Making the switch to AM2 - Page 9

fguerro · 13th Dec 2006, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chai

Well, it's highly possible that AMD can't keep up with their roadmap.

Yeah roadmaps, that's exactly what they are but they're also subject to market condition changes. They change all the time. Let's just say it's always good to have competition in a market economy

CALLOFDUTY05 · 14th Dec 2006, 12:00 AM

AMD has just added (December 13, 2006 09.20 P.M.) 2 new flagship Athlon 64 X2 processors 5400+, 5600+
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunnyvale (CA) - AMD today launched new dual-core mainstream processors in order to regain at least some of its competitiveness in the segment of higher-end mainstream processors. The new 5400+ and 5600+ bring an increase of clock speed and are squarely aimed at Intel's Core 2 Duo E6600 and E6700 processors.

For now, AMD's 90 nm "Toledo" core has to stay of the forefront of the battle against Intel's Core 2 Duo, formerly code-named "Conroe". The new processors 5400+ and 5600+ use socket AM2 and increase the clock speed from 2.6 GHz of the 5000+/5200+ to 2.8 GHz. As previously, AMD uses different cache sizes for different performance ratings of its processors: The 5400+ has 1 MB L2 cache, the 5600+ 2 MB.

What makes these two processors interesting is not the fact that AMD was able squeeze more clock speed out of Toledo - at 89 watts, which remains level with the 90 nm 5200+ and 5000+ - but the fact that these are strategically important CPUs for AMD. If you were to spend about $500 for a new processor, and you were open to any processor available today, then Intel's Core 2 Duo 6700 was the obvious choice.

While we do not have the performance numbers of the X2s yet, AMD feels confident enough to price the 5400+ and 5600+ right against the E6700. Intel's fastest mainstream processor currently lists for a tray-price of $530 (retail: $525), while AMD charges $485 for the 5400+ and $505 for the 5600+. At least from that perspective, AMD is able to place itself again in the very lucrative segment of $400+ mainstream CPUs. But only their performance capability will show, if they can exceed the performance level of Intel's E6600 ($316) and their price is justified.

For users who are planning on buying a higher-end mainstream PC in the next few weeks, the scenario is pretty much set. Don't expect any updates from AMD and Intel until the second quarter of this year. While both companies do not officially comment on future products, sources indicated that AMD will be introducing 3 GHz versions of its Toledo core (5800+ and 6000+) early in Q3 2007, both of which will consume a maximum of 89 watts. However, the company will be introducing its new 65 nm "Kuma" dual-core processor as well. And if power is a concern for you as well, it may be worth waiting for the 65 nm versions ("Brisbane") of the current Athlon 64 X2 5200+ and 5400+, which are scheduled to be introduced with a power envelope of 76 watts in Q2 2007.

Of course, Intel is not standing still either. On the consumer high-end, Intel will begin offering an E6800 (2.93 GHz), E6850 (3 GHz), the E6750 (2.66 GHz) and E6650 (2.33 GHz) as well the quad-core Core 2 Quad E6600 (2.4 GHz) in Q2 and Q3. We also expect another quad-core with a clock speed of at least 2.66 GHz. The 50 series of Intel's Core 2 Duo marks the arrival of the 1333 MHz front side bus.

Chai · 14th Dec 2006, 04:09 AM

FX62 couldn't even beat E6600...And E6600 is overclockable to 3.5GHz without too much effort.

CALLOFDUTY05 · 14th Dec 2006, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chai

FX62 couldn't even beat E6600...And E6600 is overclockable to 3.5GHz without too much effort.

Please read properly the ist 3 lines.I've never said that FX 62 can beat E6600.Have I ? The 5400+ and 5600+ r said to be far more stronger than FX62.Obviously, time will tell us that & there's no point in arguing with this statement coz this statement is not mine.This report has published 2day in CNet Asia & AMD jointly .

PsYkHoTiK · 14th Dec 2006, 05:20 AM

lol. You really love marketing talk...

Max_87 · 14th Dec 2006, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CALLOFDUTY05

Please read properly the ist 3 lines.I've never said that FX 62 can beat E6600.Have I ? The 5400+ and 5600+ r said to be far more stronger than FX62.Obviously, time will tell us that & there's no point in arguing with this statement coz this statement is not mine.This report has published 2day in CNet Asia & AMD jointly .

LOL

You don't get his point, it is about the PRICE

E6600 is cheaper than FX-62, 5400 & 5600 and E6600 is faster than all of them.

5400+ & 5600+ far more stronger than FX-62?

Quote:

The 2 new CPUs come in 5400+ and 5600+ variants but have the same 2.8GHz clock speed. AMD is going for the Sempron numbers here (same clock, different cache). The amount of L2 cache per core is the following: 5400+ comes with 512KB of L2 cache per core (total: 1MB) while its older brother 5600+ comes with 1MB of L2 cache per core (total: 2MB) giving it equal specs to high-end the Athlon 64 FX-62 CPU. The same specs also apply to the newly introduced FX-72 (socket 1207).

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Q...Us-42208.shtml

5600+ has equivalent specs as the FX-62

building an AM2 system right now is an absolutely DUMB choice

Max_87 · 14th Dec 2006, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsYkHoTiK

lol. You really love marketing talk...

It's a conspiracy... they made him a fanboy... kihkikikikikihh~~~

Edit: Private joke

Chai · 14th Dec 2006, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CALLOFDUTY05

Please read properly the ist 3 lines.I've never said that FX 62 can beat E6600.Have I ? The 5400+ and 5600+ r said to be far more stronger than FX62.Obviously, time will tell us that & there's no point in arguing with this statement coz this statement is not mine.This report has published 2day in CNet Asia & AMD jointly .

