be able to string along 939 users for at least another year before they will need to purchase all new equipment. This would give AMD some time to come out with their latest killer processor.

Other


RE: im bitter
By Frank M on 12/5/2006 11:04:56 AM , Rating: 3
Eh, it wouldn't affect me. I don't upgrade my processor every year, more like every three. It's more economically feasable to just build a new computer when I do. If trends continue though, I will be switching to Intel.


RE: im bitter
By othercents on 12/5/2006 12:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
I build computers for a cybercafe, so we usually upgrade processors, memory, and video cards every year and replace everything every 3 years. I use to do that at home, but I'm not gaming as much anymore. However I usually replace my home machine every 2 years.

Other


RE: im bitter
By saratoga on 12/5/2006 2:52:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There definitely is a market for 939 processors.


Just not one worth selling to.

quote:
AMD is going to be doing a disservice to themselves by requiring people who have 939 motherboards to upgrade their equipment. Basically if you are 939 you need a motherboard, memory, and processor. If that is the case I would just go with a Core 2 at this point.


AMD sells every chip they can make, so it really doesn't matter what you decide to do. Either way, they still sell out, so it literally makes no difference what current S939 owners do.


RE: im bitter
By mamisano on 12/5/2006 9:29:28 AM , Rating: 2
Since when is Socket F replacing AM2? AM2 will be going to AM2+ then AM3 over the next few years, and the original AM2 boards will be able to run AM2+ and AM3 processors but without support for some of the extra features.

I personally have an X2-3800+ 939 based system, two actually. And while I would like to see these newer processors available for 939, I understand why they are AM2 only. Its simple really, 939 has been DISCONTINUED.


RE: im bitter
By kamel5547 on 12/5/2006 12:19:42 PM , Rating: 2
Firstly socket AM2 is not transitioning to Socket F, Socket F is a server CPU socket designed to support things like fully buffered DIMMS, AM2 also provides support for "AM3" socket CPU's which is its successor (per AMD).

Secondly, AM2 was added only to provide DDR2 support. While it could ahve probably been done without a new socket, odds are more than a few people would have made the mistake of buying a DDR2 processor for their DDR1 board, switching the socket had no real impact as most peopel do not have a 939 board that supports DDR2.

No company sticks with a single socket for too long, and if they do odds are your motherboard stops supporting new processors and other technoligies (much like virtually every Intel board couldn't support Core 2 despite it beign the same socket). Personally I support changes in sockets as it helps to eliminate confusion about what board supports what CPU. As with Intel's current boards you ahve the issue that your socket will be the right type but not support the CPU, it would have been cleaner to just create a new socket type IMO.



RE: im bitter
By Donkeyshins on 12/5/2006 12:38:10 PM , Rating: 1
Opteron 165 / 170 / 175 in S939 is just as good as if not better than an X2 3800+ / 4200+ / 4400+ and is fairly reasonably priced (aside from the fact that any S939 chip will be overpriced since AMD is pushing AM2). If you are not ready to make the jump to AM2, then try and find a dual-core Opteron.

To be honest, though, if you need to go to the trouble of replacing your motherboard, why not just go with a Core2 Duo? Until AMD is out-performing Intel in the desktop arena again, it seems rather short-sighted and tactically foolish of AMD to abandon S939 and force folks to upgrade since performance-hungry customers (who aren't AMD fanboys) will be easily tempted by Intel's current offerings.

Apparently Santa (under the guise of my wife) is giving me a 175 to replace my 144. Ho. Ho. Ho. :-)


RE: im bitter
By Viditor on 12/5/2006 8:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is a little irritating to see AMD switch from 939 to AM2 to Socket F (I think it is) all within the last 2 years

Well, let's correct a few mistakes here...

