Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

AMD Launches Five New Six-core Opterons

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 22 comments

Three of AMD's new Opterons are energy misers.

AMD today rolled out three new six-core Opteron HE processors family that are designed for those who are energy conscious.

All three new chips are manufactured on a 45-nm process and consume 55W – marked improvement over 75W and 105W of other Opteron models. HP is now shipping 2-, 4- and 8-processor systems.

AMD said that the new six-core Opteron HE processor offers up to 18 percent lower platform-level power consumption over the standard wattage version and up to 18 percent better performance-per-watt compared to the quad-core version. AMD says that it will unveil processors with even greater energy efficiency later this year.

The new chips run at 2 GHz and 2.1 GHz and are priced from US$455 to $1,514 each in 1,000-unit quantities.

For those looking for more performance (at the expense of power efficiency), AMD is also unveiling two new, full-featured Six-Core AMD Opteron SE processors at 2.8 GHz for systems with up to 8 processors.

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 12 Hide
    B-Unit , July 13, 2009 11:09 PM
    Upendra09Why are the opterons always on the slower side, i mean 2 ghz? come on my laptop can do that. Ignoring the fact it is a C2d

    Because unlike your laptop, a server receives greater benefit from more cores than clock speed. Add to that the savings in electricity both from the chip itself and in cooling and these are very nice CPUs.
Other Comments
    Display all 22 comments.
  • 7 Hide
    XD_dued , July 13, 2009 10:57 PM
    Clock rate has little to do with speed or efficiency, for example the 2.66 i7 beats the 3.2ghz Phenom II(by a lot in many cases)
  • 8 Hide
    bk420 , July 13, 2009 10:58 PM
    This will be huge for eco-friendly server farms!
    55W for six cores...that's amazing.
    I can't wait for the 12 core cpu's to come out.
  • 12 Hide
    B-Unit , July 13, 2009 11:09 PM
    Upendra09Why are the opterons always on the slower side, i mean 2 ghz? come on my laptop can do that. Ignoring the fact it is a C2d

    Because unlike your laptop, a server receives greater benefit from more cores than clock speed. Add to that the savings in electricity both from the chip itself and in cooling and these are very nice CPUs.
  • 7 Hide
    matt87_50 , July 14, 2009 12:50 AM
    I was so glad to see the athlon64 absolutely slaughter this stupid misconseption about "more ghz is bettarr!!"

    A 2.4ghz athlon would pwn a hot, noisy 3.8ghz p4! (or something like that, not sure on exact comparisons).

    so for those who forgot or weren't around: clock speed is MEANINGLESS when comparing different architectures, it is ONLY useful for comparing cpus in THE SAME LINE where higher clocks mean more power, in more ways than one.

    seeing as I am not currently in the market for 1000 $1.5k processors, i can only hope the desktop equivalents are on there way?
  • 0 Hide
    Upendra09 , July 14, 2009 1:30 AM
    B-UnitBecause unlike your laptop, a server receives greater benefit from more cores than clock speed. Add to that the savings in electricity both from the chip itself and in cooling and these are very nice CPUs.


    I meant compared to the Xeon, the opteron is slow and Xeons also come in 4 cores at 2.6 ghz
  • 0 Hide
    computabug , July 14, 2009 2:25 AM
    Honestly, I don't think 200mhz or less would make such a big impact... so it's kind of pointless to spend more to buy a cpu with 1 more multiplier lol.

    >>off-topic
  • 5 Hide
    justjc , July 14, 2009 2:34 AM
    Am I the only one that's impressed that they managed to get 6 cores to run on 55W?

    I doubt even Intel can match that.
  • 1 Hide
    ohim , July 14, 2009 5:33 AM
    Upendra09I meant compared to the Xeon, the opteron is slow and Xeons also come in 4 cores at 2.6 ghz

    what part of "different architectures" you didn`t got ? Xeons and Opterons even thow they are designed for servers they are still different and don`t have the same computing power at the same frequency.

    justjcAm I the only one that's impressed that they managed to get 6 cores to run on 55W?I doubt even Intel can match that.
    no, you`re not :) 
  • -1 Hide
    anamaniac , July 14, 2009 6:40 AM
    I'd like to get a quad socket motherboard (seen cheap ones for $400 for AMD systems) and throw four of these in. Who needs a video card when you have 24 2.0 GHz processing cores?

    What's the possibility that dual and quad socket motherboards will ever hit mainstream? Even the Skulltrail rig is still designed to be a workstation.
  • 1 Hide
    Pei-chen , July 14, 2009 12:49 PM
    Quote:
    The new chips run at 2 GHz and 2.1 GHz and are priced from US$455 to $1,514 each in 1,000-unit quantities.

    100MHz for $1,000?

    justjcAm I the only one that's impressed that they managed to get 6 cores to run on 55W?I doubt even Intel can match that.

    Am I the only one that's impressed AMD managed to get 6 cores to run on 55W but can't produce a mobile chip that runs below 31w or goes above 2.4GHz? Turion ZM-86 (dual core) runs at 2.4GHz but consumes 35w while C2E QX9300 (quad core) only needs 45w to run at 2.53GHz.

    The fact is, Intel still leads over AMD and until AMD decided to charge more for their chip so they’ll have the R&D money, Intel will continue to lead and AMD will continue to get 2nd hand IBM technology.
  • 1 Hide
    downer88 , July 14, 2009 1:35 PM
    These low watt wars are great. I hate that 130 Watts has become the new standard in desktop.

    @Pei-chen, but $1000 mobile chip for something that will get stomped by a desktop Q9550S at 65 Watts, 2.83 Ghz, and $350 is kinda pricey.
  • 1 Hide
    scook9 , July 14, 2009 1:55 PM
    the Q9550s has been shown to be a joke. It used the EXACT same power as the standard Q9550 (and in some tests even used more). Just because the TDP is rated at that, doesn't mean that the CPU uses that much power. That is just the maximum it will use.

    This is impressive for AMD, however, like Pei Chen pointed out, if AMD is so good at making power efficient chips, why does their mobile line-up completely suck?
  • 1 Hide
    verrul , July 14, 2009 2:06 PM
    opterons is where amd is in the lead. They whip the xeon in server capacity.
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , July 14, 2009 3:05 PM
    I would like to see one of the cheaper opterons (aka the $450 one),compare to a corei7 for day to day tasks like office, windows experience, and perhaps some gaming too!

    I never really looked at how server CPU's perform in gaming, and video encoding environments

    I know they most likely are not meant to game but still, perhaps a $450 CPU could give me more fps compared to a Phenom2?
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , July 14, 2009 3:06 PM

    100MHz for $1,000? Yes. That is the cost of going 8-way. Just getting the wife to go with a 3-way is costly enough.
  • -1 Hide
    mlcloud , July 14, 2009 4:09 PM
    daenku32
  • -1 Hide
    mlcloud , July 14, 2009 4:10 PM
    Didn't show my
  • 0 Hide
    mlcloud , July 14, 2009 4:11 PM
    Hm... apparently the less-than symbol cuts out everything after it. My third attempt to heart daenku32, blegh.

    And about the pricing, why is that such a surprise? Just look at the i7s.
Display more comments