[NEWS]AMD to do 90nm for socket AM2, 12 new CPUS coming out!11one~!!!

[darksparkz]

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/13/amd_m2_platform_launch/

Looks like

All use AMD's dual channel DDR2-667 interface:

AthlonFX
FX-62 2.8ghz (Dual core, I think)

4 Athlon X2s, 90nm Windsor
X2 5000+ 2.6ghz "1x 1 MB L2 cache" (Typo?)

3 Athlon 64s, 90nm Orleans
Athlon64 4000+ 2.6ghz 512KB L2
Athlon64 3800+ 2.4ghz 512KB L2
Athlon64 3500+ 2.2ghz 512KB L2

4 Sempron, 90nm Manila
Sempron 3500+ 2.2ghz 256KB L2
Sempron 3400+ 2.0ghz 256KB L2
Sempron 3200+ 1.8ghz 256KB L2
Sempron 3000+ 1.6ghz 256KB L2

Other X2s not listed.

Also looks like the X2 5000+ is exactly the same as the FX-60, dual core, 2.6ghz, and 2x1MB of cache, except you don't have the FX brand and multipliers.

Looks like their first 12 CPUs will be all 90nm, other then the speculated 65nm, maybe it'll come out later. Plus since they only have 3 A64s, it looks like that line of A64s and single cores will slowly phase out.

If that FX-62 at 2.8ghz is a dual core, then I would think it would be priced at $1300-1500, really expensive, but a 2.8ghz stock dual core is great.

 

[Ad Rock]

There is no single cored A64's with 1 mb LVL2 cache? Seems like single cores will not be getting anymore love from AMD.

I cant wait to see what DDR2 does for AMD .

 

[PWatterson]

I wonder how much this new FX will cost.

 

[rseven]

It's my understanding that the 65nm AM1 will not be out till much later in the year, but they are going to be much faster because of a new process developed with IBM. It looks like AMD is going to try and keep the performance crown into 2007 despite a new surge from Intel. It should be a real horserace.

 

[Kalivos]

I wonder how much this new FX will cost.

Only the deed to your house and first born child. Pretty good deal.

 

[darksparkz]

Looks like their making the A64 single cores more of a lower end thing, so it'll be just under the dual cores, and they won't take out the single core A64 until they can make a dual core and sell for $150. But I guess the lower cache encourages people to go with dual cores instead, and when people do reviews and benchmarks, it'll show a bigger improvement in scores for dual vs single core, because of lower cache probably.

But yeah, if the FX-60 is $1200-$1300, then obviously the higher end, new socket CPU, and also at 2.8ghz, would be priced at $1400-$1500, maybe a tad higher.

No word on AM2 Opterons?

 

[c627627]

Thanks for that link.

But what is 2.2 GHz?

2.000 GHz = 6.0 x 333.33
2.167 GHz = 6.5 x 333.33
2.333 GHz = 7.0 x 333.33

How do you get default 2.2 GHz with DDR II 667?


Their other frequencies also don't seem to correspond to DDR II 667.

Finally, is it Socket M2 or Socket AM2?

 

[avalanche83]

That is probably right. I don't think it will be exactly 2.0 or 2.2GHz. I mean look at socket A with 166FSB. The stock speeds where like 2.16.

 

[c627627]

Even if they did omit the decimals and rounded, what is 2.4 GHz?

2.333 GHz = 7.0 x 333.33
2.500 GHz = 7.5 x 333.33
2.666 GHz = 8.0 x 333.33

You can't round 2.4 GHz out of DDR II 667, right?

 

[avalanche83]

There has to be differences in them by either a smaller of larger marging. Don't know .

 

[Careface]

hmm this just confuses me even more, as c627627 said, how exactly can we get these clocks? and does anyone have any idea how much the X2s will cost? why have AMD practically halved the cache on the chips? wont this make overclocking even worse, as it will have such a low multi and now we'd need even better mobos capable of high HTT? I mean, just think about it: the 2.2ghz chip has like a 6.5multi, to hit 3ghz (which im assuming people are going to be expecting from these new chips) we would need boards capable of 420+ HTT.. and if they are keeping the whole 1000MHz HTT thing, you may as well not bother, as it would be like 420*2=840.. bah, so annoying.

Careface*

 

[darksparkz]

Hm, didn't notice that the clock speeds don't add up, weird.

Tom's Hardware calls it as socket M2, but most places say they changed the name to AM2.

 

[OC Detective]

Quite simply an extremely badly researched article using outdated information. (eg FX62 and erroneous frequencies)

 

[c627627]

The frequency errors are so obvious that it's strange they would run something like this, adding to their already tarnished reputation of reporting AMD related news.

It's strange because it doesn't hurt or help AMD, it hurts Tom's...

 

[OC Detective]

They not only have used old material (this info was around in early November) but they have also not bothered to check what is such a glaring mathematical error on the frequencies. (Unless that is AMD is adopting some strange divider lol!)

 

[funnyperson1]

They not only have used old material (this info was around in early November) but they have also not bothered to check what is such a glaring mathematical error on the frequencies. (Unless that is AMD is adopting some strange divider lol!)

Heh, now introducing 7.25 multiplier

 

[greenmaji]

Ugh.. this infromation was making AM2 look bad to me (the poor cach an only top end dual cores) now that you guys have pointed out that this information is old I have to rethink things..
any new specs. out on the AM2 socket?
UGH!!!

 

[ronaldo]

This is a great information if its true. 2x512kb cache mean: cpu will be cheaper to produce, and cheaper to sell. The performance diference for Amd was 0% betwen 512kb and 1mb anyway. (The games are only one who take advantage of more cache)

Audio/Video encoding and rendering dont use more cache:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2658&p=5

Our 3D rendering, video encoding and audio encoding tests basically all agree with the earlier results - the added cache doesn't really improve performance here, but that's to be expected, given the nature of the applications.

and here:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=a64x2&page=13

However, while the 4800+ rules the charts, one should consider that most of our applications did not show much benefit from the 4800+’s 1MB of cache (per core) compared to the 4600+ 512 kB of cache (per core). In the majority of applications, the 4600+ (which is quite a bit less expensive) performs nearly identically to the top of the line 4800+ model.

 

[dropadrop]

Sorry, but I don't understand what's so great about this. Basicly it means 65nm processors are further away then we thought.

 

[rseven]

Sadly, I don't think the 65nm AM2's will be here till the beginning of 2007, but they will be world beaters when they get here.