Print 61 comment(s) - last by Locutus465.. on Oct 10 at 8:32 PM

AMD September 2006 Roadmap. 65nm processors with a * are slated to sample in December 2006
AMD leaks its 4x4 plans

AMD has leaked its newest roadmaps to press, and DailyTech has received a new refresh outlining AMD’s upcoming dual-core plans. The major changes between the two roadmaps seem to be the addition of Socket-F FX processors, new 90nm processors and a shift in some of the 65nm processor bins.

In AMD's previous June roadmap, projections were estimated all the way out to Q3'07, but this refresh only contains outlook for the next two quarters.  AMD’s Athlon 64 FX lineup will return to sharing a socket with AMD’s server and workstation Opteron lineup.  Instead of using socket AM2 processors for AMD’s 4x4 platform there will be a switch to the land-grid-array Socket-F which may be disappointing to enthusiasts and gamers.  AMD is specifically calling these new processors FX 2-P.

Three new 4x4 processors will arrive with the upcoming November launch of AMD’s enthusiast 4x4 platform. New Athlon Socket-F 64 FX processors include the FX-74, FX-72 and FX-70. These processors will be clocked at 3.0 GHz, 2.8 GHz and 2.6 GHz respectively. All three processors will have a 2x1MB L2 cache configuration and be based on AMD’s Windsor core with a 2000 MHz Hyper Transport frequency. AMD rates the three processors with a 125 watt TDP. Features such as AMD64, NX Bit and Virtualization technologies are supported.

AMD’s mainstream dual-core lineup will receive a couple new updates as well. Also arriving in November will be new Athlon 64 X2 6000+, 5600+, and 5400+. This will be AMD’s first new Athlon 64 X2 processor launch since the launch of the socket AM2 platform—Athlon 64 X2 5200+ excluded. These processors will have 3.0 GHz and 2.8 GHz clock speeds respectively.

Athlon 64 X2 models 6000+ and 5600+ will have a 2x1MB L2 cache configuration while the lower X2 5400+ will have a 2x512KB configuration. AMD rates the TDP for the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ as 125 watts while the lower 5600+ and 5400+ receive 89 watt ratings. Availability is expected in November with no mention of Energy Efficient models.

AMD's 65nm processors received a small reorder; the 4600+ is gone, but AMD has added a new 5000+ chip instead.  The 65nm chips are expected to sample in December 2006, with official shipments still slated for Q1'07. 

Gone from AMD's roadmap are the FX-64 and FX-66 processors.  Although DailyTech had very few details on these chips during the previous roadmap, it appears as though the chips may have just been renamed to the FX-"70" series.  No pricing has been announced for the new FX-70s -- AMD has never released more than one FX series processor in a single launch.  Typically the FX series CPUs are devoted to only a small audience with an extremely high price tag.  Official pricing for the new processors was not revealed.

Comments     Threshold

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

AMD and Intel war...
By othercents on 10/3/2006 4:16:47 PM , Rating: 1
There are definitely some people who need to calm down. Just because Intel has Core 2 does that mean everyone is buying Core 2? At my office the Core 2 pricing has not come down far enough for me to purchase one (not even for myself). Most business are looking at price performance with plans to replace the computers in 2 or 3 years. This is where AMD is king. Not to mention their server processors and everything else they have going.

4x4 means nothing to the majority of the people who buy AMD processors. However for those who want to have the highest performance 4x4 might be a good way to go. If you wanted the fastest computer available and you had plenty of money to spend why wouldn't you buy 4x4? Don't say anything about heat either because if you had money to spend it wouldn't matter. Just because you drive an old jalopy doesn't mean everyone else does. Some people want to buy the Porsches and Mercedes, but thats a small market just like the high end processors are.


RE: AMD and Intel war...
By Chillin1248 on 10/3/2006 4:58:27 PM , Rating: 1
Would it not make more sense though to buy a dual Kentsfield setup then with eight cores (assuming your hobby is collecting cores for theoretical power)? I just don't see what AMD is trying to push here with 4X4 that has not already been done, unless this has something to do with their Torrenza program for added co-processors...


RE: AMD and Intel war...
By Anh Huynh on 10/3/2006 5:54:37 PM , Rating: 1
Kentsfield is single processor only. Clovertown is SMP compatible for 2P systems.

RE: AMD and Intel war...
By Chillin1248 on 10/3/2006 7:15:42 PM , Rating: 1
Ahhh.. Thanks for the clarification and correction there Mr. Huynh, I will try to keep that in mind.


