AMD roadmap leaked, dual core Phenoms could be around the corner
If it's Thursday, then it must be time for more AMD rumors - this time a few different sources report the chipmaker's given its channel partners the high sign indicating "Kuma" dual-core Phenom-based processors will finally see the light of day. For those too shy to indulge in triple- or even quad-core action, El Reg says Phenom X2 dual core chips will range from 2.3GHz to 1.90 Ghz, sporting 1MB L2 cache and 2MB L3 cache for. Freaky 3-core overclockers can look forward to new, better performing 2.4Ghz Black Edition Phenom 8750s, and more efficient 125-watt Phenom 9950 CPUs, if we can trust leaked German sales charts -- and we always do, don't you?Read - The Register
Read - PC Perspective
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
d0od @ Aug 28th 2008 6:34PM
awesome! amd ftw!
Serial 8-Ball Mouse @ Aug 28th 2008 6:43PM
Every time AMD does something - ANYTHING - besides fail (aka: the norm), some jobber comes along and screams "AMD FTW! THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE A COMEBACK! WATCH OUT INTEL!"
Seriously, let's be real here. When they actually win at something, then try throwing "FTW" out there.
white_ultras @ Aug 28th 2008 7:01PM
AMD was like 50% faster then Intel with Athlon 64 in not so distant past. They marketed the first 64bit x86 core, now they are about 10% slower at the Intel's highend, so what.
They have working prototype @5Ghz eating anything from the Intel/Nehalem team, was a bomb on the Inquirer yesterday.
AMD will be back soon, people hope so. You enjoy Intel's high prices or what?
Serial 8-Ball Mouse @ Aug 28th 2008 7:08PM
@white_ultras
I've assembled a crack team of code breakers to work on your comment, and when they come back with something resembling a normal sentence, I'll check it out.
In the meantime though, "You enjoy Intel's high prices or what?"
What high prices? I can buy a speedy C2D computer for around $300 right now. Doesn't seem too outrageous to me. And isn't the Atom disgustingly cheap as well? Surely you're not complaining about the pricing of high end gear, are you?
vigilante.killer @ Aug 28th 2008 7:13PM
@ white_ultras
Intels high price of $199 for a 45nm tech 3ghz processor just destroys my familys hopes of going on holiday for the next 5 years. Get real, prices are lower than they have ever been, the performane intel processors manage coupled with the impressive overclocking headroom every chip since conroe launched has had, is simply outstanding for the price.
Josh @ Aug 28th 2008 7:44PM
The price of some of Intels chips are low. Their extreme models are still stupidly highly priced, well out of what your normal use would want to pay. And for what? Something that you can get by overclocking a cheaper model.
Their prices can be as low as you like, but white_ultras makes a good point. Competition = lower prices and faster chips.
I say the same to Nvidia and AMD-ATI, don't slag off a company that's doing poorly, the very fact they're there means that you pay less for your silicon. Take the HD4870 and the HD4850, it's a fab little card and is currently forcing Nvidia to cut their prices left right and centre - for a company that everyone claims is flogging dead horses, it's not doing too badly.
Back to processors, AMD aren't doing that badly. Their processors are still damn fast. They're just not as fast as Intel's. This is mainly overshadowed by the fact that Intel is better known, has virtually unlimited funds (ie it can pour millions into R/D), has better PR and so forth. AMD were pretty much bankrupt after buying ATI so no doubt they've had to cut back. Intel creamed them first, AMD then creamed the P4's, Intel are now back in the lead, someday AMD will be faster, then Intel will create a one-up on that. That's how the processor game works, get over it.
Pumping_Iron @ Aug 28th 2008 7:54PM
@d0od & white_ultras
guys im totally with u.....i love my amd.....no matter what the intel fan boys say....im sticking with it.
I owned 3 intels...until i found about amd...amd will last you for at least 4 years without worrying of upgrading it.
Have u intel fan boys ever noticed on the games / software packages, at the specification part..."Intel 2.0Ghz or AMD Sempron 2000+"....see the difference.....amd is longer lasting in all ways.
Im not a fan boy....i research before i buy and not get fooled by any ads....quality ppl, quality !
phanbouy @ Aug 28th 2008 7:57PM
""Intel 2.0Ghz or AMD Sempron 2000+"....see the difference.....amd is longer lasting in all ways."
zuh?
Serial 8-Ball Mouse @ Aug 28th 2008 8:42PM
Holy Jesus, look at Pumping_Iron's comment. Now that's serious business.