I was merely making a statement, did I say you are wrong, did I say you are stupid or ignorant you said that? Nope. But if you want to take it that way, I can't see why I should stop you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max_87

building an AM2 system right now is an absolutely DUMB choice

Unless budget constrain is a big issue, you can't even afford X2, then AM2 might be a good choice.

Max_87 · 14th Dec 2006, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chai

Unless budget constrain is a big issue, you can't even afford X2, then AM2 might be a good choice.

Yup I'm talking about the high end AM2

Even the mainstream/lower end X2 is not really worth buying.

CALLOFDUTY05 · 14th Dec 2006, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max_87

Yup I'm talking about the high end AM2

Even the mainstream/lower end X2 is not really worth buying.

That's ur opinion but not necessarily everyone's.Looks like lots of Intel fanboys r here.

Unlike the silent launch of the 5400+/5600+, the launch of 5800+ and 6000+ should feature reviews of the products as well. The Athlon 64 X2 5800+ will work at 3GHz with 512KB of L2 cache per core, while the 6000+ will be Socket AM2 version of the FX-74: 3.0GHz clock and 1MB L2 cache per core.

View Poll Results: Switching to AM2?
Yes sir!	13	34.21%
What? No Way!	22	57.89%
Who? What? Uh... what's AM2 anyway?	3	7.89%
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

14th Dec 2006, 04:09 AM	#83 (permalink)
Chai Administrator Join Date: 6 Oct 2002 Location: Maranello Posts: 26,122 Reputation: 3845 Rep Power: 70	FX62 couldn't even beat E6600...And E6600 is overclockable to 3.5GHz without too much effort. __________________ Chai (Contributor & Forum Admin) http://www.techarp.com/

14th Dec 2006, 05:20 AM	#85 (permalink)
PsYkHoTiK "Little" Devil Join Date: 8 Apr 2004 Location: On the "throne" Posts: 14,166 Reputation: 3858 Rep Power: 57	lol. You really love marketing talk... __________________ Intel SLAPL 4.3GHz @ 1.35v WIP : 2x2GB OCZ Platinum DDR2 1066 : Asus P5K Premium : WD Raptor X : G92 8800GTS 512mb stock : XFi Platinum : Silverstone OP650 : Silverstone TJ-07 : Vista Ultimate Edition : Dtek FuZion CPU : Swiftech MCW60 : MCP655 : Thermochill PA120.3 w Scythe Ultra Kaze : Tygon R3603 1/2" ID 3/4" OD CPU-Z: SLAPL : SLA9U : FX-55 : DDR 600 : VX www.techarp.com

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SLI switch card/ bridge connector???	playahata123789	Graphics Cards & Displays	5	8th Dec 2005 07:38 PM

14th Dec 2006, 12:00 AM	#82 (permalink)
CALLOFDUTY05 I'm a regular Join Date: 7 May 2006 Posts: 367 Reputation: -118 Rep Power: 0	AMD has just added (December 13, 2006 09.20 P.M.) 2 new flagship Athlon 64 X2 processors 5400+, 5600+ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunnyvale (CA) - AMD today launched new dual-core mainstream processors in order to regain at least some of its competitiveness in the segment of higher-end mainstream processors. The new 5400+ and 5600+ bring an increase of clock speed and are squarely aimed at Intel's Core 2 Duo E6600 and E6700 processors. For now, AMD's 90 nm "Toledo" core has to stay of the forefront of the battle against Intel's Core 2 Duo, formerly code-named "Conroe". The new processors 5400+ and 5600+ use socket AM2 and increase the clock speed from 2.6 GHz of the 5000+/5200+ to 2.8 GHz. As previously, AMD uses different cache sizes for different performance ratings of its processors: The 5400+ has 1 MB L2 cache, the 5600+ 2 MB. What makes these two processors interesting is not the fact that AMD was able squeeze more clock speed out of Toledo - at 89 watts, which remains level with the 90 nm 5200+ and 5000+ - but the fact that these are strategically important CPUs for AMD. If you were to spend about $500 for a new processor, and you were open to any processor available today, then Intel's Core 2 Duo 6700 was the obvious choice. While we do not have the performance numbers of the X2s yet, AMD feels confident enough to price the 5400+ and 5600+ right against the E6700. Intel's fastest mainstream processor currently lists for a tray-price of $530 (retail: $525), while AMD charges $485 for the 5400+ and $505 for the 5600+. At least from that perspective, AMD is able to place itself again in the very lucrative segment of $400+ mainstream CPUs. But only their performance capability will show, if they can exceed the performance level of Intel's E6600 ($316) and their price is justified. For users who are planning on buying a higher-end mainstream PC in the next few weeks, the scenario is pretty much set. Don't expect any updates from AMD and Intel until the second quarter of this year. While both companies do not officially comment on future products, sources indicated that AMD will be introducing 3 GHz versions of its Toledo core (5800+ and 6000+) early in Q3 2007, both of which will consume a maximum of 89 watts. However, the company will be introducing its new 65 nm "Kuma" dual-core processor as well. And if power is a concern for you as well, it may be worth waiting for the 65 nm versions ("Brisbane") of the current Athlon 64 X2 5200+ and 5400+, which are scheduled to be introduced with a power envelope of 76 watts in Q2 2007. Of course, Intel is not standing still either. On the consumer high-end, Intel will begin offering an E6800 (2.93 GHz), E6850 (3 GHz), the E6750 (2.66 GHz) and E6650 (2.33 GHz) as well the quad-core Core 2 Quad E6600 (2.4 GHz) in Q2 and Q3. We also expect another quad-core with a clock speed of at least 2.66 GHz. The 50 series of Intel's Core 2 Duo marks the arrival of the 1333 MHz front side bus.