backtop


Print 57 comment(s) - last by dajeepster.. on Aug 7 at 8:46 PM

AMD plans one last "Windsor" based Athlon 64 X2

AMD refuses to kill off its 90nm Windsor core Athlon 64 X2 processors. The Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is AMD’s fastest dual-core performance processor. The processor launched last February to the tune of 3.0 GHz with a 125-watt TDP.

The model continues to stay on AMD’s roadmap throughout the rest of 2007 and half of 2008. AMD plans a refresher for the Athlon 64 X2 6000+. Instead of moving it to the 65nm Brisbane core like many other Athlon 64 X2 models, including the 5200+, 5000+, 4800+, 4400+, 4000+, 3600+ and BE-series, the refreshed X2 6000+ sticks to the Windsor core.

The refreshed model drops the thermal ratings down to 89-watts. Still, the reduced thermal envelope is still 24-watts higher than the highest-clocked Brisbane – the X2 5200+ at 2.7 GHz. However, the thermals match AMD’s upcoming Phenom X2 GP-6800, a Kuma based model slated for Q1’2008.

Despite the impending launch of the Phenom X2 series, the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ remains the only mainstream AMD dual-core desktop processor with a 3.0 GHz clock frequency. The upcoming Phenom X2 series top out around 2.4-to-2.8 GHz when the GP-6800 launches, according to a recent AMD roadmap. AMD does not have any plans to release a 3.0 GHz Barcelona on its roadmap yet.

Expect AMD to release 89-watt Athlon 64 X2 6000+ processors next quarter.


Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Not quite..
By ReeZun on 7/31/2007 6:55:49 PM , Rating: -1
E6850
9x333=2997

X2 6000+
15x200=3000

The article is accurate concerning frequency, regardless of price range.


RE: Not quite..
By rninneman on 7/31/2007 7:51:29 PM , Rating: 4
E6850 - 9 x 333.333333333 (repeating infinitely) = 3000

The E6850 can be had for under $300 all day long.
http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/core_2_duo_e6850.htm

Why are you people arguing semantics?


RE: Not quite..
By dajeepster on 8/1/2007 12:51:26 AM , Rating: 2
the only problem I have with your post is the "repeating infinitely"... that statement alone isn't possible in todays computers.... we are still constrained by applications and physical limits ... computers do a damn good appoximation of numbers... but they aren't as accurate as your "repeating infinetely" would apply


RE: Not quite..
By dajeepster on 8/1/2007 12:52:55 AM , Rating: 2
**would imply**
an edit function would be nice


RE: Not quite..
By StevoLincolnite on 8/1/2007 1:01:03 AM , Rating: 2
He is correct though, its like the Old Pentium 3 667
It has a 133mhz Front side bus, and a multiplier of 5, which gives 665.
But the bus was never just "133" it was 133.3333333 recurring.
But they only used the last two digits of the 133.3
Now, 133.33 multiplied by 5 gives you 666.65, round that off and you get 667.


RE: Not quite..
By dajeepster on 8/7/2007 8:46:33 PM , Rating: 2
no, he's not correct. I can say anything I want theoretically... doesn't mean its true.
there isn't a piece of test equipment in existance that can measure anything infinite. it's kinda like say that a perpetual motion machine really does exist.


RE: Not quite..
By Lugaidster on 8/1/2007 4:14:05 AM , Rating: 2
Look at it this way (It's not really relevant but still)

1000/3 = 333.333333....

So do this:

9 * 1000 / 3 = 9000 /3 = 3000

Now you don't have constraints.


RE: Not quite..
By Spoelie on 8/1/2007 5:29:26 AM , Rating: 3
It is very much possible, as that number is not held in memory or need to be known/calculated exactly, it's only a physical characteristic that results from circuit design.

Like said above, if have a reference clock of 1000mhz and you only tick for every third tick of the reference clock, you get exactly 333,33333.. mhz. Even though you never have to 'calculate' it or anything.

That's just one way of a multitude of ways to get that exact 333,33..mhz clock.

read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_oscillator


RE: Not quite..
By dajeepster on 8/7/2007 8:41:50 PM , Rating: 2
please don't quote wikipedia to me... i can list 5 engineering books that do a much better job.

please explain to me how you are getting 333,3333.. mhz from every third tick of 1000mhz... i'm assuming its a typo... a bad typo.


RE: Not quite..
By SlyNine on 8/5/2007 3:12:48 PM , Rating: 1
I doubt a X2 6000+ ever lands exactly at 3ghz. they are never THAT accurate.


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher

Related Articles
AMD Reveals Phenom Model Numbers
July 28, 2007, 12:19 AM
AMD Prepares 45-watt "Brisbane"
May 30, 2007, 1:00 AM
AMD Announces Athlon 64 X2 6000+
February 20, 2007, 1:38 PM
AMD Announces "Brisbane" 65nm Processors
December 5, 2006, 1:27 AM













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