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 TheDoc9 on 6/14/2006 12:18:58 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure about that. I remimber reading that in AMD's case with at least the L1 cache, that a smaller size is actually better and larger sizes slow down the processor. This could be the case with the L2 however I doubt it.

They didn't say they were eleminating these processors, just down playing them because of the manufacturing cost. So for the hardcore - the ones who will be looking for them, they'll find them.

RE: Bleh
By GoatMonkey on 6/14/2006 12:57:45 PM , Rating: 2
I don't buy that. The 4200+ and 4400+ are the same clock speed, the cache size difference is where the higher performance rating comes from.

I would prefer the 4400+ with 1MB caches to a 4600+ with 512k caches. But it's all a matter of opinion. Some people say that you can get a better overclock out of the 512k cache because it will generate less heat. It's my opinion that the overall performance will be better with the 1MB caches even if you can't get quite as high of a clock speed.

RE: Bleh
By smitty3268 on 6/14/2006 7:07:04 PM , Rating: 2
The larger the cache, the harder and more expensive it is to keep it going fast. L2 caches for the A64 are (I believe) the same speeds, so there was no performance downside. However, you could see this affect in Intels transition from Northwood to Prescott P4's. The Prescott doubled the L2 cache but made it slower as well which caused some applications to gain speed and others to slow down.

"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesFree Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM
Top 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki