Since its late arrival in April, AMD's quad-core Opteron lineup has been missing one key element: chips clocked at the same speeds as the fastest desktop Phenom X4 CPUs. No longer. AMD has rolled out four new Opteron SE processors with clock speeds of 2.4GHz and 2.5GHz—just like the Phenom X4 9750 and 9850.
The new Opteron SE line includes 2358 SE, 2360 SE, 8358 SE, and 8360 SE models. The first digit in the model name denotes the maximum number of supported sockets, while the last two digits denote clock speed. x358 models run at 2.4GHz, while the x360 parts are clocked at 2.5GHz. AMD doesn't appear to have revealed thermal envelopes for these chips yet, but their desktop counterparts are rated for up to 125W. Prices are $873 for the 2358 SE, $1,165 for the 2360 SE, $1,865 for the 8358 SE, and $2,149 for the 8360 SE.
According to AMD, these new CPUs are already "widely available," and servers based on them are on their way from "global OEMs and solution providers including Hewlett-Packard, Sun Microsystems, Dell and IBM."
The delay of the mobile Intel Centrino 2 platform introduction may not be the only one for Intel Corp. this year, says an analyst. Apparently, the world’s largest chipmaker may also postpone mass release of its next-generation Nehalem microprocessor for unknown reasons.
“Our checks suggest Intel’s Nehalem server parts will initially launch in single-socket only, which we believe will be viewed by customers and investors as a delayed ramp of the company’s second generation 45nm server architecture due out in late 2H ’08. We believe this may be viewed as the second launch delay in recent weeks and is likely to call into question Intel's solid record of on-time execution,” said analyst Doug Freedman of American Technology Research, reports EETimes web-site.
It is interesting to note that chief executive officer of Intel, Paul Otellini, said last year that the company would ship octa-core Nehalem processors in 2008, whereas now Intel claims that the firm will be able to produce code-named Bloomfield quad-core implementation of Nehalem design this year.
Earlier this month some other unofficial sources indicated that mainstream and performance-mainstream chips based on Nehalem micro-architecture will be available only in the second half of 2009, considerably later compared to server or high-end desktop oriented versions.
Still, Mr. Friedman believes that delays of Intel Nehalem launch may be positive for AMD.
“We believe the Nehalem launch plan opens the door for AMD’s Shanghai server chip (45-nm shrink of Barcelona) in 2H ‘08/1H ‘09 should AMD be able to execute to its present schedule,” the analyst said.
Possible shift in 'enterprise' market share looming in the next 12-18 months. Score one for Hector over Otellini on the server side.
I thought the delay rumors were found false by Intel. Either way I am not sure how this relates to AMD smaking down Nehalem. If they showed those CPUs somehow PWNed them then yea but that is yet to be seen.
1. If, indeed the MP nehalem are delayed, this is a huge misstep for intel and a chink in their armor. Considering this is the only place left where AMD holds any sort of an advantage, this is a ray of hope for AMD.
2. a 2.5 GHz K10 is hardly earthshattering. Recall, they were claiming the ability to produce a 3.0 GHz part by the end of last year. This falls in the bucket of "finally." However, this will not turn the tides -- not over a 10% clockspeed bump -- but serve to stem the losses.
We are not talking about single socket systems ...
We are talking about 4 and 8 socket servers here ... where AMD is King and Intel runs out of bandwidth ... so the cores are starved and just sit there spinning.
Extreme apologies to Yomama who I respect immensely ... this was meant to be funny.
We are not talking about single socket systems ...
We are talking about 4 and 8 socket servers here ... where AMD is King and Intel runs out of bandwidth ... so the cores are starved and just sit there spinning.
Extreme apologies to Yomama who I respect immensely ... this was meant to be funny.
And we are not talking about CPUs with a IMC vs CPUs with a FSB.
We are talking about Nehalem that in the desktop market so far has layeth the smakethdown (as the Rock would say) on everything in its path so far. Considering how fast it is in an unfinished product I wouldn't be suprised if Intels new MP systems give the "King" a run for their money easily.
And we are not talking about CPUs with a IMC vs CPUs with a FSB.
We are talking about Nehalem that in the desktop market so far has layeth the smakethdown (as the Rock would say) on everything in its path so far. Considering how fast it is in an unfinished product I wouldn't be suprised if Intels new MP systems give the "King" a run for their money easily.
We are not talking about single socket systems ...
We are talking about 4 and 8 socket servers here ... where AMD is King and Intel runs out of bandwidth ... so the cores are starved and just sit there spinning.
Extreme apologies to Yomama who I respect immensely ... this was meant to be funny.
1. If, indeed the MP nehalem are delayed, this is a huge misstep for intel and a chink in their armor. Considering this is the only place left where AMD holds any sort of an advantage, this is a ray of hope for AMD.
2. a 2.5 GHz K10 is hardly earthshattering. Recall, they were claiming the ability to produce a 3.0 GHz part by the end of last year. This falls in the bucket of "finally." However, this will not turn the tides -- not over a 10% clockspeed bump -- but serve to stem the losses.
It ain't the clock - it's the instruction set
Quote :
When it comes to raw SSE performance, the Intel architectures are 3% to 14% faster in the add/subtract/multiply scenarios. When there are divisions involved, Barcelona absolutely annihilates the 65nm Core architecture with up to 80% better SSE performance, clock for clock. It even manages to outperform the newest 45nm Xeon, but only by 8% to 18%. Notice once again the vast improvement from the 2nd generation Opteron to the 3rd generation Opteron when it comes to SIMD performance, ranging from 55% to 150% (!!).
And we are not talking about CPUs with a IMC vs CPUs with a FSB.
We are talking about Nehalem that in the desktop market so far has layeth the smakethdown (as the Rock would say) on everything in its path so far. Considering how fast it is in an unfinished product I wouldn't be suprised if Intels new MP systems give the "King" a run for their money easily.
If you are referring to the anand preview then that might be a VERY good thing for AMD.
Um Wisecracker, arent you the one who started a thread about AMD smaking Nehalem? What they are doing is just denying the obvious. When Nehalem comes out they will no longer have the "We have an IMC so we scale better" excuse.
It will basically be 2 of the same type of chips and one will sclae and perform better.
What I don't understand is how you talk about an AMD chip smaking down Nehalem and yet I mentuion that so far Nehalem is a beast in performance and you ask about getting one.
If you are referring to the anand preview then that is a VERY good thing for AMD.
Um wait....Nehalem kreplows Penryn at a clock per clock basis and its a good thing for AMD?
What are you taking and where can we get some so we can all feel the same that Intel having a killer chip on their hands means puppydogs and rainbows and kittens galore for AMD and all will be happy and shiny and pretty.
Sorry dude but I don't live in a fantasy world where I think that way. I prefer to look at results. Nehalem so far is showing a lot of power. If it keeps at this pace I don't know where AMD will be.
Another possible, and emphasize the "POSSIBLE" reason for a Nehalem delay could be the number of anti-trust lawsuits coming down on Intel lately. Intel is already under investigation for dumping chips below cast, illegal payoffs, and a number of other things. And this doesn't take into account that Intel is so far ahead of AMD that the only company its competing against is itself. In any case, if Intel plows ahead and buries AMD, such action could bring the wrath of governments around the world down upon its head. It makes better sense to hold back Nehalem a few months and let AMD die on its own, rather than plunging in the technological knife and giving a good twist for effect.
---------------
Evil lurks in the databanks as it lurked in the streets of yesteryear. But it was never the streets that were evil.
Um wait....Nehalem kreplows Penryn at a clock per clock basis and its a good thing for AMD?
What are you taking and where can we get some so we can all feel the same that Intel having a killer chip on their hands means puppydogs and rainbows and kittens galore for AMD and all will be happy and shiny and pretty.
Sorry dude but I don't live in a fantasy world where I think that way. I prefer to look at results. Nehalem so far is showing a lot of power. If it keeps at this pace I don't know where AMD will be.
Let me rephrase my comment to make it more understandable to you:
Are you referring to the anand preview that has been shown to have Penryn numbers that are 17%-20% off to make Nehalem look better? The preview that doesn't show anything more than a few cherry picked reviews with those bad numbers?
That preview?
The preview where if you use the SAME PENRYN NUMBERS that the site had in a previous review for Penryn makes you realize that Nehalem is running about the same speed as Penryn?
Let me rephrase my comment to make it more understandable to you:
Are you referring to the anand preview that has been shown to have Penryn numbers that are 17%-20% off to make Nehalem look better? The preview that doesn't show anything more than a few cherry picked reviews with those bad numbers?
That preview?
The preview where if you use the SAME PENRYN NUMBERS that the site had in a previous review for Penryn makes you realize that Nehalem is running about the same speed as Penryn?
That preview?
Obviously you are someone who does not pay attention and read everything in order to get a clear view. This is from another thread on here about Anand "Duping" the benchmarks.
For someone so uptight about proper testing methodologies and calling into question all the details, it would be helpful if he actually looked the details of the tests before spouting off. When Sci points out that Anand's old review showed the Q9450 get a score of 3297 in the single threaded Cinebench run, which is obviously higher than the one reported in the Nehalem preview score of Q9450 = 2931, it should be noted that was because the old test was using the 64-bit Vista OS while the new one is using 32-Bit Vista.
Looking at this Vista comparison benchmark by Extremetech, the Vista 64-bit gives a 10% advantage over 32-bit, which easily explains a the difference.
Hmmm.... whats that you say? 64Bit gives about a 10% advantage? Just like it gives AMD chips the same advantage? And they ran the Nehalem review in 32Bit. I wounder why they did it in 32Bit..... could it be that they had very little time and wanted to give people something to feed on?
Seriously man....the way you talk all the time about AMD and how Intels chips are worse this I would expect better from you. You know like you reading stuff instead of just jumping to a conclusion.
