I'm Dreaming of a 3.0GHz Athlon 64 X2

The Athlon 64 X2 6000+ processor was originally supposed to be unveiled in late 2006. Earlier this week, AMD added the Athlon 64 6000+ SKU to its distributor roadmap. The 6000+ chips are scheduled for a late February launch and will still be based on the 90nm node. There were no reasons given for the delay, but hey, at least we know it hasn't been cancelled. AMD's previous roadmaps indicated the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is a 2x1MB L2 cache component with a 125W TDP. 3.0GHz is the next clock frequency in AMD's portfolio and this will hopefully be filled with the 6000+ which is supposed to be an exclusive Socket AM2 CPU. The 6000+ will be the last high end Athlon 64 X2 processor. Pricing for the 6000+ is expected at $607 per chip in quantities of 1,000.

News source: DailyTech

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Vodafone to Launch Video Service

Next Story

European Space Agency to test Satellite Radio

29 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I think the real problem is that no one cares. The public does not care about Intel or AMD. The cheap war has been over since 3GHz. The PC gaming market is dead as well. People want devices, but computers. The only real future of the PC industry is the notebook (and that is limited). Seriously, people do not want to keep on buying the same crap over and over again. Most individuals would rather waste their money are more productive items (education, car, relationships).

The PC market has entered into the niche audiophile, TV (large HDTV), and highend consumer luxury cars. Most people who buys computers today, buy the $399 to $699 systems because it gets the job done (business, internet, entertainment). If Intel and AMD do enter into a highend chip war it will never be successful because individuals are not going to pay $3000 for computers (ever again). They have moved on. Bill Gates was right when he said the price of software would soon eclipse software (it has).

Summary: The highend computer market is dead and has been dead since around 1999. It is now a profitable niche market.

Currently Intel is better.

Perhaps AMD will one day reclaim their throne.

Buy Intel now, by AMD when they are better.

Simple. Declaring allegiance to a company that makes processors is slightly weird...

rich.bradshaw said,
Currently Intel is better.

Perhaps AMD will one day reclaim their throne.

Buy Intel now, by AMD when they are better.

Simple. Declaring allegiance to a company that makes processors is slightly weird...

Quoted for truth!

rich.bradshaw said,
Currently Intel is better.

Perhaps AMD will one day reclaim their throne.

Buy Intel now, by AMD when they are better.

Simple. Declaring allegiance to a company that makes processors is slightly weird...


AMD has never had the throne. Period.

cantstopwontstop said,

AMD has never had the throne. Period.

Are you trapped in an Apple Reality Distortion Field? Moving on..

Wow - some people are adamant about their CPUs (Baked) -

There is a benefit other than smaller trans. w/ the 65nm production line - it will enable AMD to get a real Quad Core and not the joke they came up with last month.

I dont understand why people who like having super fast chips wouldnt go with intel, and "gladly wait until AMD's next big thing" - why are you so biased toward AMD ?? are you getting kickbacks from them ? NO Did they help you get a date for prom in high school ? NO Do you work for them ? NO - so why not go to intel right now - the Core 2 Duo and QX are awesome chips - damned fast and OC like crazy - whats not to like ???

My last 5 chips have been AMD - and Im buying a QX next month - why ? because theyre faster.

These are the same asshats that have those picture stickers on the back of their car showing Calvin ****ing on another car company's logo... some yoke driving a Ford truck "Chevy Sucks Dude !" -- uh yeah -- OK --

You people can play stick with your AMD chips and brag to your friends about how you stuck by them in the roughtimes - maybe someone, somewhere will give a sh*t.

:rolleyes:

* One thing is kinda funny though - AMD buying ATi - weird that one company getting its ass handed to them buys another company that has had its ass handed to them for the last couple of years

It also makes me laugh the only reason all of you Intel girls can afford a Intel chip is because of AMD's strong performance against Intel in the lst few years........Have you all forgoten how expensive Genuine Intel chips were ???

Only reason they are cheap now is because of AMD!!!!


Yep and like someone else said i'll gladly wait for the next big AMD break through to come......They stuck it to Intel once im sure they can do it again.......Also i don't like being a sheep like the rest of you......Bah bah must get intel core 2 bah because everyone else is bahh!!!! Get a clue!!

Baked said,
It also makes me laugh the only reason all of you Intel girls can afford a Intel chip is because of AMD's strong performance against Intel in the lst few years........Have you all forgoten how expensive Genuine Intel chips were ???

Only reason they are cheap now is because of AMD!!!!


Yep and like someone else said i'll gladly wait for the next big AMD break through to come......They stuck it to Intel once im sure they can do it again.......Also i don't like being a sheep like the rest of you......Bah bah must get intel core 2 bah because everyone else is bahh!!!! Get a clue!!

Good go back to to your first AMD processor then, because nobody else has it.

Intel is currently whipping AMDs ass raw with their Core 2 Duo. C2D is a chip that is cheap due to TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS not because of AMD stupid. Core Duos were and still are more expensive than the Core duo 2s.

Shadowdruid said,

Good go back to to your first AMD processor then, because nobody else has it.

Intel is currently whipping AMDs ass raw with their Core 2 Duo. C2D is a chip that is cheap due to TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS not because of AMD stupid. Core Duos were and still are more expensive than the Core duo 2s.

LOL "TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS" Thats a good one. While I will agree Intel is caining AMD without AMD do you honestly expect the comsumer to benefit from these "TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS"

The answer.... No.

No company in their right mind would sell something cheaper than they need to if they can get away with flogging it at a higher price. Its called business my friend Intel are not your friend and neither are AMD. But when they both slug it out it benefits the consumer.

Baked said,
It also makes me laugh the only reason all of you Intel girls can afford a Intel chip is because of AMD's strong performance against Intel in the lst few years........Have you all forgoten how expensive Genuine Intel chips were ???

