backtop


Print 75 comment(s) - last by sdsdv10.. on Nov 17 at 11:18 PM

AMD unleashes 65nm beginning in December

AMD’s long awaited 65nm Brisbane core products are just around the corner. DailyTech previously reported that Brisbane is expected to launch in December. AMD’s latest roadmap shows Brisbane 65nm products will arrive as scheduled. Brisbane will be AMD’s first 65nm core and is expected to launch with four parts. The four 65nm Brisbane core based products include the Athlon 64 X2 5000+, 4800+, 4400+ and 3800+. All four models will have 2x512KB of L2 cache and a 65W TDP rating.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Brisbane 
Model
Core
Frequency
L2 Cache
TDP Expected
5400+ 2.8 GHz 2x512KB 76W Q2'07
5200+ 2.7 GHz 2x512KB 65W Q2'07
5000+ 2.6 GHz 2x512KB 65W
December
4800+ 2.5 GHz 2x512KB 65W December
4400+ 2.3 GHz 2x512KB 65W December
4000+ 2.1 GHz 2x512KB 65W
December

Two additional products will switch over to the Brisbane 65nm core in Q2’2007. This includes the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ and 5400+. The Athlon 64 X2 5600+ will be clocked at 2.8 GHz with a 2x512KB L2 cache configuration. Unlike the lower Brisbane products it will have a 76W TDP rating. AMD’s Brisbane based Athlon 64 X2 5200+ will differ from the current Windsor offering. Instead of the 2.6 GHz clock speed and 2x1MB L2 cache configuration of the Windsor based Athlon 64 X2 5200+, the Brisbane based Athlon 64 X2 5200+ will have a 2x512KB L2 cache configuration and 2.7 GHz clock speed. The Brisbane Athlon 64 X2 5200+ also has a 65W TDP like other Brisbane products.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Brisbane Energy Efficient
Model
Core
Frequency
L2 Cache
TDP Expected
4400+ 2.3 GHz 2x512KB 35W Q3'07
4200+ 2.2 GHz 2x512KB 35W
Q2'07
4000+ 2.1 GHz 2x512KB 35W Q2'07
3800+ 2.0 GHz 2x512KB 35W
Q2'07

Also arriving in Q2’2007 is energy efficient Brisbane based products. These Energy Efficient processors will have a 35W TDP and be available in Athlon 64 X2 4200+, 4000+ and new 3800+ models. Joining the energy efficient product lineup in Q3’2007 will be the Athlon 64 X2 4400+. The energy efficient Athlon 64 X2 4400+ carries the same 35W TDP as the other low power Brisbane products.

AMD Athlon 64 Lima
Model
Core
Frequency
L2 Cache
TDP Expected
4000+ 2.6 GHz 512KB 45W Q2'07
3800+ 2.4 GHz 512KB 45W
Q1'07
3500+ 2.2 GHz 512KB 45W Q1'07

AMD’s dual-core product lineup isn’t the only lineup switching over to 65nm. Single-core Athlon 64 products based on the 65nm Lima core will arrive in January 2007. Two initial single-core Lima products will be introduced. These products are the Athlon 64 3800+ and Athlon 64 3500+. Joining the 65nm single-core party in Q2’2007 is the Athlon 64 4000+. All single-core Lima based products carry a 45W TDP rating and have 512KB of L2 cache.

AMD Sempron Sparta
Model
Core
Frequency
L2 Cache
TDP Expected
3800+ 2.2 GHz 256KB 35W Q2'07
3600+ 2.0 GHz 256KB 35W
Q2'07
3500+ 2.0 GHz 128KB 35W Q2'07
3400+ 1.8 GHz 256KB 35W
Q2'07

Not to be left out of the 65nm transitions is the Sempron product lineup. In Q2’2007 AMD will release four 65nm Sparta based Sempron products. The Sempron Sparta based lineup includes the 3800+, 3600+, 3500+ and 3400+ clocked at 2.2 GHz, 2.0 GHz, and 1.8 GHz respectively. All four Sparta based products carry a 35W TDP. Three of the Sparta based products have 256KB of L2 cache while the Sempron 3500+ only has 128KB of L2 cache.


Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Too little too late?
By cgrecu77 on 11/14/2006 5:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
if I remember correctly amd will almost catch intel for 45nm as they are planning a very quick transition from 65 to 45. AMD is doing more than great right now, they don't have enough chips to satisfy demand, once they launch the new generation next year (which will probably overtake intel for the performance lead) combined with the switch to 45nm they should be able to post record financial numbers.