RE: AMD and Intel war...
By DallasTexas on 10/3/2006 5:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
"...Most business are looking at price performance with plans to replace the computers in 2 or 3 years. This is where AMD is king..."

The price/performance curve is not linear so your pontification that AMD is 'king' is both wrong AND a stupid generalization. Perhaps at the lower end they have a good price/performance but so is a $4 Pentium III. As a matter of fact, businesses generally DON'T look at price/performance of the CPU, they are more concerned with cost of ownership of the whole system and tend to pick the higher end sku's. What's the point of buying last year's model if you're depreciating it over 2-3 years?

"..4x4 means nothing to the majority of the people who buy AMD processors..."

I agree. Even they did, they would find that 4x4 is total waste of money. It's a kilowatt of old technology in a configuration that will be trumped not only by Intel, but by AMD themselves in 6 months. Nobody in their right mind would buy this nonsense. It is there just so AMD can pull out what is the PC equivalent of a Hummer in order to run 2 benchmarks that show leadership.

RE: AMD and Intel war...
By othercents on 10/3/2006 6:36:56 PM , Rating: 3
Perhaps at the lower end they have a good price/performance but so is a $4 Pentium III.

Please link the website to the NEW $4 Pentium IIIs that you can purchase. I doubt you can so comparing a product that isn't available against a product that is is just ludicrous. The mid range AMDs are still the best in the price/performance side of things.

As a matter of fact, businesses generally DON'T look at price/performance of the CPU, they are more concerned with cost of ownership of the whole system and tend to pick the higher end sku's. What's the point of buying last year's model if you're depreciating it over 2-3 years?

I'm not sure what business you work for but all the companies I have ever worked for have never purchased higher end systems unless it was for our engineering staff. All of the businesses have purchased "last year's models" since they are priced much better and depreciate at a slower rate. Most business understand that buying a high end system means you loose 50% of the value in the first year. It is better to buy last year's models and instead of replacing them in 4 years you are replacing them in 2 or 3 making the overall average of performance higher and less of a dip in performance.

Most of the manufacturers just started providing Core 2 business machines and in most cases the default processor listed is the Pentium D 945 instead of the Core 2 processor. One example is the Dell Optiplex 745 tower. This tower is still $200 more than the current computers I use even without paying the extra money to buy Core 2 processors. Which means I will be purchasing those in a year at my next computer refresh.

BTW. No one actually knows what 4x4 is going to perform like, so making general statements that the 4x4 is worthless follows the same path as the Intel bashers that said Core 2 was worthless. It is not a machine you would use for business unless you need extra power, but it is definitely going to be an enthusiast machine.


RE: AMD and Intel war...
By JumpingJack on 10/4/2006 1:46:36 AM , Rating: 5
While I will not find a link for a $4 P3, I believe the OP was exaggerating a bit.

More to his point, AMD may be king of the lower end with the release of C2D; however, per your point Intel is ruler supreme of the commerical (coporate IT space). This is an article that quotes the stat (though indirectly related to the stat)

AMD has 8% of the commercial space, Hector want's it bad, bad enough to spend 5.4 Billion to bring a platform strategy to the market place. Intel dominates here not because of a single processor, but because they offer the entire solution, stable and overall lower cost of ownership. AMD cannot provide that.

You must work for that compan(ies) in the 8% range.

RE: AMD and Intel war...
By othercents on 10/4/2006 12:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
No I don't. I actually use all Intel at my office because the manufacturer I use does not provide cost effective AMD solutions. However my point is that Core 2 does not automatically change the 8%. Also as manufacturers start giving a fair chance to AMD instead of being so INTEL heavy you might notice their market share increase even though Core 2 is a better processor.

I think you have totally lost the main point of what I said. Just because Core 2 is out doesn't mean that AMD is no longer a viable company. AMD did not automatically loose all of its market share. It would be dumb to build a company based on a small part of the market. AMD is still retaining the main portion of its business and will continue to do so.


RE: AMD and Intel war...
By JeffDM on 10/8/2006 8:53:36 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what business you work for but all the companies I have ever worked for have never purchased higher end systems unless it was for our engineering staff.

Yes and no. Businesses often pay more for seemingly similar computers, they aren't necessarily higher performing, but often they are often higher quality build, with better support. Another part of what they buy is a plan where the components on the board don't change such that they need different drivers. Consumer computers might have somewhat different chips depending on cost changes, but that's a support headache as you can't just drop a standardized drive image onto the computer.

RE: AMD and Intel war...
By Kim Leo on 10/4/2006 7:01:14 AM , Rating: 2
wow, someone with a clue, and i see that DallasTexas never fail to make an ass of himself, 4X4 will be for enthusiasts, and now that it will be LGA 1207 you know it will support K8L, and it will also support numa, something you cant get just by buying a Kentsfield, just like SLI many aren't planning on getting this, but it wouldn't hurt to be able to upgrade to 4X4 later, if you got the motherboard, and i say the same for SLI and CF.. i like this idea, and plan on maybe to get a 4X4 capable motherobard, if i can start with one CPU and be able to upgrade later :), wich you can probably count on when it is AMD :)

RE: AMD and Intel war...
By Locutus465 on 10/10/2006 8:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
At my company we're standardizing on Dell Core 2 based workstations. We're getting them for about $1,200 loaded up with 250GB hard drive, DVD Burner and 2GB Ram... Kind of hard to say no to that as a primary development workstation.

By Chillin1248 on 10/3/2006 2:20:42 PM , Rating: 2
May I ask what exactly seperates a 4X4 system from a standard Dual-Socket Opteron workstation... Other than the obvious fact of it using FX unlocked multiplier processors. I am just not seeing what AMD is hyping about, when you can already get it right now just not called 4X4.

Can someone please explain to me what, if I am, missing here?


RE: 4X4
By ajfink on 10/3/06, Rating: 0
RE: 4X4
By GoatMonkey on 10/3/2006 3:12:46 PM , Rating: 1
I think it also does not require registered memory the way Opterons do.

RE: 4X4
By JarredWalton on 10/3/2006 4:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure about the registered RAM requirement, but I'd wager heavily that all socket F will be registered memory. Others are forgetting the other have of the "4x": dual X16 sockets so that you can run 4 GPUs. (Or maybe quad X16? LOL....) Not that it matters, as you get SLI and CF already on single socket platforms. 4x4 is, in a word, marketing.

RE: 4X4
By Zandros on 10/3/2006 5:03:33 PM , Rating: 1
Hm... were not the second "4" about the Hyperthreading links that were available per core?

RE: 4X4
By AstroCreep on 10/3/2006 5:22:09 PM , Rating: 5
Hm... were not the second "4" about the Hyperthreading links that were available per core?

If you meant to say "HyperTransport", then yes, you are correct. ;) 4 cores x 4 direct HTT links.

And JarredWalton, no, according to story DT linked to above, 4x4 will not require ECC RAM (now given, that was before the announcement of dual socket F over dual socket AM2).

RE: 4X4
By Zandros on 10/4/2006 3:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well, yes, Hypertransport. I have been brainwashed by Intel. :)

RE: 4X4
By JeffDM on 10/8/2006 9:00:34 AM , Rating: 2
I think it also does not require registered memory the way Opterons do.

Do Opterons really require registered memory? Looking at the Opteron boards, they seem to say supports, but I don't see any requirement. It looks like registered memory is only required if you want the ultra high capacity memory modules, like the ones that double-stack memory chips on both sides of the module. If you stick to standard 1GB modules it should take non-registered, non-ECC memory just fine.

RE: 4X4
By Viditor on 10/4/2006 12:10:30 AM , Rating: 1
May I ask what exactly seperates a 4X4 system from a standard Dual-Socket Opteron workstation...

The multiple SLI...

RE: 4X4
By Viditor on 10/4/2006 12:16:21 AM , Rating: 2 will also take the K8L quad cores when they are released (8x4).

4X4 is just AMD's lame excuse to match kentsfield
By bunzerito on 10/3/2006 9:22:18 PM , Rating: 3
AMD knows they are in trouble for not ramping 65nm fast enough to produce loads of quad-core chips. 4X4 is nothing but a stop gap solution/answer (a lame one at that) to counter intel quad-core that will be shipped this November. 65nm is the key here if they don't have that Intel will own them on 45nm (2nd half of Q3?).

By bunzerito on 10/3/2006 9:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
I meant 2nd half of '07 not Q3. Sorry :P

By Dactyl on 10/4/2006 12:25:11 AM , Rating: 4
If you buy two dual-core 4x4 CPUs now, what will you do when quad core parts come out?

Will you buy two new quad-core 4x4 CPUs? Okay. But what are you going to do with your old 4x4 CPUs? Throw them away? Who will buy them?