1. AMD switched from 939 to AM2 after 2.5 years...that's pretty long by comparison!
2. AMD switched from Socket 940 to Socket F after 3.5 years...that's VERY long.

quote:
as far as I've read and understand the AM2 Platform Provides no preformance increase over simular Socket 939 Processors


Not QUITE true, but close enough...however, socket AM2 will allow you to use the K10 chips when they come out in the middle of next year. It's almost like buying a Socket 939 when it first came out...with some caveats.

1. There will be (rumour) a Socket AM2+ that will allow you to use HT 3.0 coming out in Q3 of next year. However the chips will still be compatable to the normal AM2 (just no HT3.0).
2. AM3 is due out in 2008 (using DDR3). However, it is rumoured that these will ALSO be compatable to AM2 boards (though of course you will be limited to DDR2 in that case).

While it's true that Socket A wasn't EOLed as quickly as 939 was, that's because Sempron was still on Socket A at the time.

BTW, while it's true that Conroe is still technically socket 775, remember that you had to upgrade mobos anyway in order to run it because of the voltage.


RE: im bitter
By elegault on 12/5/2006 7:53:12 AM , Rating: 1
RE: im bitter
By elegault on 12/5/2006 7:58:56 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, X2's. http://www.pccanada.com seems to have 4600+ X2's and a bunch of Opteron's.


RE: im bitter
By Russell on 12/5/2006 10:34:33 AM , Rating: 2
Get an Opteron 165 (or better, if you're so inclined).


RE: im bitter
By kilkennycat on 12/5/2006 12:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
Er, the FX series of dual-core 939 is still available. See ZipZoomFly or Newegg. FX-60 is in stock @$458 (US) at ZZF.


RE: im bitter
By kleinwl on 12/5/2006 2:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm bitter too about EOLing 939. I've got a single core with 2GB of ram and a EPOX 9NPA+ Ultra board. A simple processor upgrade costs $150 vs. a full on upgrade of over $450. My plan was to upgrade to dual core in a year...I can't afford to upgrade now... but 939 sockets may not be available later (say in 6 months). This is total B.S. I'm going to be basically stuck with single core until I chose to fully replace my computer... which is probably 3 years away still. ARRRG!!!


RE: im bitter
By RyuDeshi on 12/5/2006 2:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
Ebay


RE: im bitter
By glennpratt on 12/6/2006 12:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
Get an Opteron. $150 and you set.


RE: im bitter
By MonkeyPaw on 12/5/2006 5:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
Well, AM2 and S939 CPUs have a different memory controller to handle their different memory formats and pinouts. AMD would have to shrink both versions of its CPUs to please the S939 audience. Shrinking the die of a discontinued architecture running on a dying memory standard would be a very poor business move. AMD is trying to supply a volume of cheap CPUs to OEMs to gain marketshare, and this is where a node shrink helps the most. That's why these aren't high end CPUs. Put your more-expensive-to-produce dies on your more expensive product lines.


Why less Cache?
By cochy on 12/5/2006 3:05:43 AM , Rating: 2
Why would they stop using 2x1MB cache? Especially with a die shrink, wouldn't that make it possible to add even more cache? Adding more cache could help close the performance gap between the X2s and C2D. Anyway I don't get it. Maybe they want to compete with Intel with lower prices, so lower the cache for cheaper production...




RE: Why less Cache?
By cochy on 12/5/2006 3:11:59 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Maybe they want to compete with Intel with lower prices, so lower the cache for cheaper production


And that's fine with me. I miss the good old days of AMD, where you could pick up a cool Athlon for waaay less $$ than a similar Intel option.

hurray for replying to ones own post...I must be bored.


RE: Why less Cache?
By oTAL on 12/5/2006 5:43:00 AM , Rating: 2
Well... It's not really that.
If you've been following the news for the past months you must have know that AMD hasn't been able fill the supply needs for some time now, so they need all the output they can manage to produce. With their factories always producing as much as they can, they take the only route available... make chips smaller in order to produce more of them and increase revenue. Were AMDs market share to suddenly drop and allow them to fill every order and they could probably change to a larger cache (for some of the chips) in order to increase value for their costumers, which would allow them to sell the chips at a slightly higher price point.
As long as AMD has supply issues we will probably not see any big cache chips for decent prices.


