backtop


Print 80 comment(s) - last by maynardc.. on Dec 11 at 3:20 PM

Athlon 64 X2 gets the 65nm treatment

AMD today announced its long-awaited 65nm Brisbane core Athlon 64 X2 processors. This begins AMD’s transition to 65nm from 90nm. AMD expects to transition its complete product lineup to 65nm in mid-2007. Nevertheless, four Brisbane core Athlon 64 X2 processors are launching today—the 5000+, 4800+, 4400+, and 4000+. All 65nm Brisbane core processors are equipped with 2x512KB of L2 cache.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Brisbane 
Model
Core
Frequency
L2 Cache
TDP Pricing
5000+ 2.6 GHz 2x512KB 65W
$301
4800+ 2.5 GHz 2x512KB 65W $271
4400+ 2.3 GHz 2x512KB 65W $214
4000+ 2.1 GHz 2x512KB 65W
$169

With Brisbane, AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual-core processors equipped with 2x1MB of L2 cache will become a thing of the past as AMD completes its 65nm transition. While AMD has announced its Brisbane core 65nm processors, the processors only available in limited quantities. Expect mass availability in Q1’2007.

OEMs are expected to deliver Brisbane powered systems as well. These OEMs include Acer, Dell, Founder, Gateway, HP, Lenovo, Packard Bell and TongFang. Dell is expected to adopt Brisbane 65nm processors in its Optiplex and Dimension desktops while Acer is expected to have Brisbane powered Aspire systems too.

Pricing for Brisbane 65nm processors start at $169 for the 4000+ and goes up to $301 for the 5000+ in quantities of 1000. Do note that Brisbane core processors are still K8 based and not K8L like the upcoming Stars core processors.


Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Why less Cache?
By cochy on 12/5/2006 3:11:59 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Maybe they want to compete with Intel with lower prices, so lower the cache for cheaper production


And that's fine with me. I miss the good old days of AMD, where you could pick up a cool Athlon for waaay less $$ than a similar Intel option.

hurray for replying to ones own post...I must be bored.


RE: Why less Cache?
By oTAL on 12/5/2006 5:43:00 AM , Rating: 2
Well... It's not really that.
If you've been following the news for the past months you must have know that AMD hasn't been able fill the supply needs for some time now, so they need all the output they can manage to produce. With their factories always producing as much as they can, they take the only route available... make chips smaller in order to produce more of them and increase revenue. Were AMDs market share to suddenly drop and allow them to fill every order and they could probably change to a larger cache (for some of the chips) in order to increase value for their costumers, which would allow them to sell the chips at a slightly higher price point.
As long as AMD has supply issues we will probably not see any big cache chips for decent prices.


RE: Why less Cache?
By FITCamaro on 12/5/2006 6:53:57 AM , Rating: 3
That and the extra cache really doesn't have that big of an effect on performance. C2D has a large cache to help compensate for northbridge latency. Not saying its a bad chip (I have an E6600) though. AMD doesn't see a real reason to increase cache size when they're selling like hot cakes with good performance without the extra cache.


RE: Why less Cache?
By othercents on 12/5/2006 8:55:08 AM , Rating: 2
Thats correct. When the first performance charts came with the AM2 processors we noticed that there wasn't a difference between the two cache sizes. This was because of the faster DDR2 memory that was being used. The larger cache helped with the 939 DDR motherboards, but not with the DDR2 ones.

Because of this there is no reason to produce the larger cache sizes anymore especially since the lower cache size decreases the overall cost of the product and allows them to compete better.

Other


RE: Why less Cache?
By Viditor on 12/5/2006 8:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
You should also keep in mind just how expensive cache is...
2x1MB takes up almost half of the die space!


RE: Why less Cache?
By Russell on 12/5/2006 10:33:02 AM , Rating: 2
They're just as cool as they ever were.

They only seem hot because the Intels are cooler. 65w isn't exactly hot.


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Related Articles
AMD Beyond "Brisbane"
November 14, 2006, 6:31 PM
AMD 65nm Product Plans Unveiled
November 14, 2006, 3:17 PM













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