Abuzar Baloach @ Aug 29th 2008 12:27AM
If you don't get fooled then you would know Intels perform better THESE DAYS.
Honestly, I wish AMD comes back. Doesn't necessarily mean I will or wont buy from it. I like to buy the best performance for my dollar. Last generation that was AMD, this time around it's Intel.
phanbouy @ Aug 28th 2008 6:42PM
awesome. welcome to 2006 AMD
Tdburn @ Aug 28th 2008 6:45PM
AMD YOU ROCK MY WORLD!
Doc @ Aug 28th 2008 6:45PM
Maybe it's just me but 125w is power intensive, is it not? I've one of the lower power 4400+ which is 65w if I remember correctly. Of course these are much more powerful but still, what happened to power saving being important?
Yubastard @ Aug 28th 2008 7:15PM
they're talking about quad-core... "and more efficient 125-watt Phenom 9950 CPUs" quads are 9000 series, if I'm not mistaken.
at this moment, I think 125-watt for a quad-core is not a "win", but it's quite good, considering it has 4 cores, unlike yours, presumably, which has only 2. core for core, this quad one is more efficient... I think :)
Doc @ Aug 28th 2008 7:51PM
I sort of see your point (although 125w was for the three core one if I read it correctly) but it's still a doubling of power for 1/3rd extra core at how much more powerful?
The 4400+ was more powerful than some of its predecessors but still used less power than some of the other processors at the time, especially the later pentium 4s.
Doc @ Aug 28th 2008 7:53PM
seems I did misread, it wasn't clearly written. searching for phenom 9950 shows up it being a quad core.
Stevlr @ Aug 28th 2008 7:01PM
I am not impress by the sarcasms of some of the comments. We should all be thankful that AMD exist. If not computer would still cost thousands if it wasn't for competition. For all of you Intel lovers, if there was no AMD athlon X2, there wouldn't be any core 2 duo's. And we still be living with the crappy and power hungry Pentium 4. Hail to AMD to keep the game interesting and forcing Intel to give to its fans better product at better prices.
Serial 8-Ball Mouse @ Aug 28th 2008 7:20PM
"if there was no AMD athlon X2, there wouldn't be any core 2 duo's"
lol
Right.
Ignatius @ Aug 28th 2008 8:45PM
It was actually S939, the AMD Athlon 64. Not the X2.
Casey @ Aug 28th 2008 9:53PM
Well what I seem to remember is that Intel had been dominating the processor market until the Athlon processor came about and ended up dominating the PIII and P4 in terms of performance. I used to get PC World magazine and I know that out of nowhere the Athlon started scoring much higher benchmarks than the P4. Shortly after Intel introduced hyperthreading, increased the cache, rolled out the dual core processors and never looked back. Its likely that the superior performance of the Athlon spurred Intel on in their dramatic improvements to their own processors.
Ignatius @ Aug 28th 2008 7:10PM
Uh. Don't we already have Quad-core Phenoms? Stop putting out low-end crap AMD and take back the gaming sector.
Jon Doe. @ Aug 28th 2008 7:28PM
Leaking is, sadly, such an appropriate term to use when talking AMD. Money, creativity, good processors, vaporware, etc. They are leaking a lot now a days. We see a lot of AMD roadmaps. Wake me when a product actually ships.
phanbouy @ Aug 28th 2008 7:32PM
"Johnny-5, you are leaking battery fluid!"
Serial 8-Ball Mouse @ Aug 28th 2008 7:47PM
People keep complaining about AMD taking grills from commenters because "COMPETITION IS SO IMPORTANT! We NEED AMD!"
No shit competition is important, but that doesn't mean we need to heap praise on AMD's baby steps.
The fact is that AMD takes heat because they haven't been competing on the same level as Intel for a long time. Sure you can say that Intel wouldn't be as innovative as it is without some pressure from AMD, but hey, if AMD didn't exist, someone else would. And they would compete. Maybe even better than AMD does.
You can't back a company up and put them over just because they provide competition. I think I'll puke if I see one more "competition is important!" comment. Give it a rest.
B== @ Aug 28th 2008 8:21PM
you realize that intel has probably 20 times more resources than amd, right? its not two equal companies.
The Dude @ Aug 28th 2008 8:20PM
Competition is important! Panties are wet and tents are pitched for AMD! We need AMD!
Now make good on your word and vomit. Your 8-ball should've seen this coming.
Serial 8-Ball Mouse @ Aug 28th 2008 8:40PM
@B==
So what? I never said they were.
