backtop


Print 44 comment(s) - last by coldpower27.. on Jun 20 at 9:38 PM

AMD pushing 2x512KB chips instead

Not to the surprise of DailyTech, AMD representatives are telling its CPU distributors to play down 2x1MB L2 cache Windsor processor sales in favor of the 2x512KB AM2 parts.  Several days ago, DailyTech published the entire AMD July 24th pricing guide complete with price cuts across the board.  The price list was surprisingly devoid of AMD 2x1MB cache CPUs, and today we know the reason why.

Several US distributors all confirmed the same story with DailyTech, either claiming either a lack of information about the 2x1MB AM2 parts or claiming AMD employees were told to disregard 2x1MB cache desktop parts for the time being.

While distributors could not tell DailyTech exactly the reason for the reduction, the cost of running two separate cores and logistics for those cores is obviously eating at the bottom line for AMD.  The additional cache per chip means fewer chips per wafers and the additional SKUs means that more marketing dollars must be spent -- and when battling it out with Intel on the pricing front, every dollar counts.

Furthermore, AMD can dedicate all of its fab resources to work on a unified design rather than splitting development between two separate cache revisions.  AMD's Turion X2 lineup does not contain any 2x1MB L2 cache components.

Update 06/14/2006: Scott Wasson from The Tech Report seems to have also confirmed that the 2x1MB chips are toast.


Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Bleh
By Samus on 6/14/2006 12:14:34 PM , Rating: 3
Cache is more important to Intel's architecture than AMD's. AMD is making the right move. Keep 1MB caches for server environments, no need for it in any desktop applications. Even if it gives you a 5% performance improvement somewhere, you'll get at least a 5% improvement going to the next higher clockspeed.

Even Intel admits onboard memory controllers would aid in reducing dependency on cache.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2850


RE: Bleh
By RamarC on 6/14/2006 12:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
cache is important to AMD also... its the only thing that distinguishes an x2-4800+ from an x2-4600+. but using either higher clock speed OR increased cache is causing too much confusion. not too mention the strategy sometimes backfires when the x2 5000+ can't beat the x2 4800+ in some benchmarks.


RE: Bleh
By Araemo on 6/14/2006 1:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, cache isn't really important, you said it yourself:
"its the only thing that distinguishes an x2-4800+ from an x2-4600+"

As in, they are not distinguished by performance(in 90% of the programs out there, games included). So why release the second one at all?


RE: Bleh
By RamarC on 6/14/2006 2:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
i'm not saying cache is (or isn't) important. i'm simply saying that AMD uses it as a differentiating factor. thus, it is important to them (from both a performance and marketing standpoint).


RE: Bleh
By Motley on 6/14/2006 1:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
And in other news, AMD admits that if they removed the memory controller from the CPU they could adopt newer memory technologies faster and be more flexable in the marketplace. Uh, duh.



RE: Bleh
By peldor on 6/14/2006 4:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
Cache was very important to the P4 architecture. I haven't seen a good comparison for Core2Duo yet. It's a important question to answer as there will be 2MB and 4MB versions of Core2Duo. It's possible Core2Duo is no more dependent on a large cache than K8.


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













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