backtop


Print 30 comment(s) - last by Aymincendiary.. on Jul 5 at 11:25 PM

AMD drops the Phenom X2 TDP to 45-watts

AMD plans to cut power consumption of its mainstream Phenom X2 processors with the Phenom X2 GE-series, according to the company’s latest roadmap. The Phenom X2 GE-series joins the Phenom X2 GS-series in late Q1’2008, after the Phenom X2 GS-series makes its debut. AMD has three Phenom X2 GS-series in the pipeline with launches beginning in Q4’2007 and more models added in Q1’2008.

The new Phenom X2 GE-series matches the recently released Athlon X2 BE-series in terms of thermal design power, or TDP, at 45-watts. AMD Phenom X2 GS-series processors have 65-watt and 89-watt TDP ratings.The low power Phenom X2 GE-series will have three models – the GE-6600, GE-6500 and GE-6400.

AMD’s Phenom X2 GE-6600 clocks in at 2.3 GHz, coincidentally, the Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 clocks in at 2.4 GHz. The middle of the Phenom X2 GE-series consists of the 2.1 GHz Phenom X2 GE-6500 while the 1.9 GHz Phenom X2 GE-6400 occupies the bottom of the lineup.

AMD Phenom X2 GE-series
Model
Core
Frequency
L2 Cache
L3 Cache
HT3 Bus
GE-66002.3 GHz 2x512KB2MB
~ 3200 MHz
GE-6500 2.1 GHz2x512KB2MB
~ 3200 MHz
GE-6400
1.9 GHz 2x512KB2MB
~ 3200 MHz

All Phenom X2 GE-series processors share the same features. AMD equips the Phenom X2 GE-series with an HT3 bus with speeds equal to or in excess of 3.2 GHz. AMD has yet to set the official speeds of the HT3 bus on Phenom X2 GE-series processors. Phenom X2 GE-series processors are identical to the GS-series, in terms of cache configurations. The Phenom X2 GE-series feature 512KB of L2 cache per core and 2MB shared L3 cache.

Expect the AMD Phenom GE-series to drop into a Socket AM2+ platform in Q1’2008.



Comments     Threshold


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

Amd is not bad
By OrSin on 7/3/2007 9:19:34 AM , Rating: 2
I have benn using AMd chips for 6 years now and jsut recently gone over abd build 2 C2D PC. I'm not sure it its intel or if it thier chipsets. But AMD chips have been rock soild for years and these last 2 PC have benn give me head aches for months now. I both are Asus, one a P965 and thew other P35. I had both ATI and NV chipsets for amd.
Really if you dont need the top of the line CPU ( and most really do) then AMD is price competative and Motherboards are lot better to me anyway.

Next year AMD just might have my business back. Now if we can get decent ATI/AMD video cards :).




RE: Amd is not bad
By zsdersw on 7/3/2007 10:11:50 AM , Rating: 3
Your experiences with Intel chipsets are not typical.


RE: Amd is not bad
By Samus on 7/4/2007 5:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, his experience with all chipsets isn't typical ;) I'd take a Intel chipset over ATi or nV anyday for stability.


RE: Amd is not bad
By fake01 on 7/3/2007 10:56:07 AM , Rating: 1
Please read over your statement before posting it. And in your case, make sure you do it at least 3 times cause your grammar is shocking.

But for what I did manage to make out, I rather agree with you. I have used an AMD machine for going on 2-3 years now and its been very stable.


RE: Amd is not bad
By KnightProdigy on 7/3/2007 12:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
Ever since Intel axed the PII by locking the multiplier and the core speed, It's been AMD all the way for me. Although Intel has finally made a comeback with their processor designs, it's taken them 10+years to do it. The Cyrix and AMD K6 series began the demise of Intel in the enthusiast market.

I am not saying Intel is bad, I was an Intel fanboy for many years after but I have only seen disappointment until recently. Penryn will finally do a lot of good for them but the architecture is still not up to par with AMD (simple fact that AMD has the more efficient designs while maintaining integrity). I have also been an NV fan since its inception as STB. Needless to say I was disappointed when they acquired ATI, but stream processing is the future and AMD / ATI are far more advanced than Intel and NV.

These new HT3 processors are very nice and benchmarks will probably put them comparable if not faster than Intel. Integrated processors are just around the corner and technologies like HT3 are prep stages to eliminating bottlenecks. A 3.2Ghz HT3 will make it very nice to see OC speeds in upwards of 4Ghz.

I'm also excited to see TRUE quad core in action, this platform with AM2+ and a 3.2Ghz HT3 looks promising compared to the planned releases from Intel.

Time will only tell.


RE: Amd is not bad
By PaxtonFettel on 7/3/2007 12:11:31 PM , Rating: 3
Cyrix! Pffffft.

That is a joke right?