RE: Why less Cache?
By FITCamaro on 12/5/2006 6:53:57 AM , Rating: 3
That and the extra cache really doesn't have that big of an effect on performance. C2D has a large cache to help compensate for northbridge latency. Not saying its a bad chip (I have an E6600) though. AMD doesn't see a real reason to increase cache size when they're selling like hot cakes with good performance without the extra cache.


RE: Why less Cache?
By othercents on 12/5/2006 8:55:08 AM , Rating: 2
Thats correct. When the first performance charts came with the AM2 processors we noticed that there wasn't a difference between the two cache sizes. This was because of the faster DDR2 memory that was being used. The larger cache helped with the 939 DDR motherboards, but not with the DDR2 ones.

Because of this there is no reason to produce the larger cache sizes anymore especially since the lower cache size decreases the overall cost of the product and allows them to compete better.

Other


RE: Why less Cache?
By Viditor on 12/5/2006 8:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
You should also keep in mind just how expensive cache is...
2x1MB takes up almost half of the die space!


RE: Why less Cache?
By Russell on 12/5/2006 10:33:02 AM , Rating: 2
They're just as cool as they ever were.

They only seem hot because the Intels are cooler. 65w isn't exactly hot.


RE: Why less Cache?
By yacoub on 12/5/2006 8:01:15 AM , Rating: 2
Great, but then where are the lower prices? lol :[


RE: Why less Cache?
By Wonga on 12/5/2006 8:33:55 AM , Rating: 2
I paid £210 for an X2 3800+ back in February, so don't get too upset with the current prices...


Why the hate
By ajfink on 12/5/2006 10:43:24 AM , Rating: 3
Why is there so much angst over this? It's just the die shrink everyone knew was coming for the past year. Clock for clock they'll probably perform exactly the same as their 90nm counterparts. I'm curious, though, as to whether these chips fixed the annoying memory controller thing where certain speeds of RAM performed better with certain speeds of processors.

It will be interesting, also, to see how a 65nm 4000+ stacks up again a 90nm 4000+, noting the 100Mhz discrepancy in clock speed. I wouldn't expect these first generation 65nm to overclock extremely well, but the rumor is that their 65nm process turned out at the higher end of AMD's expectations in terms of quality. So, we'll just have to wait a few weeks for the benchmarks to start rolling in.

And it does take time for a process to mature, and AMD would like very much to roll out their Stars cores on a more mature 65nm than one that still has places it could be improved. Not like they're ready to produce them now, anyway.




RE: Why the hate
By mino on 12/6/2006 1:59:15 AM , Rating: 2
The "annoying memory controller thing" did NOT need a fix.
The simple reason beeing it is design a FEATURE of the K8 architecture. Not a bug.


RE: Why the hate
By mino on 12/6/2006 2:06:40 AM , Rating: 2
Actually AMD has mature yields at 65nm so their process is mature from this point of view. AMD intentionally did not pmass-produce 65nm parts until they were certain of better overall output that their _very_efficient_ 90nm process because for their problems to satisfy demand.
FYI AMD is sold out for _every_ consecutive quarter starting by Q3 2005!!!

The Stars could not be rolled out yet NOT because of the manufacturing process but because of the CPU design itself. It is still buggy and at least one more stepping is expected to be necessary to iron out most of the remaining significant bugs.


RE: Why the hate
By JumpingJack on 12/6/2006 3:06:54 AM , Rating: 2
You have been reading too much AMD propoganda.

Could you tell me, quantifiably, what mature yield really means?


RE: Why the hate
By Viditor on 12/6/2006 3:52:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Could you tell me, quantifiably, what mature yield really means?

It means that they began volume production on 65nm at a percentage yield equivalent to that of their 90nm process...which of course is much higher in unit yield.
And as they announced this to their shareholders at the CC, I would suggest that it isn't propaganda (because they would be risking some serious lawsuits if it were...).