Who will buy two used, dual core CPUs, that they need a special 4x4 mobo for, if they can just get an AM2 mobo and a quad-core CPU?

As soon as AMD's quad core parts come out, 4x4 with dual core CPUs will be obsolete.

What can the enthusiast do? Throw their dual core CPUs in the trash and buy new quad core CPUs? Build a completely new system from scratch? Or suffer in silence while some n00b with a much cheaper single-socket system gets better FPS six months later? None of these are good options.

By JeffDM on 10/8/2006 9:11:50 AM , Rating: 2
There's a secondary market for just about anything. A 4x4 system is probably going to be a very capable computer for quite some time. If the quality was worth the selling price of the components then it shouldn't be an issue.

I do agree there is a problem in the primary market, but for different reasons. If you are just playing games, a quad core CPU isn't going to make a big difference anyway, not yet. It will help with video, 3D and some other forms of graphics work.

so in other words...
By johnsonx on 10/3/2006 3:43:08 PM , Rating: 3
AMD has very little to answer Core 2 Duo, and nothing at all to answer Core 2 Quad.

4x4 is no answer; as others have pointed out, pretty much everything offered by 4x4 is already available... the 2005 Maximum PC Dream Machine was pretty much the same thing, and that was 15+ months ago.

Come November or December (or maybe Jan 07), a similar sized (large) bag of money will get you either 4 old AMD64 cores, or 8 new Core2 cores (Xeon Cloverton). A far smaller bag of money will get you 4 new Core2 cores (Core 2 Quad). Hmmm.... which to want?

If I had any sizable bags of money for a new sytem, I can't see buying anything from AMD; Intel has a far better offer no matter how much I want to spend.

AMD better keep dropping prices. AMD is ok on the low-end, but the low-end of the CPU war is rapidly approaching what AMD thought was their high end.

RE: so in other words...
By therealnickdanger on 10/3/2006 4:27:24 PM , Rating: 5
AMD better keep dropping prices. AMD is ok on the low-end, but the low-end of the CPU war is rapidly approaching what AMD thought was their high end.

Very true. A $180 E6300 will bring the hurt to the FX-62 with good overclocking. Anyway, I really like AMD, I was all set to build a new AM2 system before the first Conroe benchmarks starting appearing on ExtremeSystems. Once AT confirmed the pwnage, I completely changed camps. I don't want to dismiss AMD as simply being motivation for Intel to step up their game, but I'm pretty shocked at the commanding performance lead Intel has take - in all areas. Neither 4x4 nor a 65n shrink will help them. Time will tell, but with Clovertown, Bear Lake, 45n, Robson, and a host of other new toys, AMD might get set back quite a bit.

Fortunately for AMD, the mainstream consumer market doesn't move that fast. Companies are only now really starting to adopt AMD systems to save money and power and a lot of AMD systems are still sold as budget systems, so until Intel launches their new Celery, AMD can bottomfeed in comfort. (not meant as a dig, just an expression)

Trouble in Paradise?
By Dactyl on 10/3/2006 11:59:32 PM , Rating: 2
Did anyone else notice that all of the 65nm processors are lower ranked than the 90nm processors?

There are 90nm CPUs with the same TDP that have more cache or clockspeed.

For every single 65nm CPU, I can point to a better 90nm CPU.

Is this because AMD is releasing the bargain 65nm parts first, and will follow with high performance parts later?

Or is there trouble in paradise?

RE: Trouble in Paradise?
By nerdye on 10/4/2006 12:40:11 AM , Rating: 3
"Is this because AMD is releasing the bargain 65nm parts first, and will follow with high performance parts later?"...
------------------------------------------------- -------

That is exaclty it! Amd with much less production capacity than intel needs to give their new manufacturing process (65nm) a test before adopting its top of the line products (fx and opteron, and even the high end x2's). Intel has shown what money can due, money can speed up the transition between technologies and manufacturing process. Sure intel has changed sockets and fsb's quite often in the p4 era, but the core 2 duo is worth praise beyond marketing and bias. Trouble in paradise? What if intel wins the next round of cpu wars as well? We need Amd to step up and keep intel affordable, and vice versa. Amd has low

RE: Trouble in Paradise?
By JumpingJack on 10/4/2006 1:50:00 AM , Rating: 2
The release of slower 65 nm parts, or at least the rumor, has been flying around for a while. Originally, the max speed 65 nm part was 2.4 GHz or 4600+, it is progress to see it reach 2.6 GHz -- hopefully with the steady progress they typically use in manuf. technology AMD will be able to push that higher in short order, if not they eventually will be struggling.