RE: Too little too late?
By JackPack on 11/14/2006 5:38:38 PM , Rating: 2
Lack of chips to satisfy demand is bad thing.

The main reason why AMD can't produce enough chips to satisfy demand is due to the Intel-led shift to dual-core combined with 90nm.

Giving chips to Dell for free (or very cheaply) doesn't help either.

Either way, ASPs are held low.


RE: Too little too late?
By drebo on 11/14/2006 6:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the Intel-led shift to dual-core


Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't AMD release their X2 before Intel released the Pentium D?


RE: Too little too late?
By Russell on 11/14/2006 6:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
Actually no. Intel beat them out the door by a day (an entire day!) with the hack-job of a "dual-core" chip that the first Pentium D's were. I think AMD announced their X2 chips first though, and they were in development a lot earlier (like earlier than 1999 when the K8's were first demoed).

But what the poster means by "led" is that it was Intel who created a market for insanely cheap dual-core systems. Look at how high AMD dual-core prices were before the post-Conroe price cuts. AMD was perfectly happy to leave dual-core chips as high-end until they reached 65nm (or later). It was Intel that forced their hand, mading dual-core mainstream and subsequently forcing AMD to constrain their capacity by mass-producing dual-core CPU's.


RE: Too little too late?
By ShapeGSX on 11/14/2006 6:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
They both released dual core chips within days of each other.

However, Intel has definitely led the shift to dual core. Intel lowered dual core prices to levels that were on par with single cores. And they started producing mostly dual core chips sooner than AMD (if AMD has actually shifted in that direction yet).

And all of this was made possible by Intel leading the industry in 65nm CMOS technology.

AMD has been following Intel reluctantly on price and dual core because they MUST if they want to keep up. And they are attempting to catch up with their process (lagging by a full year right now). But it has to be hurting their bottom line big time.


RE: Too little too late?
By drebo on 11/14/2006 8:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel lowered dual core prices to levels that were on par with single cores.


Intel's chips didn't perform well enough to demand the premiums that AMD's dual cores could. When your "extreme edition" processor is outperformed by the lowest-end of the competition's processor(955 performed worse than X2 3800+), there's no question about the fact that you have to massacre your prices.

I would hardly call that "leading" anything.

From experience, I've sold many more dual core Athlon64s than I have dual core Pentiums, even when the Pentiums were much cheaper. Yes, the PD915 is at a great price point right now, but in a majority of mainstream applications (as in, uses/implementations), our Athlon64 3500+s still perform just as well.

quote:
AMD has been following Intel reluctantly on price and dual core because they MUST if they want to keep up.


AMD's X2 processors demanded huge premiums because they were great processors and far better than anything the competition had to offer. THAT is why they were so high priced for so long. Now that Intel has processors that are competetive with the X2s, AMD has lowered their prices in such a way that they are now competetive on a dollar/performance basis.

Sure, it might be hurting their gross margin a bit, but they're still pushing a profit. If they weren't, they wouldn't slash their prices. Unlike Intel, AMD isn't slashing prices to vacate an excess inventory of worthless parts.


RE: Too little too late?
By ShapeGSX on 11/14/2006 10:08:21 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Unlike Intel, AMD isn't slashing prices to vacate an excess inventory of worthless parts.


Of course not. That would imply that AMD could make enough processors to actually have an excess inventory. ;)

Regardless of what caused what, Intel slashed the dual core prices first. As well, even when Intel launched the new Core 2 Duo and had a very good lead over the competition, they didn't raise prices. This has furthered the dual core adoption, and it is what ultimately forced AMD to drop their own prices.

Furthermore, Intel also introduced the first (and excellent) laptop dual core processor back in January. Oddly, the dual core laptops have probably done more to open the market's eyes to the benefits of dual core than any desktop processor has. You can't possibly say that Intel isn't leading the laptop dual core market. I don't think the Turion X2 even competes performance-wise with the Core Duo or Core 2 Duo mobile processors.


RE: Too little too late?
By JackPack on 11/14/2006 11:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
As mentioned, desktop chips are only half the story. Since 2005, notebooks have surpassed destkop sales in the U.S. retail market. The Centrino Duo campaign speaks for itself.

Intel has definitely led the shift to dual-core. Even if the Pentium D didn't perform as expected, the pricing more than made up for it. Look at how Dell continued to use Smithfield/Presler in the face of Toledo/Manchester. Why is Dell using AMD now, when Conroe is clearly the leader? Once again, price.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Related Articles













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