RE: Why the hate
By mino on 12/6/2006 7:12:20 AM , Rating: 2
IMHO not completely true.
I am pretty sure their percentage yield on 65 is 10+ percent lower than their "current" 90nm yields. One thing we know is the overall output on 65nm is higher that on 90nm. Otherwise it would not make bussiness sense to migrate allready.
As 12x/184 ~ 0.65 therefore their 65nm yields are _no_worse_than_ than ~0.65 of their current percentage 90nm yields.
A qualified guess 85-90% on 90nm puts 65nm to the 56%+ percentage.
As AMD said last waffers came on the better end of expected spectrum I would guess for 60-65% real yields.

2 JumpinJack: Almost in no circumstance a chip company does publicize its yields, these data are considered too sensitive.


RE: Why the hate
By slayerized on 12/7/2006 3:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
In theoretical terms, according to yield prediction models yield is a function of die size. Since the die size for a 65nm process is definitely smaller than a 90nm one one should expect yields to be higher. This is of course true only from a modeling perspective and it is true when you compare two dies from the same process but with different sizes (that is one of the reasons why intel released a quad core from 2 dies rather than one native quad core). As mino said there is no way to really say whether the process has really matured or not because yield numbers are extremely confidential and it is totally proprietary information. The only way to say if someone is having trouble ramping up is when you look at the supply chains (PS3 is an excellent example; the blue ray diode thingy is having pathetic yield and hence the bottleneck). Initial yield issues in process shift will be negated to a certain extent to the wafer throughput (dies/wafer). In the end everyone lives! So peace out guys


RE: Why the hate
By JumpingJack on 12/10/2006 2:37:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
2 JumpinJack: Almost in no circumstance a chip company does publicize its yields, these data are considered too sensitive.


That was exactly my point :) ... mature yield as stated by either player is absolutely meaningless to us as we do not know what 'mature' means in absolute quantity.


By kenyee on 12/5/2006 2:47:09 PM , Rating: 3
Googled for a while w/ no luck.
AMD has a hard enough problem supplying anyone w/ X2 chips since they started letting Dell use their chips...

They might as well announce 45nm chips since those can't be bought either :-P




By Viditor on 12/5/2006 8:14:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Googled for a while w/ no luck

Ummm...you have to understand what "shipping" means...
Just like with Conroe and every other chip, shipping means that they are sending chips to the OEMs so they can start to build systems.
For example, Conroe started "shipping" about a month before you could actually buy one.

Shipping = sending to OEMs for pre-build, usuall means that they will have availability within a month

Volume Production = starting large scale production. Usually means that you will have availability within 4-7 months.

Launch = This one varies quite a bit, but it is SUPPOSED to mean that product is now available...


By Khato on 12/6/2006 2:01:23 AM , Rating: 2
Judging from the AMD press release, I think they're trying to call this a 'launch'.

quote:
Launching the next generation of energy-efficient computing, AMD (NYSE: AMD) today announced the transition to 65nm process technology, beginning with the immediate availability of energy-efficient AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 dual-core desktop processors.


I'd imagine that a 'shipping' press release would look more like this: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_8366_7595...

As for conroe, they were available on the date of launch. I fail to see any Intel press release stating shipment for revenue a month prior to launch date, so am unsure what you're referring to.


By Viditor on 12/6/2006 4:04:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for conroe, they were available on the date of launch. I fail to see any Intel press release stating shipment for revenue a month prior to launch date, so am unsure what you're referring to

With the exception of a handful of early samples, Conroes could not be purchased (either in OEM boxes or at retailers) on their announced launch date (July 27). Most large suppliers had between 10 and 50 chips in total (when their usual supply is in the 1000's).
Quantities didn't show up until mid-late August...


By Khato on 12/6/2006 12:10:01 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, I fail to see how there being availability only from large retailers/OEMs negates the fact that they were available. As for the quantity those customers had, it may have been low as claimed on the 27th, only someone in distribution/getting information from such a person would know.

I do know that it took until mid-late September actually before the channel had adequate inventory. Which I'd say is an indication of just how high demand was.


By mino on 12/7/2006 12:44:28 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the demand was NOT as high as expected. Mostly thanks to AMD price cuts the market did not start shifting volume to Intel, instead continued, and continues yet, to shift volume to AMD. That is also the reason for AMD X2 shortages.

Until Intel moves completely to CMW architecture, it will be Intel filing up the slack from what AMD could not supply. Around that time K8L will be around ans it will be a completely new game from the start.


By Khato on 12/7/2006 1:38:25 AM , Rating: 2
Nice perception on reality there.

The market segment you're describing is the low end, where it's netburst based pentium and celeron versus AMD sempron/athlon64/athlonX2. In the low end, you're quite correct that Intel is filling in what AMD can't provide (have to get rid of excess inventory somewhere >.<) But excess netburst will be gone around the time of the core based pentium/celeron introduction, and then we'll have to see how the market reacts.

As to K8L, well, I'm looking forward to the surprise.


now the question is, how high do they clock?
By Visual on 12/5/2006 3:45:21 AM , Rating: 2
so far 90nm x2 didnt clock too high, with lots maxing around 2.8, certainly below 3ghz. if these new batches turn out to improve the clock headroom by a lot, they would be welcome. i hope amd can launch an official 3.5ghz chip and close the gap on intel a little.




RE: now the question is, how high do they clock?
By sbanjac on 12/5/2006 6:11:15 AM , Rating: 2
Well FX 74 work on 3 GHz, and they are also 90 nm. I think that there is no point to expect anything better from AMD on k7 architecture (an its extensions). They will never beat core 2 without a good redesign or completly new product. K7 was a hell of an answare to P4, but so is core 2 to K7, they just dont belong in the same generation. 60 nm chips will bring some more mhz, but i thing that is not their purpose. This is only a step for amd (in my opinion) to prepare itself fo the next generation, and to try to solve the supply problems it has been having. They already produce more working dies per waffer than thay had recived with 90 nm waffers. I bet that in some time they will improve efficency even more.


RE: now the question is, how high do they clock?
By edge929 on 12/5/2006 9:48:19 AM , Rating: 2
Err, don't you mean K8? The Athlon64/Opterons? Or did you in fact mean the K7 Athlon/AthlonXPs Socket A? K7 did indeed beat out P4 at the time but K8 really improved the performance lead even more, clock for clock.


RE: now the question is, how high do they clock?
By Lonearchon on 12/5/2006 11:15:05 AM , Rating: 2
The K8 was really a K7 with some tweaks, 64 bit extensions and a memory controller strapped on. The major preformace improvements was from the memory controller. AMD did not change very much in the core logic from the K7


By saratoga on 12/5/2006 2:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
They didn't change the backend very much, but a number of changes were made to the front end. Decoding, the MMU/TLBs, the layout of the pipeline, cache interfaces, etc where all substantially changed or even outright replaced. While you're right that the memory interface was the biggest single change, collectively the other stuff is probably equally important.


By glennpratt on 12/8/2006 1:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and Intel really didn't change 'that much' from Pentium 3 to Core 2....


Proof-of-concept?
By killerroach on 12/5/2006 2:32:12 AM , Rating: 2
I just don't see the point behind these chips... no real advantage in terms of price, performance, or power consumption... it seems more like they want to make sure they have their 65nm process firing on all cylinders in time for Stars, not to mention reduce their own production costs.

These don't interest me one iota, but, if this helps them get more Stars-based chips out in the future, it's fine by me.




By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/5/2006 2:43:45 AM , Rating: 4
It's very common practice to do optical shrinks before changing the architecture. This has been done for almost every major processor launch for the better part of two decades. It's basically to get the process down before then changing the architecture.