Give AMD some time
By Loc13 on 10/4/2006 9:26:12 AM , Rating: 1
How long did it take for Intel to catch up to AMD, 2 years? So wouldn't it make sense to give AMD some time to catch up? We all focus on who offers the fastest cpus right now, and true, intel has the lead. And I agree that 4x4 is not a good idea, but i guess we all have to wait for the benchmarks before we bash AMD. I don't think AMD is stupid enough to roll out a product for the enthusiast market while they know they're gonna get their butt kicked. So, only time will tell.

RE: Give AMD some time
By Regs on 10/4/2006 12:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
Intel was more like 3 years. Their response to the A64 was Prescott. Amd's response will be K8L. Even though the K8L won't be until 3rd or 4th quarter in 07.

RE: Give AMD some time
By Loc13 on 10/4/2006 3:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
Pentium 4 was no match for Athlon64. Intel only came out ahead with Conroe.

RE: Give AMD some time
By Regs on 10/4/2006 3:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
Hence "Response".

It will be interesting...
By Desslok on 10/3/2006 1:05:46 PM , Rating: 1 see how AMD's handles Intel swamping the marketing with quad cores before they ship one. Personally I don't see the '4x4' taking off with the gaming crowd. Hopefully AMD has something up their sleves to conter the roll that Intel is on right now. We need competition!

RE: It will be interesting...
By Tyler 86 on 10/3/2006 1:21:03 PM , Rating: 3
Hopefully, AMD will bring more performance than simply the latest SSE iteration, and native quad core, although that in itself is definantly presentable...

The K8L architecture was stated to have more registers, and a few other tricks up it's sleeves, wasn't it?

RE: It will be interesting...
By darkfairytales on 10/3/06, Rating: -1
RE: It will be interesting...
By plowak on 10/3/2006 1:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
Hector Ruiz hunkers down in his CEO bunker now surrounded by the Intel forces, "Dr Guderian is working on new CPU processes, he'll break us out of'll see!"

By Xorp on 10/3/2006 4:02:31 PM , Rating: 4
I love AMD but 4x4 is a terrible idea. Who in their right mind would want to manage a system with 2 heatsinks, less room to work with, added heat, and not much performance improvement to justify the cost. How about AMD just say "Wait for our kick ass quad-core processors" instead of this nonsense.

RE: .
By Yokel on 10/3/06, Rating: -1
RE: .
By laok on 10/4/2006 2:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
I have to read another article to figure what that 4x4 means. At first I thought it was a 4 cpus system with 4 cores/cpu. To my disappointment, it is just 2 cpus with 2 core/cpu. I would rather call this a 2x2.

Well, 4x4 jeep does not have 16 wheels.

Should be more like...
By Regs on 10/3/2006 5:08:04 PM , Rating: 5
"AMD took a leak on its newest roadmaps" ;)

In all do seriousness -- I agree with the above statements. No point in investing in AMD anytime soon. Right now the better product wins. At least for Desk Top users.

By RickH2 on 10/3/2006 3:00:01 PM , Rating: 2
The worst problem nobody's mentioning for 4x4... heatsinks. How're we supposed to cool dual 125W sockets? Modern high-TDP heatsinks are huge. Dual Scythe Ninjas? No way they'll fit. Dual small heatsinks with screamingly loud fans to keep up? Mandatory water cooling? Blech. A Kentsfield will be much easier to cool just from avoiding the dual sockets alone, and dissapates way less than 250W besides.

RE: Heatsinks?
By Chillin1248 on 10/3/2006 5:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
Well assuming you have $2000+ just to spend on the two CPUs alone, not counting the [Registered?] RAM for each CPU or the GPUs or anything else for that matter; I would think spending $400 on a decent watercooling setup would be no biggy.


Quad Core?
By Chadder007 on 10/3/2006 3:12:32 PM , Rating: 4
When is AMDs Quad Cores coming out? I would rather have that, than 2 socketed Dual Cores.

Their performance number confuses me
By laok on 10/4/2006 2:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
I still like to see the Ghz. 3.0Ghz makes much more sense to me than a 6000+. Well, p4's Ghz is not comparable with Athlon's Ghz.

By Burning Bridges on 10/4/2006 6:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
And we're onto Core 2 Duo with intel anyway. Anyhow canyou take a confusing Intel Pentium 4 D HT followed by any three random numbers and tell me what speed it is?

No, nor me =(

round two...
By BLOfelt22 on 10/7/2006 8:45:47 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know why people keep saying that the core2duo caught amd off guard. It would be just naive to think that amd did not expect intel to come back swinging. Intel has the resources and R+D capability to crank out chips much more impressive than the core2duo but given the market and mindshare they were losing, time was simply not on their side.

IMO intel did get a black eye from amd performance wise but it was their arrogance that really did them in. They had plenty of time to study the a64 so its a no brainer that they finally improved upon it. Had they not ignored it (a64) in the first place they probably would have canned the prescott, taken their lumps and come out with a competative product sooner (hence the arrogance argument and I don't think that the ext. ed. P4's count). To amd's credit the a64 killed not one but three intel chips (northwood, prescott and the stilborn tejas).

I belive they still have the superior technology as far as multicore/ multi-processors go. Core2duo is an awesome single chip solution but I won't be convinced until I see 4way or 8way server numbers to see what intel's new babies can do.

Anyway I am happy that intel came back the way they were supposed to. I can only wonder about amd's next gen proc especially now ati is in the mix.

RE: round two...
By MercBullet on 10/7/2006 12:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
K8L will blow C2D and Kentsfeild out of the water.

The guys over at xs have them at 25% faster.

I'm no AMD fan either.

4x4 Hummer Indeed
By teckytech9 on 10/8/2006 12:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
IMO enthusiasts won’t ride this one home. Why pay for old
technology and high power usage? AMD trying to regain the
benchmark crown? Maybe this one will be good for a few
days or hours only. Reality plays hard on a company who is
too complacent. The giant usually responds with a big one

Athlon won the Pentium battle for 5 years. Without Athlon
there would be no E6xxx. The budget E6xxx overclocked, beats
AMD’s flagship processor, end of story.

That socket AM2 move was nonsense when the numbers stay the
same, and now another socket change? Wakeup AMD!

IMO, competition is good. In time AMD will answer, that is
the essence. AMD needs to redo their architecture from the
ground up to win me back again.

RE: 4x4 Hummer Indeed
By Locutus465 on 10/10/2006 8:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
What do you mean by old technology? To be quite frank there's more "old" technology in core to than the Athlon64... Core2 is currently a better performer, but with some tweeking the A64 has a *lot* of compition left in it!

Power supplies
By Thorburn on 10/3/2006 1:18:37 PM , Rating: 1
A pair of 125w TDP CPU's, I can see PSU manufacturers rubbing there hands with glee.
Throw in a DX10 GPU or two and you're going to need a 800w PSU once you take into account memory, hard drives, optical, etc.

RE: Power supplies
By Hare on 10/3/2006 2:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
A Core duo rig (X6800, 7900G2X with bells and whistles) takes little over 200W. Don't believe the marketing...

We are still far away from the Pentium D specs.

Inaccurate Roadmap
By cnimativ on 10/3/2006 1:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
Something is seriously wrong with DailyTech.

AM2 processors denoted in green and s939 in blue??? Find me Atlhon 64 X2 3800+ 65W in S939 plz. kthx.

RE: Inaccurate Roadmap
By The Cheeba on 10/3/06, Rating: -1
RE: Inaccurate Roadmap
By Knish on 10/3/06, Rating: 0
RE: Inaccurate Roadmap
By webdawg77 on 10/3/06, Rating: 0
RE: Inaccurate Roadmap
By cnimativ on 10/3/2006 2:37:41 PM , Rating: 1

pointing out what dailytech made a mistake earn me a -1!!!

RE: Inaccurate Roadmap
By ShapeGSX on 10/3/06, Rating: 0
By Goty on 10/3/2006 3:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
At least they look to be doing a good job at keeping the maximum TDP down to reasonable levels.

Patience is a virtue.
By smilingcrow on 10/4/2006 2:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
4x4 at 90nm, 125W TDP with K8 IPC = Are you fkcing serious?
8x4 at 65nm, lower TDP, quad core K8L = bargain workstation?

I’m not so sure that AMD have a problem with their 65nm process. They are starting with the low end chips at 65nm because that’s where the volume sales are and that’s the market that they are chasing; hello Dell.

"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates
Related Articles
AMD Quietly Releases Athlon 64 X2 5200+
September 6, 2006, 3:01 PM
AMD June 2006 Product Roadmap
July 6, 2006, 2:52 PM
AMD Announces 4x4 Enthusiast Platform
June 1, 2006, 12:23 PM

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