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

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.

"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis
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