i just wonder, when are they going to produce faster clocked phenoms?
they would sure increase their sales if they were faster clocked...

No triple core 45nm with DDR2 IMC?

Give me a 2.0GHz BE for $120 and I'll OC it to 3.6GHZ. Hopefully the 45nm can match Q6600 clock for clock because I just cancelled a Q6600 order from Newegg to wait for the 45nm or price-dropped Q9x50.

Umm, you do realize that 3.0GHz is a faster clocked phenom by 400mhz right? And you do realize that this table tells you when they come out.

The answer to your question can be found by actually reading the article.

Nothing earthshattering here. But it's a step in the right direction.

I read "TBD" and read/thought "TLB" erratum. LOL

Hm. Maybe they could have used the X prefix for the numbers like ATI did when they first started going 'Over 9000!!!!!' ? I must admit, trying to pronounce 20550 without it sounding like 2550 is practically impossible. Maybe twenty-fifty-five-zero? Either way, I'll be picking up at least one of those, slotting it into an M3A79-T Deluxe, and making yet another all-AMD build. Will end up figuring on an AM3 build sometime in '09, likely, and pass on the M3A79 build to someone else in the family like I plan for my current build.

^^ To be honest, I thought the X preceding the model number was the only obvious choice. 5 numbers is too much.

8MB cache... definately a step up from

I was kinda hoping AM3 would have dual-memory support, but I think the timing is off. When AMD released AM2, DDR2 was brand new and really expensive. By the time AMD releases AM3, DDR3 will be over a year old and much cheaper comparatively. I suppose AMD rightfully doesn't see any need for supporting DDR2 (especially since Intel has already stopped official support of it). I guess this means AM3 processors will also not work with AM2+/AM2 sockets. Looks like AMD got a little over-ambitious.

What is also concerning is that they will still be making 125W processors on a 45nm architecture. Is there a problem with Phenom that they can't get the temps down?

Good DDR2/3 analysis.

QX9650 has TDP of 130W, and new Ci7 are all rated 130W. TDP is a way that Intel and AMD used to categorize CPU cooling requirement. Though current AMD CPUs come very close to their specified TDP, Intel ones run roughly half of rated TDP on stock. We don't know yet how 45nm AMD CPUs would perform at 3GHz. Judging from the leaked C0 ES testing, there should be improvement in actually power draw. However no one out of AMD inner circle can be sure about anything at the moment.

Well, numenclature naming is always confusing. I prefer using prefix X like ATi did.

AM3, wait for it, and we'll see if AMD can get the crown back.

@STARHOOF

The only reason AMD doesn't have 3.0 GHz Phenoms right now is because of power consumption. If they made one on their current 65nm technology it would probably consume close to 200 watts. That would be a big joke.

I don't think this will put AMD back on top by any stretch but I'm looking forward to them not being on the brink of collapse.

Well, thats assuming they were close to collapse. All those losses looked really bad, but whether a company is about to go under is another thing that is hard to tell for sure no matter how much info they release.

Not to the top, but hopefully good enough!
What AMD needs is really big puch from IBM development labs. I hope that IBM will do it, just for making the life of Intel more interesting ;-)
Realistically they are more interested in making their own prosessors...

let's all suport AMD, to prevent intel domination

He's a idiot and troll, though they go hand in hand.

Total cache, not just L3. If you notice the Phenom 16x00 chips have much less than the 20xx0 chips, because the L3 cache is disabled.

Yes Intels QX9650 is rated at 130w TDP but it doesn't hit 130W until is OCed to about 3.8GHz. We now have to wait and see how close at stock AMDs 45nm tech will get to 125w TDP.

Considering it is SOI based I am willing to bet it will be pretty darn close to 125w.

Quote doesn't seem to be working,but you've got to be BS'ing me..

CPU power draw is often much higher than "TDP" states....
Try running all four cores at maximum on stock,see if the "TDP" and the "actual power consumption" match...I bet the latter will be higher.

IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!!

TDP is more related to thermal design power than power consumption. If all processors took their TDP as power consumption, even the Athlon X2 EE 45W wouldn't be very efficent...