Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Most if not all 1MB Cache AMD's are being discontinued!

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
June 16, 2006 4:29:15 PM

I know, I know, like WTF?!? I was asking around, and Monarch is only one who answered. Exact Wording:

Monarch: The 4000 AM2 is being discontinued, along with the other 1MB L2 cache cpus.
Ibrahim: what?!?!?!
Monarch: That is per AMD.
Ibrahim: No way! You are kidding right? That is why some other companies don't have them either.
Ibrahim: Wow, major blow...
Ibrahim: Did they give any reasons?
Monarch: one moment
Ibrahim: OK
Monarch: take a look here
Monarch: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32452

Same thing with Newegg; look at the site, none. Only that $$$$ FX-62...Curses! I guess I'm going with the X2 3800+ after all...

~Ibrahim~
June 21, 2006 4:41:34 PM

Damn, I was hoping to pick up a 1mb 2.0ghz DC and OC it to 2.5 oh well. the price of the FX-62 is supposed to drop signifigantly when conroe hits.
June 21, 2006 5:10:10 PM

Thats old news. It doesnt surprise me, with Intel pulling all the rabbits out of their hat to try to make things hard for AMD that they have to switch their priorities. I wouldnt be surprised if 939 dissappears quickly.

And too those of you ( you know who you are :lol:  ) who said AMD could never sell the FX-62 for $500, just wait and see when Conroe is released. You will eat those words. 8O :D 

Lots of change going on, and it's great for us, the consumer cause we pay less. :D 
Related resources
June 21, 2006 5:12:49 PM

Yes it will too drop, but I do not ever expect it to be below $800+ USD, and at that price, a C2D 2.66GHz Conroe costing $530 USD will blow the FX-62 in every way, in initial cost, in stock performance, in overclocked performance, in energy consumption, in heat, and stability...
That puts users in the know that still buy AMD chips after 7/23/2006 in the catagory of diehard fanboi's, stockholders, or Intel haterz to the extreme they are willing to pay more for less...
Got any Strawberries? :wink:
June 21, 2006 5:43:16 PM

The reason is that AMD has orders from the likes of DARPA, European Supercomputing Center in Lucerne, Boeing and others that will require 100% of the 1mb cache chip production so they are going into enterprise grade opterons. These are chips that have a wholesale price between $800 and $2200 a piece. The desktop with sub $100 wholesale prices don't justify the diversion. Dollarwise the supercomputing market is worth 10 times the total enthusiast market even if every enthusiast spent $900 per cpu per year. As the IRS criminal investigators say you follow the money.
June 21, 2006 7:06:34 PM

Exactly correct, and couple that with the fact that, as the article stated, AMD's chips don't overly benefit from the extra cache (5 frames in fear, 2 seconds in video encoding, etc.) it is a relatively smart move for them in a business sense. The next architecture might take advantage of more cache, in which case you'll probably see the return of 1mb+ cache sizes on AMDs. Intel, meanwhile, is getting crazy with the cache size...
June 21, 2006 7:33:27 PM

If the FX-62 goes to $500. I'll get one. Until that day happens, I won't be counting any chickens before they hatch. It hurts to see AMD giving up the 1 mg cache. Don't like to see progress going backward. I understand economics and all that, but still, they worked so hard to get into the desktop market that its a wonder to give up what helped get them there.
June 21, 2006 8:35:20 PM

They have no choice so that is why they are cutting the cache... They wish they did not have to, but survive, try must they.
June 21, 2006 10:31:09 PM

Yeah, I do really understand the economics of it. What was it that MacArthur said, "We're not retreating. We're advancing to the rear" or something like that. Sometimes a retreat is necessary. Then its time to regroup and go forward again.
June 21, 2006 11:10:08 PM

The performance hit, if any, is minimal, yes, but ,however small the increase is, it still seems to be going backwards. Hopefully AMD can regroup quickly enough, before Conroe has an excellent reputation, the way AMD has now.

Why would AMD continue to sell a slower product (FX-62) on all fronts at a higher premium? Surely, they would have to lower prices to be competitive and not be nearly boycotted. Of course, there are those few diehard fanboys, but we are going to ignore them for now. :) 

~Ibrahim~
June 21, 2006 11:46:43 PM

Quote:
The performance hit, if any, is minimal, yes, but ,however small the increase is, it still seems to be going backwards. Hopefully AMD can regroup quickly enough, before Conroe has an excellent reputation, the way AMD has now.

Why would AMD continue to sell a slower product (FX-62) on all fronts at a higher premium? Surely, they would have to lower prices to be competitive and not be nearly boycotted. Of course, there are those few diehard fanboys, but we are going to ignore them for now. :) 

~Ibrahim~


I'd expect the FX-62 to have a rather short lifespan. It barely performs better than the FX-60 "sometimes". But AMD needed a new flagship processor to lead their AM2 line. 65nm processors are already testing. Then AMD will begin to ramp up the clocks, incrementally of course, but expect an AM2 FX-64 before too long at 3.0GHz and at that speed (and above), DDR2 will begin to show some real benefits also.

