Print 23 comment(s) - last by Justin Case.. on Jul 7 at 2:41 PM

AMD kills "Lima," leaving "Sparta" to succeed "Manila" and "Orleans"

AMD roadmaps reveal the company recently cancelled its single-core Lima processor, the 65nm Athlon 64 refresh. AMD began shipping Lima inventory earlier this year, however, the company since removed the codename from its roadmap. “65nm Lima Athlon 64 single-core models have been removed from the roadmap and EOL on several Orleans models has been modified,” the AMD roadmap states.

This leaves AMD with existing Orleans-based processors to carry the Athlon 64 brand. After Orleans models is EOL, there will be no more single-core Athlon 64 branded processors. Instead, AMD will position entry-level dual-core Athlon X2 processors based on Rana in the low end.

AMD will continue to ship single-core processors. However, all single-core processors will carry the Sempron brand. With Lima out of the picture, Sparta will be the next new single-core AMD processor. AMD expects to launch Sparta in September 2007 in 256KB and 128KB L2 configurations. Sparta arrives as a replacement for Orleans and Manila-core processors and is essentially a 65nm die-shrink of Manila.

A single-core Stars-based successor arrives in 1H’2008 in the form of Spica. Spica introduces a larger 512KB L2 and HT3 on a Socket AM2+ platform to the Sempron lineup. Succeeding Spica will be Sargas, which shrinks the fabrication process to 45nm and adds DDR3 memory support.

Expect Sparta to take Lima’s place beginning in September.

Comments     Threshold

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

Sorry AMD but
By Rampage on 7/2/2007 6:09:57 PM , Rating: 4
... this... is... Sparta ?? :/

Things don't look good.

RE: Sorry AMD but
By Goty on 7/2/2007 6:21:55 PM , Rating: 5
This really isn't all that surprising or bad in any way. There's really no market anymore for high-performance single core processors anymore when dual-cores are so cheap.

RE: Sorry AMD but
By Treckin on 7/2/2007 6:33:34 PM , Rating: 1
I would challenge the 'high performance' statement that you made. These were as low as it goes... you can get a dual core proc for 70 bucks, its not like a single core was 35....

anyhow, they're just saying that they see no reason to spend money on developing and shipping a product such as that when it looks to me as if they are turning their attention to the Stars line.
If someone could here... I to lazy to go wiki it:
Is the stars line a 45nm refresh of Barcelona, or is it a new architecture iteration as well?


RE: Sorry AMD but
By Goty on 7/2/2007 6:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
Well, yeah, I mean "high-performance" with respect to any Sempron.

RE: Sorry AMD but
By Samus on 7/3/2007 4:54:27 AM , Rating: 2
it'll still compete fine with a celeron m, even with 256kb L2 cache.

RE: Sorry AMD but
By stromgald on 7/2/2007 7:06:29 PM , Rating: 5
I agree, the market for single core chips is shrinking rapidly. AMD is smart in closing down that production and development of new single core chips so that they can focus their funds on something that will drag them out of the trouble they're in now.

RE: Sorry AMD but
By Christopher1 on 7/2/2007 9:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
No one with any brainpower will buy a single-processor CPU anymore.

When my father was looking for a notebook computer recently, he said "No single core processors, I've heard in Vista (which he was looking for on a notebook) it speeds things up drastically to have two cores."

He was very right, the notebook PC that he bought that I have been using (he told me he was going to get another of the same brand and type as well in a few weeks), is much zippier than the single core model we looked at from the same manufacturer that the only difference was the single core.

RE: Sorry AMD but
By harshbarj on 7/2/2007 10:39:28 PM , Rating: 5
"No one with any brainpower will buy a single-processor CPU anymore."

I would not go that far. If I was building a cheap system for basic net surfing and word processing, then dual processors are overkill. With athlon 64 processors bottoming out around $30 they are a steal. If you can spare another $30-40 then a x2 is a good buy but totally overkill for most people (As most just surf the net and type papers, which both could be done with no problems on a p3 class computer).

Remember just because you need or want the power to spare dose not mean others also must have it. (this coming from someone who owns 2 dual core systems)

RE: Sorry AMD but
By superunknown98 on 7/3/2007 9:08:01 AM , Rating: 3
There is plenty good reason to buy a single core. Price and the lack of need for processing power. Here at work, I build pc's instead of buying them from dell. All of my users are typing with word, or trying to surf the net. In fact they do that very little of the time, so those cpu cycles are wasted anyway.

It would be advantageous for my users to have faster single core processors at a cheaper price. That may change in three or four years when I finally buy a vista license, but untill then I don't see the need for them where I work at least.

RE: Sorry AMD but
By Screwballl on 7/3/2007 10:17:41 AM , Rating: 2
sounds like time to talk to the boss man and get F@H running

RE: Sorry AMD but
By bhieb on 7/3/2007 11:27:05 AM , Rating: 3
We also build instead of buying from an OEM (about 100 pc's). I put a 3500 in all of them. There simply is no need in our company to have 2 cores. Our main system still resides on an AS400 so most of the work is done on the server side. Even our newer sytems are SQL based and still most of the work is offloaded to the server. Most companies are this way most of the CPU usage is on the servers not the clients. Dual core for business is overkill in most cases. Now since it is just $30 more most get it anyway, but I think it is just a waste of $3000.

RE: Sorry AMD but
By Vanilla Thunder on 7/3/2007 11:53:03 AM , Rating: 2
I'm in the same boat. Our machines are running P4 3.0 cpu's, and it's ALWAYS fast enough. We're also still running a lot of work on the AS400, which is archaic to say the least. The money it would cost our company to upgrade to dual cores would be ridiculous. Plus, it wouldn't benefit productivity at all. None of the software we're using is going to utilize 2 cores, so what's the point?


RE: Sorry AMD but
By Justin Case on 7/7/2007 2:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
You would find faster processors "advantageous"... to run word processors and browse the net?

Saying you want cheaper CPUs is one thing, but why do you care about their speed or number of cores? If a "fast enough" single-core CPU ends up with the same price as a "fast enough" dual-core model, why would you prefer the single-core one, just because it has (maybe) a 10-20% higher clock speed? It'll make no difference for "office" tasks; they never max out a core for long enough to be noticeable.

In fact, if there's any difference, it probably favours the dual-core one, because one core takes care of Windows' background tasks, and saves a lot of context switches, making the system more responsive (which is the relevant performance metric on an "office" system).

"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch
Related Articles
AMD Beyond "Brisbane"
November 14, 2006, 6:31 PM

Most Popular ArticlesFree Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM
Top 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki