Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Phenom II X6 is finally coming

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2009 1:30:13 AM

We'll have to wait an year till this baby is launched, I just hope it's worth the wait.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20090901145236...

Frequency is still unknown (probably 2.8 GHz), 9mb of cache (6x512kb + 6mb), due in Q3 2010.

I think it may be too late, since I expect it to compete against i7, but at the time of its release, Sandy Bridge (next-gen Intel mArch) will be close, and Core i9 will make the gap wider between Intel and AMD.

I don't know whether AMD believes the market does not need 6 cores or they simply can't mass produce it, which is weird since Istambul launched 3-4 months ago.

More about : phenom finally coming

a c 83 à CPUs
September 2, 2009 7:32:42 AM

Personally I don't see why the desktop user needs 6 cores, the only software I have that can max a quad core are professional applications better suited to be ran on workstations any ways. The typical computer user/gamer has no need for more than 4 cores, many still don't even need the 4.
September 2, 2009 7:55:50 AM

Gulftown may or may not eat it alive. That's still unconfirmed. But to be honest, does an average consumer require Gulftown/Thuban? i7 is already considered too powerful for today's software applications, let alone 6 cores. That aside, I'm still looking forward to the coming of hexa as well as octa cores.
Related resources
September 2, 2009 8:01:12 AM

With the new chipset and other goodies coming, if SW can keep up, it may be a decent solution by then, but SW has a ways to go.
Good thing M$ is finally making a few strides in the right direction
September 2, 2009 10:22:27 AM

What A64 really lacks now compared to Nehalem is IPC, more so in multimedia than in MP virtualisation. And more importantly in performance/watt as well. The A64 architecture is just being nailed from every direction.
More cores just won't help. If it had come a few months before Bloomfield arrived I'm sure many people would've been interested in it.

I'm looking at server budget for next years IT purchase and it's extremely sad to see only Nahelem servers (overpriced of course) are being put into consideration. The same goes to almost every company's current IT purchase, there is just no AMD in sight. :( 
On the upside we only need two to replace our aging Opterons so if AMD manages to outperform Intel in 2011 I'll have the opportunity to put AMD into consideration again assuming economy picks up by then.
I want to give our $ to AMD, but currently I can't obviously.
September 2, 2009 11:06:58 AM

I'm not too excited for 6 cores from any company, I'm still waiting for software to catch up with my quad core.
September 2, 2009 2:43:28 PM

A year from now, when these chips hit, if SW is doing more MT, and they somehow price them against the quads, at least it legitimizes Intel having to have a low priced hex core.
If they only leave them at the uber highend, then therell be a lil wriggle room for AMD.
Intels definately slowed down a lil, and its likely the lack of competition in the highend.
Look at i7, just 1 chip there in mainstream pricing, and only 1 uber priced highend i9

Im pretty sure they dont want the monpoly noose around their neck
September 2, 2009 3:08:45 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I'm not too excited for 6 cores from any company, I'm still waiting for software to catch up with my quad core.


agreed.
6 cores, whats the point? maybe around 2012 but now?

that is like releasing the i7 in 2003
September 2, 2009 3:31:36 PM

Well, they wont be here for another year from now, but I agree too
September 2, 2009 4:31:26 PM

I think even a good dual-core is more than sufficient in most cases! It's obvious that these days it's the software that is the weakest link, and that's what is setting the pace... But it is exciting to see what is just around the corner!
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2009 8:53:56 PM

hehe true that.... 6 cores? Just like the overpriced good-for nothing istanbul ...... or shal I say "istambullsheat" .....

Don't really see a need for 6 cores ATM, it won't run my games faster, load times, encode, render.... then why bother.... 4 cores is more than enough ..... what's next 8 cores? lol .....
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2009 9:22:51 PM

OvrClkr said:
hehe true that.... 6 cores? Just like the overpriced good-for nothing istanbul ...... or shal I say "istambullsheat" .....

Don't really see a need for 6 cores ATM, it won't run my games faster, load times, encode, render.... then why bother.... 4 cores is more than enough ..... what's next 8 cores? lol .....


I think that's exactly why AMD isn't rushing into releasing it before the end of the year and rather is announcindg it for Q3 2010
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2009 9:31:06 PM

AMD should be focusing on how to compete with the i5 and i7 rather than putting more cores on a die......

a b à CPUs
September 2, 2009 9:51:02 PM

OvrClkr said:
AMD should be focusing on how to compete with the i5 and i7 rather than putting more cores on a die......


That would be Bulldozer, and AMD has confirmed it won't be out until sometime in 2011. Probably the reason why AMD is bumping up core count and clock speed on the K10.5 - that's all the tools in their box...
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2009 9:53:12 PM

Yea i know but 2011 is ridiculous.... i remember back in 2007 when they said that the Bulldozer was going to be released in Q3 2009....
September 2, 2009 10:52:50 PM

Quote:
Gulftown is going to eat it alive


Gulftown will be another EXPENSIVE solution from Intel.

AMD has Intel beat with regards to price/performance ratio.

No one needs or can even afford a Cray super computer now.
They cost too much!
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2009 11:11:24 PM

Ok, so if Thuban is released in about a year or so, do you really think that will turn the tables for AMD? A black edition 6 core CPU vs. whatever Intel will have at that moment?? Will that revive AMD's likely-hood of surviving?
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2009 11:26:19 PM

meh, I doubt it will be 299.99$$$ i hope the man upstairs is listening....

the good thing about that particular BE CPU is the fact that it is AM3 and basically uses the same DDR3 1333MHz used today .... so all we have to do is upgrade the CPU and boot...no need for another mobo, ram etc.....
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2009 11:42:45 PM

I think it will be the same as the X4 vs i7 with the X6 vs the i9.
So, things will be X4 < i7 < X6 < i9
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2009 11:54:58 PM

that's why I doubt the they will cost 299.99$......

Intel would never sell a 6 core CPU around that price-range... 399.99 would be more like it....
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2009 12:05:54 AM

Thuban will be out long before Q3 2010, more like end Q1 - start Q2. The gap between shanghai and deneb was 6 months and there is no real reason to assume it will take 12 between istanbul and thuban, even with istanbul being 6 months early.

Istanbul 6 months early should equate to thuban 6 months early. The low wattage istanbuls released yesterday should be a good indication that AMD's 6-core cpu's are in pretty good condition and well ahead of the roadmap.
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2009 1:10:43 AM

Yeah, but xbit says current info is that it'll be out in Q3...
Anyway, I expect them to release it ahead of schedule.
Anyone remember "hydra" rumours about an octo-core from AMD manufactured under bulk high k dielectic 45nm due in H1 2010 about an year ago? Probably not in the roadmap anymore...
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2009 1:42:55 AM

If you check back 18 months, xbit were probably saying istanbul would be out in Q4 2009/Q1 2010.

Istanbul was 6 months early. Just look at the history. Shanghai June 2008, Deneb January 2009.

Instanbul June 2009, Thuban January 2010?

Is this the best case? Yes I believe so, but I believe AMD are really moving their 45nm ahead at an amazing rate. 8 and 12 core Magny Cours on 45nm in Q1 2010? If that is doable then 6-core desktops are more than doable even if it means a 140w tpd as standard.
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2009 2:08:20 AM

They'll just end up binning them out to make X2's and X'3, and X4's and X5's.....and then everyone will be buying X2's and trying to figure out how to unlock the other 4 cores.
Saw it right off.
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2009 2:19:05 AM

Probably right. In all honestly it's not much different from what intel have been doing with the Extreme Edition parts for years. Maybe AMD should aim for 12 core desktops and make sure that every reviewer gets hold of them, general availability be damned.
September 3, 2009 10:16:38 AM

now we're starting to see a core count battle between AMD and Intel like we saw a GHz battle in the early 2000. I mean come on guys. Start making better chips.
September 3, 2009 10:47:00 AM

Thing here is, AMD needs to put more than 4 cores on DT, even an early trial run, such as Thuban.
Its where theyr heading, multi cores.
Ultimately, gouing wider will give more results than going faster, at least until 2 things happesn, and thats dumping x86 and with new materials, where clocks can go much higher.
Weve reached the Ghz limit for the most part, 4.5Ghz is probably the most we will ever see on silicon, if that, whereas, intead a duals, the can put 16 cores on by then, which wont be 8x as fast, but more than 50% faster, like going from 3Ghz to 4.5
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2009 11:19:02 AM

IPC ... without it the additional cores give diminishing returns.

Intel's turbo mode is in fact the smarter way to go and advances in that respect are the future - speeding up one core or shared cache to prioritise certain functions to ensure processes that effect the overall speed of a partcular application (that needs it) are made.

Software is the area where the most gains can now be made ... alas that area is way behind.

There is also the issue of environmental sustainability - more efficiency and much lower power draw at idle.

Since most PC's sit there all day idling away most of the time this is an area where the hardware industry still has a long way to go.

September 3, 2009 11:34:26 AM

As we go wider, the IPC becomes harder to achieve tho. If each individual di becomes too complex, and wider in and of itself, then going wider overall by adding more cores becomes less efficient
September 7, 2009 3:47:22 PM

I'd rather have a low power consumption Phenom II x4 than a power hungry Phenom II x6. Considering the fact that most software cannot even fully utilize a quad, what's the point of having a hex for now? AMD, optimize on power consumption of the Phenom II x4s. If you can produce chips at the same clock as 955 with half the power consumption, I bet Intel is pretty much screwed! Of course, it should be priced relatively low as well.
September 7, 2009 9:58:57 PM

alikum said:
I'd rather have a low power consumption Phenom II x4 than a power hungry Phenom II x6.


I agree.
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2009 10:10:49 PM

if there anything left thats need more improvements on the hard ware side i would think it would be the storage drives. Although SSD's are improving as time goes on.
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2009 10:17:06 PM

I'd rather see AMD pushing the TDP envelope and going all out on sheer power. The reason is, they aren't gonna get the fastest cpu otherwise.

AMD need to have the fastest cpu...not the fastest cpu in 5/30 benches, but the fastest cpu in 20/30 benches. If that takes 6 cores at 140w tdp to get there, the sooner they do the better imo.
September 7, 2009 10:19:28 PM

warmon6 said:
if there anything left thats need more improvements on the hard ware side i would think it would be the storage drives. Although SSD's are improving as time goes on.


I agree.

I've been fixing computers for all of my adult life. Why do computers typically die? Moving parts. Whether it be a hard drive or a fan failure, it's usually moving parts.

I'd love to see a computer with zero moving parts, including all passive cooling (yes, the PSU too!). Such a computer with quality parts would last a very long time, but then you run into the issue of usefulness\power as time goes on.
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2009 10:22:00 PM

But SSD's fail just as fast, if not faster in some cases.

Heat is another major reason for electronics failure. I do agree though, we should all be using SSD's as standard...long before now tbh.
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2009 10:42:25 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I agree.

I've been fixing computers for all of my adult life. Why do computers typically die? Moving parts. Whether it be a hard drive or a fan failure, it's usually moving parts.

I'd love to see a computer with zero moving parts, including all passive cooling (yes, the PSU too!). Such a computer with quality parts would last a very long time, but then you run into the issue of usefulness\power as time goes on.

True, though I've seen a decent number of video card failures that were not related to moving parts.
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2009 10:46:29 PM

Though ultimately the poor cooling (combined with the poor die packaging on the GPU) on the graphics card was probably the reason why it failed.

September 7, 2009 10:46:52 PM

Couldn't agree more with TC! :) 

If SSD fails, they fail in a traditional electronic sense of way. That is they either arrive DOA, fail within the first few weeks or do not fail at all for an extremely long time.
Unlike HDD (especially with todays density) which are basically ticking time bombs waiting to fail eventually.

The 'trigger point' for mass SSD shipment increase should occur at just below $2/GB for MLC based. Early 2010 Q2 is my prediction.
Imagine rendering an edited 50Mbps 1080p video, then suddenly the virus checker kicks in and you want to run another disk intensive program.
Even with all the CPU cores in the world you'd be dead in the water with HDD. With SSD you'll hardly notice the slow down.

Innate computer usage pattern due to the 'HDD effect' is one of the reason why there are dimwits who upgraded from 4xVelociRaptor RAID0 to SSD and can't feel the speed difference. Reason: "They're doing it wrong" ;) 
September 7, 2009 11:20:55 PM

cjl said:
True, though I've seen a decent number of video card failures that were not related to moving parts.


Interesting! I've never had a video card die on me. I don't overclock, so that might have something to do with it. Although my years of experience is in the education (4.5 years) and the private business (2.5 years). In the education world we use IGPs and rarely had graphics issues. In the private world we use video cards with passive coolers, and I only see a few die a year with artifacting, most of our video cards failures are actually because of the Dell Y-Splitter connectors wearing out from all the disconnecting\reconnecting of the Y-Splitters (stupid Dell design).
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2009 11:33:38 PM

None of the failures I've seen were overclocked, but they were all fairly high end models that tended to run hot anyways.

My 4870x2s are fine so far though (crosses fingers...).
September 8, 2009 12:16:33 AM

MORE CORES!, i dont need them,but i sure as hell want them
September 8, 2009 3:50:06 AM

there seems to be alot of bad wording of AMD, what if this thing were to blow what intel has at that time out of the water?
remember Athlon 65 and Pentium 4?
September 8, 2009 6:20:30 AM

RIOTinYOURcity said:
agreed.
6 cores, whats the point? maybe around 2012 but now?

that is like releasing the i7 in 2003


This is great for us GNU/LINUX users since 64bit Linux will take full advantage of all cores. Also with KVM and Virtualbox you can dedicate one core to each OS which is great when running multiple distros and/or multiple versions of windoze.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 10:42:20 AM

fazers has a good point.

AMD only have limited tools in the box for the moment.

More L2 cache per core is probaly next - 1Mb like the new Athlons (plus L3) ... it's possible.

More L3 cache .... squeezing more in with a half node shrink (possible is it?).

More cores (6) ... mmm more cores.

Maybe one more speed bump? <standby stock heatpipe Deluxe HSF>

Not much more they can do as a core redesign is needed to improve IPC beyond cache optimisation ... barring efforts to decrease latency.

Still the Phenom II is a solid performer ... lets not put it down in Loongson territory eh?

They overclock well.

My point about Intel's on the fly turbo mode still stands ... I think that was a very clever response from them.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 10:49:17 AM

Hey, reynod,

To be fair, Intel can afford to spend billions of dollars into r&D.
September 8, 2009 11:12:55 AM

Reynod said:
Maybe one more speed bump? <standby stock heatpipe Deluxe HSF>


LOL, kinda reminds me of Prescott.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 11:13:27 AM

Yeah ... and still come up with a dog like the P4 ... swapite all that R&D.

Remember the engineers are not in charge of the company ... some slimey business major always gets in the way of common sense.

a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 11:23:46 AM

Money doesn't make you smart.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 4:16:21 PM

enigma067 said:
AMD has Intel beat with regards to price/performance ratio.


Not with i5-750 out today. Today Intel takes the price/performance crown back from AMD, since the 750 equals the $50 more expensive P2-965 in performance.

Looks like you'll have to start looking for something else to toot about AMD, Enny! :D 
September 8, 2009 5:04:48 PM

I'm just going to sit back with my Pentium D 930 and let Intel and AMD figure out where they are going. Jeez. There are so many options that I'm going to hold out.
!