RE: Amd is not bad
By Belard on 7/5/2007 4:40:59 AM , Rating: 2
There was a time when Cyrix made some good CPUs. They made low-end ones (386) and high-performance types (486) - but when Pentium came out, Cyrix never ever made a CPU as fast or reliable since.

I used to SELL tons of Cyrix 486 (Real ones, not the upgraded 386 type) because I believed in the product. They were:
1 - As fast or faster than intel. (80mhz, 100mhz, 120mhz)
2 - They Overclocked very well.
3 - Run very COOL. A i486/66 would burn your finger, you couldn't touch it for a second. A 100mhz Cyrix, was warm to touch - you could hold your finger on it for 30seconds.

4 - They cost a lot less, about half price.
5 - They were as reliable as Intel and I had no compatiblity issues.

I did buy the Cyrix 586/166... it was mostly reliable. It was my last.

Will say one thing... Core2 Duo is a far cooler name than "Phenom"... sounds like the "Phantom Processor" ;)


RE: Amd is not bad
By LogicallyGenius on 7/5/2007 7:20:55 AM , Rating: 2
I think AMD is making the same mistake that cyrix did.

Back then there were pentium pro motherboards that could support two CPUs(i cant remember of 4 CPUs though). So if cyrix had made 2, 8, 32 etc processor motherboards then ...


RE: Amd is not bad
By soydios on 7/3/2007 1:22:11 PM , Rating: 3
Let me set some things straight.
For years, AMD's K8 architecture was beating Intel's Pentium 4 across the board: in raw performance, in power efficiency, in price, and in overclocking. Then, Intel released the Core 2 Duo, and left all of us with our jaws on the floor as Chipzilla beat AMD at their own game, in every possible fashion.

Intel is now dominant in the enthusiast market. The K8 architecture has run out of headroom for overclocking, yet overclocks to 50% above stock are not uncommon for Core 2 Duo. Intel's Conroe family is more efficient in power and performance clock-for-clock than AMD's K8.

Time will only tell what Phenom will bring to the table. Current benchmarks and chip yields are somewhat disappointing, but keep in mind, this is exactly where Athlon 64 was back in the day when it was introduced. I'm going to wait and see what they look like after production ramps up first quarter next year.

The true quad-core versus a pair of dual-core dies is only relevant in a theoretical debate or synthetic benchmarks designed to test core-to-core latency. In real-world benchmarks and usage, the difference is negligible.

AMD's fabs are running at 100% capacity. They aren't going away anytime soon. I really hope that my next system in two years will have an AMD processor in it, for their sake, but I'll buy whatever gets me the best performance/price ratio.


RE: Amd is not bad
By bolders on 7/5/2007 7:26:37 AM , Rating: 2
Good post with a balanced perspective. Dont know why u have been rated down :(


RE: Amd is not bad
By ultimaone on 7/3/2007 12:34:34 PM , Rating: 3
I find its the ASUS boards that is the issue

I went through 3 different kinds, all with little
quirks, mouse not being detected, random reboots,
lost bios configs

Friends of mine getting blue screens, swapped out memory,
hard-drives, cpus....finally swapped out motherboard for a different brand and all the issues went away

I know lots of people who have no issues, but after having gone through 3 asus boards myself and my various friends through another 6. Usually not anything major, just little things that make no sense.


RE: Amd is not bad
By JTKTR on 7/3/2007 12:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, as much as it pains me to say it, ASUS boards look great on paper but they have the tiniest glitches that make them hard to work with. I currently work on an ASUS board and I get a BSoD at least once a day, if not more. I also have to deal with random reboots (that always seem to come at the worst time lol)

I've gone through 2 processors, 3 hard-drives, 2 sets of memory, a video card, and even an optical drive! I've spent about $1000 trying to fix it, more than it cost when I first bought it. I'm running all the current drivers but for some reason I just keep getting a BSoD and sometimes random reboots as well.


RE: Amd is not bad
By dubldwn on 7/3/2007 2:20:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I get a BSoD at least once a day, if not more. I also have to deal with random reboots

quote:
I've gone through 2 processors, 3 hard-drives, 2 sets of memory, a video card, and even an optical drive! I've spent about $1000 trying to fix it

Why don't you just get a new board? You really had those symptoms and you bought a new hard drive, and when you still had the same symptoms, you bought yet another hard drive?


RE: Amd is not bad
By cheetah2k on 7/4/2007 12:01:14 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, doesnt make much sense to spend $1000 on other stuff, when he could have had 4 new mobo's for that price...

Sounds like he was secretly building another system on the side and using the mobo issues as an excuse to get additional funding passed the boss ;-p


RE: Amd is not bad
By JTKTR on 7/5/2007 1:59:27 AM , Rating: 2
Or past my wife ; )


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

Related Articles
AMD Prepares 45-watt "Brisbane"
May 30, 2007, 1:00 AM
Here Comes "Conroe"
July 13, 2006, 12:47 PM













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