AMD updates Phenom timetable

How is AMD's Phenom processor roll-out shaping up? According to the latest roadmap leak, expect three of the CPUs to appear this year, all of them in the 9000 series. Gamer-oriented FX parts won't debut until next year. According to data compiled by VR-Zone, the 2.2GHz Phenom 9500 and the 2.4GHz Phenom 9600 will be launched in November, with the 2.6GHz 9700 following a month later. All three contain four 512KB L2 caches, one per core, and 2MB of L2 cached shared among all the cores. They all support 800MHz DDR 2 memory.

The lower end chips will consume up to 89W, the report reasonably reckons, and sit on 3.6GHz HyperTransport 3.0 buses via the Socket AM2+ interconnect. The 9700 ups the bus frequency to 4GHz, but its TDP comes to 125W.

View: The full story
News source: The Reg

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Rhapsody, TiVo Join Forces

Next Story

Carphone Warehouse laptop sweetener

17 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Angel Blue01 said,
Still consumes lots of power :(

Actually, that's what I was thinking as well. I wish they would put more research into the super-conductor and optical research areas so we can have smaller, quieter, AND faster computers.

All three contain four 512KB L2 caches, one per core, and 2MB of L3 cached shared among all the cores. They all support 800MHz DDR 2 memory.

but this is good none-the-less finally i can decide which to buy, 9600

so far not impressed, lets see what happen later.

Intel need to do something for their core 2 quad they are behind than amd in real quad core area.

eilegz said,
so far not impressed, lets see what happen later.

Intel need to do something for their core 2 quad they are behind than amd in real quad core area.

Price and Performance is all I care about and the Q6600 is pretty afforable and performs great specially when overclocked.

It's not like the Q6600 is a FAKE quad core, I mean it does have FOUR cores and they do perform.

hardgiant said,

Price and Performance is all I care about and the Q6600 is pretty afforable and performs great specially when overclocked.

It's not like the Q6600 is a FAKE quad core, I mean it does have FOUR cores and they do perform.

BUT internal bandwidth is very limited!

The Core 2 Quad line features two dual core chips (2x2), as opposed to 4 core chips (1x4), and this does make a huge difference, as internal communication is bottlenecked for the C2Q as it's only means of communicating is a bridge that does not transfer nearly a quarter the amount of data that can be processed by the cores.

You'd see the Core 2 Quad kick real ass if/when they truly decide to switch to a proper quad core design.

AMD really had no problems regarding this, because all the cores have been interconnected by HyperTransport from the very start (since they went dual core), which handles internal traffic stunningly and can scale extremely well. (Intel had to do the whole 80-core R&D Project/Marketing gimmick to figure out an internal hardware traffic distribution system)

All AMD needs to focus on anymore is single-thread performance on their multi core systems. Once they nail that, things will get REALLY heated.

In the end, we, the consumers, win

David3k said,

BUT internal bandwidth is very limited!

The Core 2 Quad line features two dual core chips (2x2), as opposed to 4 core chips (1x4), and this does make a huge difference, as internal communication is bottlenecked for the C2Q as it's only means of communicating is a bridge that does not transfer nearly a quarter the amount of data that can be processed by the cores.

You'd see the Core 2 Quad kick real ass if/when they truly decide to switch to a proper quad core design.

AMD really had no problems regarding this, because all the cores have been interconnected by HyperTransport from the very start (since they went dual core), which handles internal traffic stunningly and can scale extremely well. (Intel had to do the whole 80-core R&D Project/Marketing gimmick to figure out an internal hardware traffic distribution system)

All AMD needs to focus on anymore is single-thread performance on their multi core systems. Once they nail that, things will get REALLY heated.

In the end, we, the consumers, win :D

That's great and all but Intel has been selling a quad core for awhile now and AMD still has not released theirs, so Intel is making sales that AMD cannot win back because once you plunk your money down for a quad core setup it's unlikely you will switch after that plus Intel will probably release a newer faster quad core.

AMD was really short sighted on this and has taken way to long to get their product on the market.

hardgiant said,

That's great and all but Intel has been selling a quad core for awhile now and AMD still has not released theirs, so Intel is making sales that AMD cannot win back because once you plunk your money down for a quad core setup it's unlikely you will switch after that plus Intel will probably release a newer faster quad core.

AMD was really short sighted on this and has taken way to long to get their product on the market.

You seem to be missing my point here; Whatever the current position of Intel is in the market, they're going to have to make a change soon that would require an overhaul of their platform because of the lack of foresight.

Intel's quad-core design currently WORKS, but AMD's design will work better than whatever Intel will have. (This is most obvious in the server-space where ganged AMD quads are beating ganged Intel quads, because AMD's quads can communicate better with other quads remotely due to the way they handle data internally.)

AMD's processor communication tech is future-proofed, and Intel's is as well.

But AMD has a head start in this area, because they developed the tech much earlier than Intel did, and can now focus more on producing worthy single thread processing power to slap on to their great internal processor communication architecture. The catch is Intel has done the opposite; They took single-threaded performance above and beyond, and made a VERY basic and primitive way to make the to processors communicate, while they developed a solution that provides an adequate way of controlling internal data communication that can scale well.

Both approaches are different. Intel enters at the consumer market and continues up to the server space, and AMD enters at the server space and continues down to the consumer market.

Marty2003 said,
Should Intel also rename Core 2 Quad to Core 2 Duo Duo?

I was talking about the Performance since it is only 15% faster then the K8, that's not exactly a phenom.