Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

"AMD To Ditch Initial AM2 2x1MB On Desktop CPUs"

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 14, 2006 11:26:20 PM

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2858

not wishing to come across as a fan boy with the title, i simply copy and pasted it from the source.

any thoughts as to why and what this might tell us about possible issues arising?

im planning at some stage to move over to dual core (hopefully 4400+ which is the lowest range dual core at the moment with 2X1MB of level 2 cache) on my s939, so im not hugely bothered by this. But anyone else feel AMD might be starting to feel the pinch of the 'price war' coming?

Also, what sort of performance difference is there between processors with 2x1MB level 2 cache and of 2x512KB level 2 cache ?
June 15, 2006 12:09:48 AM

Quote:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2858

not wishing to come across as a fan boy with the title, i simply copy and pasted it from the source.

any thoughts as to why and what this might tell us about possible issues arising?

im planning at some stage to move over to dual core (hopefully 4400+ which is the lowest range dual core at the moment with 2X1MB of level 2 cache) on my s939, so im not hugely bothered by this. But anyone else feel AMD might be starting to feel the pinch of the 'price war' coming?

Also, what sort of performance difference is there between processors with 2x1MB level 2 cache and of 2x512KB level 2 cache ?


I wonder if the other side of this article should read "AMD will be cutting down high speed L2 to make way for some nice, fat, L3 on the high end.
A guy can hope cant he. :wink:
a c 448 à CPUs
June 15, 2006 12:19:22 AM

According to TechReport.com:

Quote:

AMD plans to simplify and consolidate its product lineup by bringing several of its current processor model numbers to end-of-life status at the end of the second quarter. These products include Athlon 64 X2 processors for Socket AM2 with 1MB of L2 cache per core, but that's not the whole story.

The Athlon 64 X2 chips that will be retired are models 4800+, 4400+, and 4000+ for Socket AM2 and models 4400+ and 4800+ for Socket 939. (AMD will continue to supply the Socket 939 4800+ to select PC makers). All of these CPUs have 1MB of L2 cache for each execution core, and obviously the focus for AMD's product lineup will be shifting toward chips with 512KB of L2 cache per core. The only remaining Socket AM2 processors with 1MB of L2 cache would then be the Athlon 64 FX-62 and any Opteron 100-series processors AMD might release for AM2.


AMD simply has a lot of CPU models out there, both standard, and energy efficient versions. It's bad for the enthusiast, but good for the average consumer because there are fewer CPU models to choose from. It also makes sense in light of recent price cuts. AMD needs to streamline their production costs and one way to do that is to consolidate their production line.

Think of it as a leaner and meaner AMD.
Related resources
June 15, 2006 12:23:27 AM

Its not like the extra cache makes a difference. A smart move from AMD, those 1MB ones are quite large.
June 15, 2006 12:48:31 AM

Quote:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2858

Also, what sort of performance difference is there between processors with 2x1MB level 2 cache and of 2x512KB level 2 cache ?


Perhaps you should've linked to "The Tech Report", mentioned in Anand's article; that might help you, somewhat:

http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/10175)

As for AMD's strategy, I really think it's an intelligent move: It will decisively contribute to cost cutting, by not building up inventory, by increasing yields (more 512KB dies per wafer) & cleaning up the house for the 300mm (first), 65nm (after) transition. It also makes sense, as mentioned in the article, to downplay on older but still expensive parts & focus on newer ones, asap.
It's useful to recall AMD's recent price cuts (up to 50%, in some products!), its Fabs re-workings & conversions, its latest massive investments & the above mentioned process technology transition.
Under Intel's overwhelming pressure, AMD has to act fast, focused & efficiently, in all fronts. Every minor step counts. And, SRAM is expensive.
My two cents.


Cheers!
June 15, 2006 1:23:11 AM

Quote:


Perhaps you should've linked to "The Tech Report", mentioned in Anand's article; that might help you, somewhat:

http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/10175)


i didn't notice the updated "Tech Report" at the bottom, thank you for bringing it to my attention. It answers my question on differences between the 1MB & 512KB cache sizes.

And thanks for your 'two cents' :wink:
June 15, 2006 2:01:23 AM

Quote:
Its not like the extra cache makes a difference. A smart move from AMD, those 1MB ones are quite large.


I agree. Ditch the cache for some extra cash. Hopefully it will speed production for the next generation.

This is an exiting time for the CPU market. Not only is there a price war going on, but there is hardware that is coming out that even a couple of years ago was not even dreamed about at an even faster rate than ever. I recall a Popular Science article from 2001 or '02 describing some "top of the line" 1ghz P4 based computers. If that was sweet then, what will be sweet in 6mos? 12? I can't wait.

edited for better readability.
!