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: Nothing interesting
By saratoga on 11/14/2006 9:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
These chips are still going to be much slower than the Core2's, and use more power while doing it.


Power-wise they should be about the same as Core 2 at the same clock speed, or slightly less. Clock for clock the 90nm Turions were comparable to the 90nm Dothan in terms of actual dissipation (but not TDP of course), and power use per clock actually went up slightly when Intel jumped from Yonah > Merom. Since this is a straight die shrink, the 65nm Turion should have slightly less power consumption thent he 65nm then Merom, or perhaps the same if AMD doesn't do as well as Intel at the shrink.

Performance/watt will lag a little though, particularly in laptops and servers with less then 4 cores.


RE: Nothing interesting
By raven3x7 on 11/15/2006 2:06:25 AM , Rating: 2
No that's wrong. Intel's TDP is 75% of maximum heat dissipation while AMD's is 100%. Therefore AMD 65nm parts are quite a bit more energy efficient than Intel parts. In fact Core2 max TDP is 87 Watts.


RE: Nothing interesting
By Accord99 on 11/15/06, Rating: 0
RE: Nothing interesting
By Diasper on 11/15/2006 5:38:22 AM , Rating: 3
*Impartial non-fanboy post*

Ok there is some selective quoting and linking here. That link there is not comparing with the AMD Energy Efficient models.

A better and more comprehensive set of links:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-e...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-e...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-e...

If you are talking about average use for a home user which means the CPU is generally idle than even the 85W AMDs are more energy efficient than Intel's most energy efficient the C2D E6300.

If you talk about light usuage, then the E6300 is much better than AMD's 85W chips. However, the E6300 is still about matched by AMD 65W variants. The AMD's 35W chips are alot better.

If you are talking full load, the the E6300 improves once again but still AMD's 35W CPUs beat Intel's most efficient efficient. However, this is a scenario the average user will rarely find themselves.

Now to be clear this is all while AMD is still at 90nm. This is not at 65nm which should be even more energy efficient. Now for the future it makes sense for AMD to continue to offer 35W (or even 65W) variants since they've already established the market/branding and customers are used to it. Also, it should provide some headroom to manoeuvre against Intel when needed.

So really, if you are talking about the average user who wants a cheap, quiet PC, AMD is a better choice. If you are talking about office PCs ATI's chipsets are quite nice and provide better graphics performance than Intel's integrated options. I don't know about now but some of the S939s used to include DVI output.

Of course, if you need the extra power Intel's C2Duo's provide and use it constantly, the E6300 is the better choice as it does have a better performance/watt ratio. Then when it can be overclocked as well as it can it's a no-brainer for any enthusiast/Anandtecher.

But for average Joe user it is a more complicated question: performance/watt/cost/platform/the maximum performance needed.


RE: Nothing interesting
By Accord99 on 11/15/2006 3:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
The EEs are rare. AMD has to use 1.075v to beat the power consumption of a 1.325v Core 2 Duo. The XBitlabs's E6300 doesn't appear to even have working SpeedStep, considering how the idle system power consumption is higher with it on then with it disabled.

And then there's Techreport's measurements:

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q4/core2-qx6...

The E6400 uses less power at idle and load than the EE 3800+.

Besides, I was responding to the mistaken belief that Intel's TDP is under-rated, which is clearly not the case.


RE: Nothing interesting
By saratoga on 11/15/2006 5:36:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Intel's TDP is 75% of maximum heat dissipation while AMD's is 100%.


TDP is not proportional to maximum dissipation. Also, on Intel systems, maximum dissipation is typically higher then TDP (but not always!).

You can't call this from spec sheets, you have to measure it.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

Related Articles













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