I'll probably just go with an FX-60 and try to make it last for as long as I c an.
June 21, 2006 11:51:36 PM

The 65nm's are already being tested? Wow, quicker than I expected. Can we assume a Q4/Q1 06/07 launch?

Hmm...3.0GHz sounds pretty damn impressive, but it also has a bad side. Isn't 3-4GHz where Intel hit the GHz barrier? I hope that because of the new process, 65nm, that they barrier may not be as black and white as it is now. And it isn't that black/white right now...This may sound stupid, but is Conroe 65nm?

~Ibrahim~
June 22, 2006 12:38:03 AM

Sometime in the first half '07 is when I'd think they'll start shipping. AMD will have to get on the ball if Conroe actually proves itself worth the hype it's getting, which I rather doubt. Oh it'll probably be a good CPU though and may well take back the crown. AMD'll be on the defensive and should expedite if Conroe negatively affects AMD's sales. BIG if here though.
June 22, 2006 12:46:08 AM

I think your engaging in wishful thinking if you expect Q4 launch. In all reality I don't see them being launched until Feb. or so, depending on what issues present themselves during the testing process (feel free to disagree with me).

Right now it seems AMD really really pissed off Intel and awoke a sleeping giant. Not your everday sleeping giant that comes at you with both barrels firing, but one that comes with both barrels, NAVY seals, sniper details, amphibious assault, F-22's, B-2's, Bunker busters, and hold thier trigger finger over an aresenal of nuclear weapons burried somewhere in the mountains below several hundred feet of rock, contrete, and fortified launch doors.

Yes, Intel brings all that against AMD and AMD is just sitting there in the corner with a pellet gun screaming "OH GOD WHAT HAVE WE DONE!?"

Don't get me wrong I still am an AMD fan but if Conroe holds true, AMD is in real trouble in the consumer CPU segment.
June 22, 2006 2:54:23 PM

people need to find out that teh cpu doestn really matter in games anymore. Once you have a decently clocked DC CPU, you need to drop a ton of money on your graphics card. When i OCed my 3200 to 2.4 ghz i only gained 5 fps in games, but whne i oced my GeForce 6600LE from 400mhz memory and 300mhz core, i gained another 7 fps. remember, once you have a good cpu, it wont do you any good if you have a crappy GC. I'll always stick with AMD because thats all i really know. I can OC it, plus the NForce chipsets really kick ass. I doubt anyone can say otherwise.
June 22, 2006 3:18:49 PM

I have 2x1MB L2 cache. :) 
June 22, 2006 3:21:49 PM

Quote:
I have 2x1MB L2 cache. :) 


I hate you... just for the official record :tongue:
June 22, 2006 4:39:55 PM

Quote:
Don't get me wrong I still am an AMD fan but if Conroe holds true, AMD is in real trouble in the consumer CPU segment.


AMD isn't really focusing on the consumer market right now. They are going after the servers with a vengence. If I am remembering right a few months ago there was an interview with an AMD rep on THG where he said that they are going to focus on the server for now, that is there current priority.

So the desktop will get the rejects from the server chips, which means the 1MB cache server chips must be selling so we get the 512kb chips.
June 22, 2006 5:10:35 PM

Quote:
Don't get me wrong I still am an AMD fan but if Conroe holds true, AMD is in real trouble in the consumer CPU segment.


How do you back that up? Have you forgotten that AMD has been the little guy playing catchup since day one of their existence and look at them now. How is taking second again in the desktop segment going to put them in trouble? :roll:
June 22, 2006 5:57:21 PM

Quote:
I have 2x1MB L2 cache. :) 


So do I, but I think my graphics card does more than the cache does. Best thing I see about the 2x1mg cache is when I'm doing some research stuff that tries its best to slow the cpu down.
June 22, 2006 6:09:25 PM

Quote:
I'll always stick with AMD because thats all i really know. I can OC it, plus the NForce chipsets really kick ass. I doubt anyone can say otherwise


AMD's do overclock, but imo their top chips are and have been simply their mainstream chip factory overclocked... so this leaves less headroom for enthusiast overclocking...

Intel seems to be more conservative about clocking, leaving more enthusiast headroom for overclocking... so, imo, Intel would generally give more satisfaction by enabling you to overclock higher percentage wise than AMD... It is common for Intel chips to get a 1000MHz overclock and beyond on air cooling alone, with AMD, this is a rare thing...

An illustration would be the X2-4800 stock at 2.4GHz stock, usually lucky if you get 2.8GHz stable overclock 24/7... a delta of 400MHz increase...
Yet a Pressler 950 stock at 3.4 can usually achieve 4.1GHz stable overclock 24/7... a delta of 700MHz increase...
June 22, 2006 6:16:54 PM

Did you forget about the mobile market also?

Oh, and by the way second place out of two competitors is LAST place. :lol: 
June 22, 2006 6:26:59 PM

Quote:
I'll always stick with AMD because thats all i really know. I can OC it, plus the NForce chipsets really kick ass. I doubt anyone can say otherwise


AMD's do overclock, but imo their top chips are and have been simply their mainstream chip factory overclocked... so this leaves less headroom for enthusiast overclocking...

Intel seems to be more conservative about clocking, leaving more enthusiast headroom for overclocking... so, imo, Intel would generally give more satisfaction by enabling you to overclock higher percentage wise than AMD... It is common for Intel chips to get a 1000MHz overclock and beyond on air cooling alone, with AMD, this is a rare thing...

An illustration would be the X2-4800 stock at 2.4GHz stock, usually lucky if you get 2.8GHz stable overclock 24/7... a delta of 400MHz increase...
Yet a Pressler 950 stock at 3.4 can usually achieve 4.1GHz stable overclock 24/7... a delta of 700MHz increase...

OK there but let me tell you that a 400 Mhz increase on the AMD will bring more performance gains then the 700 of your intel chips .
Remember A64's do more work per clock cycle , and we're not talking about Intel's A64 buster Conroe here but about Netburst crapola ... :lol: 
June 22, 2006 6:27:16 PM

Double Post , sorry :roll:
June 22, 2006 7:24:55 PM

They aren't in trouble in a business sense, just in the consumer CPU segment. If I can buy an Intel chip thats better for about the same $ I will go with that. I realise they have been playing catch up but being #2 is still being #2, I am not going to intentionaly buy an second rate chip.

Just like AMD has been winning most of the battles over the past months, now it will flip, its a cycle I know. So yes they will be in trouble and they will come back, it is just going to take time and if that timing isn't right my next CPU will be an intel (OH NO NOT INTEL lol j/k)
June 22, 2006 7:28:16 PM

Yup, AMD's get 9 IPC (Instructions per cycle) while Intel's only get 6 IPC.

AMD w/ 400Mhz Increase = 400*9 = 3,600
Intel w/ 700Mhz Increase = 700*6 = 4,200

Quote:
This isn't entirely true because the Intel and AMD chips both break the x86 instruction set into smaller chunks for internal operatioin, and it is these so called "mirco-ops" that are quoted as the IPC versus full x86 instructions.

The size of the micro-ops (ie how many micro-oops you have to execute to equal a full x86 instruction) is not the same, so the 9 vs 6 is really NOT an apples to apples comparision. Finally, the P4 does not "technically" issue more than one instruction per clock - it "issues" one, but stores decoded instruction in the trace cache for future parralel issuing.


Don't quote me on that because I can't back it up, ;) . LINK

But all chip's won't get a 700Mhz/400Mhz increase. Anyone got benches with identical set-up's and an Intel at 4.1Ghz and an AMD at 2.8Ghz? Fat chance, but hey, it could happen.

~Ibrahim~
June 23, 2006 12:29:45 AM

Let us not forget that the computing world needs AMD. Were it not for AMD, the very best would probably be an Intel 1 GHz 80586 for $2,000 per unit.

Competition is a marvelous thing. Everybody wins as a result :) 
June 23, 2006 2:14:55 AM

How true...AMD has done a good thing for Intel, woken them up, splashed some water on that face, and gotten them ready for a real fight. It is hard to imagine a world without AMD, and trust me, I am no fanboy.

~Ibrahim~
July 13, 2006 4:55:33 PM

AMD processors rely very little on the L2 caches. L2 caches have a lot to do with FSB and that's why we generally see Intel having bigger L2 caches because their FSB runs at 800Mhz while AMD's FSB runs at the cpus speed allowing for faster processing. Intel CPU's need the big L2 caches because they have very slow FSB, ofcourse there are advantages for having a big L2 cache but the main purpose for that is to help out the FSB :wink:

AMD doesnt need big L2 caches because they have the On Die Memory Controller, and HyperTransport. Let's hope Intel implements those in their future cpu architectures
July 13, 2006 5:51:00 PM

Quote:
AMD processors rely very little on the L2 caches. L2 caches have a lot to do with FSB and that's why we generally see Intel having bigger L2 caches because their FSB runs at 800Mhz while AMD's FSB runs at the cpus speed allowing for faster processing. Intel Cpus need the big L2 caches because they have very slow FSB, of course there are advantages for having a big L2 cache but the main purpose for that is to help out the FSB :wink:

AMD doesnt need big L2 caches because they have the On Die Memory Controller, and HyperTransport. Let's hope Intel implements those in their future CPU architectures


WRONG! The 1MB x 2 cache AMD chips are the best performing, look at Opterons and the FX series...

The reason AMD is cutting cache sizes, is that they can not make them cheaply, and in the face of competition from Intel, they are scaling back and shifting their focus from high end desktops to budget desktops, and reducing cache size helps them to lower cost (also performance) to remain somewhat competitive...
It SUCKS AMD IS CRIPPLING THIER CPU'S BY CUTTING CACHE...
but they are trying to survive this onslaught.
I am just glad I have my 2x1MB cache Opteron 175!
July 13, 2006 6:04:51 PM

Oh god, I trimmed my toenails and now I'm crippled!

That's about as much effect as this will have on CPU performance for the AMDs.
July 13, 2006 6:26:47 PM

Quote:
AMD processors rely very little on the L2 caches. L2 caches have a lot to do with FSB and that's why we generally see Intel having bigger L2 caches because their FSB runs at 800Mhz while AMD's FSB runs at the cpus speed allowing for faster processing. Intel Cpus need the big L2 caches because they have very slow FSB, of course there are advantages for having a big L2 cache but the main purpose for that is to help out the FSB :wink:

AMD doesnt need big L2 caches because they have the On Die Memory Controller, and HyperTransport. Let's hope Intel implements those in their future CPU architectures


WRONG! The 1MB x 2 cache AMD chips are the best performing, look at Opterons and the FX series...

The reason AMD is cutting cache sizes, is that they can not make them cheaply, and in the face of competition from Intel, they are scaling back and shifting their focus from high end desktops to budget desktops, and reducing cache size helps them to lower cost (also performance) to remain somewhat competitive...
It SUCKS AMD IS CRIPPLING THIER CPU'S BY CUTTING CACHE...
but they are trying to survive this onslaught.
I am just glad I have my 2x1MB cache Opteron 175!

I didnt say that Big L2 caches for AMD are bad... what i was trying to say is that you dont need a big of an l2 cache for an AMD processor compared to an Intel. L2 caches offer better performance when u have FSB stuck at 800mhz all the time! and that's why Intel has to put high caches, they want to stick to FSB so they can sell more chipsets

I also agree that cutting L2 caches will lower the price for AMD, but more importantly is that L2 caches are really not a big hassle for AMD cpus!! they do give better performance, but small compared to the performance the Hypertransport gives u, and even the on die memory controller.
July 13, 2006 10:58:32 PM

Mate, I have to say that he may be wrong on supporting information, but that extra 1MB does not do much. The FX series performs better not because of the cache, but because it is clocked higher. It DOES help some and I would buy it over a 2x512kb, but the increase isn't much. Hardly noticeable, maybe a few more frames, a few more points. Nothing bigger than 5% in most tests.

Just look at the benchies between a 4200+ and 4400+:

Benchmark

In only two tests I found that the performance increase was above 5% were in Multitasking II (around 12%) and in the Price/Performance, where the 4400+ clearly loses by 26%!!

So, yeah....Just a heads up...So, once again. CACHE DOES NOT DO MUCH FOR THE CURRENT X2 LINEUP. Hardly any, as is confirmed in the benchmarks above. I do agree that the Multitasking test is a powerful one to consider, so we could assume that cache only helps in heavy heavy heavy multi-tasking.

~Ibrahim~
July 13, 2006 11:14:08 PM

Some applications benefit more than others true. Yet a performance increase is still an increase, and it is disappointing to see the 2x1MB cache discontinued so soon.
July 13, 2006 11:36:24 PM

Quote:
Some applications benefit more than others true. Yet a performance increase is still an increase, and it is disappointing to see the 2x1MB cache discontinued so soon.


Actually, the additional can also hinder. See some of these benchmarks. Granted, it is terribly insignificant. But it is the case. The additional cache, while possibly the ideal, just isn't all that significant. Games is where the additional cache really pays off.
July 13, 2006 11:37:52 PM

I'm with you...A few Dual-Core 2x1MB CPU's are still lingering around, but they should be the last ones. :cry: 

~Ibrahim~
July 14, 2006 12:13:44 AM

Ok I am a fan of AMD chips from way back. I started with my first computer on a P2 200MHZ chip then upgraded to a AMD Thunderbird 1Ghz chip with 512 MB PC100 ram. Crappy rig I bet your thinking. But I tell you what on just that AMD 1Ghz (Not overclocked) Thunderbird 512MB pc100 ram and a ATI Radeon 9200 I can run Doom 3 flawlessly. No its not at maxed out settings and super high resolution 800x600 usually (Hey I only have a 17" monitor) but it runs great. I can run NFS Underground 2 on maxed settings at the same 1024x768 flawlessly. So yeah I am a fan of AMD chips. For the length of time I have had it it has performed great. To bad they are dropping the L2 cache though.
!