RE: Proof-of-concept?
By yacoub on 12/5/2006 8:04:31 AM , Rating: 2
I'll never understand why a post like yours gets rated down, when what you're saying is true - there is no reason to buy these. Why don't they just save the investment for the next-gen core on this die? If they want proof of concept they only need to produce a couple die sheets-worth of them. Should save the money and r&d so they can catch up w/ Intel. Especially when these really offer nothing to the mainstream buyers looking for a reason to stick with AMD when Intel has the superior platform in both price and performance.
LESS cache? Stiff prices? I mean come on...


RE: Proof-of-concept?
By mamisano on 12/5/2006 9:33:17 AM , Rating: 2
They are not making these newer processors to cater to the DYI crowd...If you have been keeping up with the news you would know that AMD has been having problems providing chips to their OEM and Retail chains. By moving to the newer process on a larger wafer size and smaller cache they can pump out a significantly larger number of chips to pump up the supply chain. This will also allow them to mature the new .065 process for increases in performance prior to the newer architecture coming in mid 2007.


RE: Proof-of-concept?
By saratoga on 12/5/06, Rating: 0
RE: Proof-of-concept?
By typo101 on 12/7/2006 7:28:34 PM , Rating: 1
i love that you got downrated for that


By Blackraven on 12/5/2006 10:44:39 AM , Rating: 2
Well, it's supposed to be for the mid-range market, I think.

Nevertheless, it looks like this isn't enough to beat the new Core 2 Duo line from Intel.

It looks like Intel has won this year. :)


By smitty3268 on 12/5/2006 11:29:50 AM , Rating: 2
Yacoub, how many times are you going to repeat the same post? A paranoid person might think you were a fanboy of some type... :)


By mino on 12/6/2006 1:52:47 AM , Rating: 2
Actually these EE chips comsume SIGNIFICANTLY LESS power that C2D in usuall environment(C'n'Q, 90% of time at IDLE).

Those 20Watts alone make i.e. 4200+ far better from TCO perspective than E6300.


By Hoser McMoose on 12/6/2006 5:21:48 PM , Rating: 2
Just to put some numbers to thing, running system 24/7 for an entire year gives us

20W / 1000W/KW * 24 hour/day * 365 day/year ~= 175KWh

Considering most people pay between $0.10 and $0.15/KWh of electricity, that's between $17.50 and $26.25 a year.

A more practical setup might have a the system running 8 hours a day, 5 days a week and 50 weeks a year (ie an office computer), which gives us 40KWh or between $4 and $6 a year.

Of course those people living in very warm climates may need to add a bit of extra to this to account for additional cooling requirements. The difference between the chips though is small enough that only additional electrical consumption need be considered for anything short of a large data center (or, more simply, you will *NOT* need to buy an extra air condition to cool an office full of Core 2 Duo chips vs. Athlon64 X2 EE chips)

Now, whether or not this makes a difference as far as TCO is concerned is up to the individual reader to decide. Also a difference of 20W is by no means guaranteed, it will vary somewhat from one chip to the next.


By mino on 12/7/2006 12:39:52 AM , Rating: 2
Nice numbers. Those 20W cited is in reality more of the conservative estimate than not.

Provided those $5 a year you got means $20 for amchine lifetime. Add another $30 saved on board and one suddently has $50 difference on hand for $800 complete machine.

Also this is in fact the lowest possible benefit one would see.

I could tell, in summer (35C outside) the lower-heat machines will be far more reliable.
It should be noted however, that similar saving are posible also by choice of better PSU. However I preffer both 80%+ PSU with active PFC and low-power components.


Odd Frequency
By Avalon on 12/5/2006 12:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm surprised no one has commented on the odd numbered frequency of the chips. 2.1, 2.3, 2.5Ghz? Are they using half multipliers or a different bus speed?




RE: Odd Frequency
By smitty3268 on 12/5/2006 12:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
I think they're using half multipliers.


RE: Odd Frequency
By mino on 12/6/2006 2:08:26 AM , Rating: 2
They are.