@The Dude
Reply hazy, try again.
Muhammed @ Aug 28th 2008 8:51PM
I'm totally with B on this, you can't even compare AMD and intel when it comes to resources, clearly intel has a bizillion more sources than AMD, that some how also doesnt justify the baby steps of AMD, which I prefer to call "turtle steps" .
The time where AMD has brought up an "innovation" is long gone.
Faruk @ Aug 28th 2008 8:39PM
I'm just gonna copy/paste here exactly what I posted on another site regarding the same news:
(Cliffnotes if you don't want to read it all: Fanboys are all idiots, no matter which side you're on. Just buy whichever product meets your needs at the best price!)
Honestly, it shocks me how ignorant some people are.
It's amazing to read how people bash chipmakers like AMD (or whoever, for that matter) with such intense emotion as if it's something personal to them. I have two points to make here:
1. Not everybody needs a quad core processor. In fact, I regularly use a single-core processor at home and it's more than good enough to check my email, chat on MSN, surf the net, prepare word documents/powerpoint presentations, watch DVDs, and even to play the occasional game like Civilization 4. When I spent $300 to upgrade my machine a few months ago, I didn't buy a new processor - as a matter of fact, I bought a nice quality 20" LCD monitor. Screen space is more important to me when I am doing my work than processor speed. If the AMD processor will do everything I need for a cheaper price than Intel, then AMD is more than good enough! Why do people even care whether their processor is an Intel or an AMD? Just buy whichever one suits your needs for the best price!
2. I can understand the frustration of some people who are gamers or do video editing and require large processing power. It is very understandable that perhaps you are unimpressed with AMD's performance compared to Intel. But what surprises me (like I mentioned at the start) is how people will BASH a company for not being able to do as well as the other, and going as far as wishing that the other one will go out of business. Why would anybody want one company to crush another, only to be left with a monopoly? Are you people crazy? Do you know what that would mean in terms of future prices?
And I'm just gonna stick a personal opinion in here: Just comparing the sheer size of Intel and how much resources (money, employees) they have, it's no surprise that they can do better R&D and come up with better-performing products than a small company like AMD. Intel is a much more well-established company than AMD is.
Muhammed @ Aug 28th 2008 8:57PM
Nice, that's for you Eight-ball-mouse, I guess.
DominicJ @ Aug 28th 2008 10:13PM
Im still using an amd sempron 3000+ and playing games such as FSX on high settings just fine so all of you can SHUT UP about your intel core 2 duo's and what not.
Abuzar Baloach @ Aug 29th 2008 12:31AM
You're CPU isn't bad but the Core 2 Duos are much better. It's a fact. Why argue? If you're building a new system a Intel CPU is a logical choice. Now some people choose Phenoms because they don't like supporting Intel. That's fine, but it still doesn't change the FACT that the current Intel CPUs are just plain better.
Abuzar Baloach @ Aug 29th 2008 12:31AM
I mean your. I don't know why I wrote "you're".
Anders @ Aug 29th 2008 5:32AM
I still can't buy a 2.5 Ghz C2D for the same price that I can pick up an Athlon x2 5000+.
to add insult to injury, good luck finding a chipset as feature-filled as the 690G/780G that DOESN'T cost more than 100 bucks.
Muhammed @ Aug 29th 2008 7:51PM
@ Abuzar: if you meant "your" instead of "you're" then I don't understand you.
Abuzar Baloach @ Aug 29th 2008 9:17PM
How do you not understand me? I mean your, as in HIS CPU. If I meant YOU ARE, then you're would have been appropriate.
Muhammed @ Aug 30th 2008 1:53PM
ah now I get it, there's two "you're"s, sorry for that.
matt merritt @ Aug 28th 2008 11:21PM
And for their next trick they'll attempt to make a quad-core processor that actually has 4 working cores!
Jacob @ Aug 29th 2008 1:39AM
You do realize AMD made the first TRUE quad-core, right? ;p
Yor1001 @ Aug 30th 2008 11:44PM
intels Q6600 which now cost $180...is faster than AMD's fastest....I can't see AMD making a combact with the exact same architecture....AMD need to get back to the drawing boards like intel did and create a new architecture from scratch.
disapointeAMD user @ Sep 30th 2008 7:14PM
What a waste of time and investment to buy a Phenom dual core that couldn't even get it's energy consumption minimize to below 45W.
AMD should focus to product higher end 2066 or higher Phenom with 65w or less energy efficient line as soon as possible. Else the doom's day for the company will be sooner than they expected.