AMD 65nm replacing 90nm Athlons?

[doomsdaydave11]

In another thread, someone mentioned that AMD's 90nm Athlons would seize production. I'm assuming this means that they will be replacing the 90nm chips with 65nm chips. I know there are already a few 65nm Athlons out there at the moment, but they're not particularily fast, and I'm not ready to go quad core yet with the Phenoms... Does anyone know when some high speed AMD chips will hit? Do you know what they are? I mean new ones, not the current Quad Phenoms that are out there.

 

[Mandrake_]

The 6400+ will be AMD's fastest dual core for a while to come. If you want an upgrade for that I'd go with the 5000 black edition. Lots of people have gotten it past 3GHz with no increase in voltages.

 

[yipsl]

Here's Nordic Hardware's AMD roadmap for 2008:

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7412.html

First of all, AMD will focus more on tri- and quad-cores and less on dual-cores, much like Intel (besides the tri-cores of course). AMD will severely reduce the number of Sempron, Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 X2 models, and next quarter will only feature three Sempron models (LE-1300, LE-1250, LE-1200), two Athlon 64 models (LE-1660, LE-1640) and a mere seven Athlon 64 X2 models (4400+ to 5600+). This means that the two high-end Athlon 64 X2 (6400+ and 6000+ will disappear).

This is far from surprising since these are based on the quite old 90nm core, and not the 65nm used by the remaining models. It makes little sense keeping the 90nm node alive just because of these two processors. Killing off 90nm also means that the FX-models will be upgraded in Q2. Phenom FX-82 is the name of the successor. Depending on the success of the FX-82, an additional FX-model might be launched in Q3.

 

[4745454b]

You have to remember that AMD doesn't have the manufacturing power that Intel does. If they wanted to keep making 90nm chips, they would have to dedicate one of their two plants to keep making them. Not only does this keep older tech out there longer, but it prevents them from getting better prices on the newer 65nm. (I did not mean to imply that the 65nm chips are better then the 90nm. I know better then that.)

I suppose that could outsource production of the 90nm chips, but seeing as its only two CPUs that they will be losing, I'm not sure it would be worth it. Looks like AMD thought the same way.

 

[doomsdaydave11]

Hmmm... Well I'm still trying to decide what to get. I don't want to get a AMD 5000 and OC it insanely, because I really don't know how. I want to get something that is high enough powered, and I can overclock it just a bit. I think I'll wait for a high end triple core... comprimise between dual and quad core.

 

[MU_Engineer]

You have to remember that AMD doesn't have the manufacturing power that Intel does. If they wanted to keep making 90nm chips, they would have to dedicate one of their two plants to keep making them. Not only does this keep older tech out there longer, but it prevents them from getting better prices on the newer 65nm. (I did not mean to imply that the 65nm chips are better then the 90nm. I know better then that.)

I suppose that could outsource production of the 90nm chips, but seeing as its only two CPUs that they will be losing, I'm not sure it would be worth it. Looks like AMD thought the same way.

AMD would have gotten away from 90 nm earlier, but they were using it to make Opterons and couldn't until the K10 x3xx series Opterons are shipping en masse. The X2 6000+ and 6400+ seemed more like something to keep the 90 nm lines occupied rather than planned products.