RE: Odd Frequency
By JumpingJack on 12/6/2006 3:13:47 AM , Rating: 2
AMD is going to 1/2 multipliers in order granulate their bin splits. Prior, AMD would make 200 increment model number steps by 200 MHz clocking delta coupled with 512 or 1 meg cache.

Since the die size is substantially larger for 1 meg cache on a dual core product, they did away with the 4000+, 4400+, and 4800+ at 90 nm. However, this has a deleterious affect on revenue... why? Say you have a processor that just barely fails the 2.4 GHz bin but would run great at 2.3 GHz ... but you don't have a 2.3 GHz division so you must sell it as a 2.2 GHz which commands a lower price.

Now, you can do this one of two ways, create a processor that gives high clocks and stable processors over a range of clock speeds in which case an integer multiplier would do just fine... but, implementing a 1/2 multplier simply means they cannot get the clocks to go high enough and the distribution is such that they cannot bin/granulate the product to make the most money.

In order to increase revenue AMD wants to sell up that is try to get more money for 100 MHz by labeling it as a 200 model number increase, in short, they are selling you on the fact that 100 MHz is actually 200 Model number better. Perhaps it is.... it is all scale and relative performance, which right now takes up the low end no matter the clock.


availablity in Amazon, Newegg ??
By Xajel on 12/5/2006 5:58:27 AM , Rating: 2
When these parts will be available in Amazon and Newegg ??

Amazon still list the 5000+ at $500+ !! and there's no 4600+ EE in both too !!




RE: availablity in Amazon, Newegg ??
By A5 on 12/5/2006 10:27:33 AM , Rating: 2
Amazon sells processors? :P

They won't be easy to get until early next year.


RE: availablity in Amazon, Newegg ??
By Xajel on 12/5/2006 10:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
yeh it sells, it's the most trusted store that allow you to send some stuffs to other than your creadit card address, so you can make a gift..


By Blackraven on 12/5/2006 10:46:36 AM , Rating: 2
As what it says above.

But it doesn't look like it's enough to beat Core 2 Duo from Intel (especially the middle-ranged E6400 and E6600).

Looks like Intel has won this year and they deserved it :)




By Lonearchon on 12/5/2006 11:21:22 AM , Rating: 4
As Stated before this not AMD answer to Intel's Core 2 Duo line. This is AMD getting it fab switch over to 65nm on the current chip architecture so the process has time to mature before switching to the K8L core


darn... pricing
By rqle on 12/5/2006 4:05:03 AM , Rating: 2
Was hoping the 2.1 GHz was price much lower. Overclockability is the main selling point for many of us. If the very low $179 Core 2 Duo have better overclockability then the $169 low end X2, i would still rather have the Core2duo, right? I would have to force the AMD CPU to reach a much higher clock to come close to a Core2Duo performance at a lower clock.




RE: darn... pricing
By coldpower27 on 12/5/2006 1:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
How low could it possibly have been the 3800+ is priced at 152USD right now from AMD, with the 4200+ at 187USD, the 4000+ is right where it should be, right in the middle between the 2.


By maynardc on 12/11/2006 3:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
...than the core 2 duo E6300. you'd be wasting your money to buy the amd chips.




summary
By yacoub on 12/5/06, Rating: -1
RE: summary
By drebo on 12/5/06, Rating: 0
RE: summary
By Slaimus on 12/5/2006 9:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
They are going with Opteron = 1MB, Athlon = 512K, Sempron = 256K.


RE: summary
By lplatypus on 12/5/2006 11:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's NOT a reduction in cache from previous generations.

Actually if you look at AMD's pricing page, it seems to indicate that the new processors have a TOTAL of 512kb cache, ie 2x256kb.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo...


RE: summary
By mino on 12/6/2006 1:57:03 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, they've got a typpo in the pricelist apparently.


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home

Related Articles
AMD Beyond "Brisbane"
November 14, 2006, 6:31 PM
AMD 65nm Product Plans Unveiled
November 14, 2006, 3:17 PM
botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki