AMD: 6-Core Istanbul Available in June

AMD began its sixth anniversary of the Operton with the launch of two low-power Opteron EE chips, targeted towards cloud computing or other dense server environments. The company finished up the day with even better news: the official announcement of AMD’s six-core “Istanbul” processor, set for a May release.

For those of you thinking you’ve suddenly missed out on a few months of your life, don’t panic. Originally, the 45-nm Istanbul had been scheduled to ship later in the year, but speaking to financial analysts earlier this week, AMD’s president and chief exec, Dirk Meyer, said that the company decided to "pull in" the timetable. Yesterday afternoon AMD held a news conference to discuss its server roadmap and the company released additional details about Istanbul.

AMD claims the soon to be released processor will produce 30 percent more performance than the existing "Shanghai" quad-core processor at the same power requirements and said we can expect to see systems incorporating Istanbul in June. And just because every announcement made in the processor market these days seems to come with its own little piece of soap opera drama, the Register reports that upon hearing the announcement, Intel had this to say:

"As competitors fall behind in performance, you’ll see them throw more cores and more die size at their processors to keep up. This takes up valuable processor real estate and fab capacity. The key is not I/O, integrated memory controllers, or any one peripheral feature. The key is who has the better processor microarchitecture, and clearly that is Intel."
Create a new thread in the US News comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
52 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • B-Unit
    *SCRATCHES HEAD*

    Didn't Intel release the first 6-core? Why is is a good idea when they do it, but when AMD does, its 'throwing' more cores at it?
    22
  • Anonymous
    I find it humorous that the response to this news from Intel ends with, "The key is who has the better processor microarchitecture, and clearly that is Intel."

    While I don't dispute this currently, as it's evident that the I7 is an outstanding CPU, it wasn't that long ago when Intel was throwing around clock speed in attempt to keep up with AMD's superior architecture. Of course, maybe this statement is in response to AMD's slight reemergence into competition with Intel.
    18
  • mlopinto2k1
    Man, just reading some garbage like that makes me seriously sick. It actually makes me wanna take my Q6600 and motherboard and smash it. Seriously. AMD has seemed to always play a fair game even when they were wiping the floor with Intel. You didn't see them talk trash like THAT. CMON INTEL, throw me a friggin bone here. You don't like a little competition? They beat you to the punch with your 6 core chip... soooo WHAT.
    17
  • Other Comments
  • DjEaZy
    ... why tha paranoia from intel? ... why they try to rule all? ... architecture or not, but the attitude stinks!!!
    15
  • Anonymous
    I find it humorous that the response to this news from Intel ends with, "The key is who has the better processor microarchitecture, and clearly that is Intel."

    While I don't dispute this currently, as it's evident that the I7 is an outstanding CPU, it wasn't that long ago when Intel was throwing around clock speed in attempt to keep up with AMD's superior architecture. Of course, maybe this statement is in response to AMD's slight reemergence into competition with Intel.
    18
  • chunkymonster
    The Intel reply of that it's not about IMC's, that AMD is throwing more cores at the problem, and six cores takes up valuable die space stinks of irony. It seems to me that's exactly the strategy Intel has employed in the past.

    The fact that Instanbul adds performance, does not increase the thermal profile, and is socket compatible with existing servers is in line with AMD's strategy. Given the current state of the economy, releasing a drop in compatible proc that only requires a BIOS update (if even that) is cost effective than requiring a new systems altogether to support an improved mArch, regardless if that mArch is "better" or not.
    13