Only reason they are cheap now is because of AMD!!!!


Yep and like someone else said i'll gladly wait for the next big AMD break through to come......They stuck it to Intel once im sure they can do it again.......Also i don't like being a sheep like the rest of you......Bah bah must get intel core 2 bah because everyone else is bahh!!!! Get a clue!!

You think you're smart don't you. You're like an Ostridge burying it's head in the sand to try and avoid facts. The only sheep here is you with self delusional attributes; no doubt a result of your own conditioning.

I bought my 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 Northwood for $200 new from Fry's electronics back when the P4 was the faster in competition with the Athlon XP. AMD used to be cheaper because their chips were never as good as Intel's until the Athlon 64, then oh what do you know, AMD's prices skyrocketed. Sure Intel has $1000 chips, but so did AMD, now they've come down because they cannot compete with the much less expensive Core 2 Duo.

Here's a newsflash for you, a $230 Core 2 Duo will outperform this 6000+ for almost $400 less, but oh I guess we're all sheep for buying the cheaper and better product. That's some winner logic you got there, you should apply for the Darwin award as you might have a chance at winning.

MrCobra said,
Probably for the same reason that I bought an AMD 4x4 system, because I don't support Intel. A lot of people don't.

Then, im sorry, but you are wasting your money. Intel 90% of the time that it has competed with AMD has had better processors. Last year Intel fell asleep but they regret it and now as you see are killing and will keeping killing AMD.

Why would they bother? It's OBVIOUS that the speed increase will do VERY little to actually combat the C2D. Nevermind the super cache. They really need to go and rebuild their architecture. Id gladly wait for AMD to get back in the game if they put out a brand new core. Look at how long Intel had waited before they dropped 'Conroe'.


+1 for R&D?

what they really need to do is get the K8L done now. That should bring them back or at least a hell of a lot closer to intel

What makes you think a shrink in transistor size would make up for the shortcomings in their architecture design?

By the way, now that they have introduced X2s with 65nm transistors, aside from a reduction in energy needed, there's no other apparent benefit. It's simply a shrink in transistor size. That, and they've changed the cache layout in such a way that the latency thereof has increased.

Damn, did not know that. No benefit at all? And the latency is worse? Man AMD is blowing it hard. I guess my next machine will be an Intel build.

They dont need to kill the Athlon line. They just need to move to 65nm chips like Intel has. People forget that less than a year ago it what AMD that was killing INTEL. Howevever why bother with this chip at 90nm just hurry up and bring out your 65nm line before INTEL switches over to 45nm and than it really will be over.

Robert M. said,
They dont need to kill the Athlon line. They just need to move to 65nm chips like Intel has. People forget that less than a year ago it what AMD that was killing INTEL. Howevever why bother with this chip at 90nm just hurry up and bring out your 65nm line before INTEL switches over to 45nm and than it really will be over.

What makes you think a shrink in transistor size would make up for the shortcomings in their architecture design?

By the way, now that they have introduced X2s with 65nm transistors, aside from a reduction in energy needed, there's no other apparent benefit. It's simply a shrink in transistor size. That, and they've changed the cache layout in such a way that the latency thereof has increased.


As to the discrepency between the transistor sizes of Intel and AMD when the sale of Clawhammers into the generic "market" began, the Clawhammer's transistors were 1.3 microns wide, as were the Northwood's.


Finally, AMD is still "KILLING" Intel in some areas, for example the compiling front. Try compiling OpenOffice or Firefox on a Conroe and compare the time it takes with an X2.

TenebraruM said,
Finally, AMD is still "KILLING" Intel in some areas, for example the compiling front. Try compiling OpenOffice or Firefox on a Conroe and compare the time it takes with an X2.

http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/22/0415251

Scroll down to the Firefox compilation benchmark on Gentoo, where you will find the AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 being decimated by the Intel Core 2 Duo E6700, by a much larger margin than the extra 60MHz would explain.

Shining Arcanine said,

http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/22/0415251

Scroll down to the Firefox compilation benchmark on Gentoo, where you will find the AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 being decimated by the Intel Core 2 Duo E6700, by a much larger margin than the extra 60MHz would explain.


That's very strange. I haven't studied the difference first hand (I don't have a Gentoo installation running on a Core 2), but an X2 definitely outperforms a Core 2 compiling Firefox using VC++ 2005.

Perhaps GC++ works better with a Core 2?

Edit: Why'd he/she use -msse3, it has no effect in versions prior to 4.3

Shining Arcanine said,
http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/22/0415251

Scroll down to the Firefox compilation benchmark on Gentoo, where you will find the AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 being decimated by the Intel Core 2 Duo E6700, by a much larger margin than the extra 60MHz would explain.

You know whats funny Pro Intel ppl always do bias benchmarking......
Core 2 E6700 & X6800 (both using DDR2 800mhz) - Current range of chips

VS

AMD AthlonFX 60 which is not the latest / current chips running with DDR 1 Socket 939


Sure the Core 2 probally would have still won but for it to be a fair and UN bias test it should have been against the AM2 socket Athlon64 FX 62 with DDR2 as well.....instead of the older 939 socket chip.

But i guess you gotta do whatever it takes to win LMAO

Being an AMD person myself I just have to say this....

The comparisons between the C2D and the FX-60 were no different than comparing the A64s to the old Pentiums.

They need to kill this line off, it's a ridiculously hard sell at work, I don't think i've sold an Athlon X2 in 6 months and we deal with a fair amount of gamers at work.

hmmm..... ive always been pro amd, an amd user forever. but since the core duos are out, intel becomes more and more attractive to me. somehow. and that doesnt make me want to change and give away my core 2 duo aswell...