Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

AMD's 'Shanghai' CPU Enters Production

By - Source: Tom's Hardware | B 30 comments

The last year has not been kind to AMD. Its 65nm Barcelona processors arrived several months late, and were already obsolete in many ways when compared to the Intel offerings at the time. To make matters worse, the Barcelona chips were also buggy, making the tardy offering even less desirable to consumers and PC manufacturers. All of this built up to AMD’s $1.2 Billion loss in Q2 of 2008, the same quarter Intel saw record-breaking gains.

Now, in an effort to right itself in the CPU market, AMD has begun manufacturing its next generation of processors. Shanghai, a 45nm quad core processor, will be available by the end of 2008, beating original expectations. As per its usual strategy, Shanghai will be available in server processors first, followed shortly by desktop varieties.

In order to gain ground on Intel in performance, these new Shanghai based chips will have three times more cache (6MB total) than previous processors, as well as the third iteration of HyperTransport. AMD claims these additions will boost performance by as much as 20 percent while lowering power consumption. Following the release of the Shanghai processors, the 45nm Deneb desktops processors will hit store shelves in early 2009, followed by Istanbul server processors (six-cores) later in the year.

This could be the boost AMD needs to stay competitive with the house that Moore built, but how will these new offerings compare to the six-core Xeon processors already shipping from Intel as well as the Core i7 chips expected later this year? Only time will tell.

Check out AMD’s full plan for most of 2009 right here in an earlier report.

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
  • 1 Hide
    zerapio , October 1, 2008 5:26 PM
    "the house that Moore built" lol, N1
  • 1 Hide
    starhoof , October 1, 2008 6:03 PM
    Well its nice to hear that is AMD doing good. They had so much trouble lately its about time something good happens. I am not sure if AMD's year 2009's processors will be able to compete with Intel's core i7 processors, but i sure hope they will =) It worries me because "Nahalem" will be able to self overclock and such, and intel is thinking about making 32nm processors. It is totaly unbiased comment, I pick my components based on performance
  • -1 Hide
    Anonymous , October 1, 2008 6:25 PM
    I don't really see producing a new processor as necessarily doing good. They're just... well... doing really. How good they're doing will be seen once the benchmarks arrive. There are a million things that can still poison the well to this point, so don't count your chickens just yet. I road the AMD wave just like a lot of you in the late 90s to early 21st century... but I have to be honest and say that I think their success is greatly due to the fault of Intel and the poor NetBurst architecture that they road on the whole time. Now that that's the past and since Core 2 has been in... it might not be out of bounds to think that AMD might never really compete again in the CPU market. Not the way it has in the past.
  • Display all 30 comments.
  • -2 Hide
    Anonymous , October 1, 2008 6:27 PM
    Shanghai, a 45nm quad core processor..In order to gain ground on Intel in performance, these new Shanghai based chips will have three times more cache (6MB total)...

    AMD can not compete in performance with intel...probably they will have to compete in price. Here is why

    1. Nehalem has 8MB L3 cache (25%) If AMD claims more cache will give shanghai more performance, intel is ahead of them.
    2. Nehalem will have multithreading (8 logical cores) with automatic turbo mode (overclocking).
    3. Intel's 45 nm process is based on metal gates. Extremely power efficient and extremely fast. AMD's 45nm is just a shrink of 65nm old technology.
  • 0 Hide
    the last resort , October 1, 2008 8:23 PM
    to Logan81, this round of processors from AMD is not just a die shrink. They too now incorporate metal gates. And as for the cache, some of Intel's processors, which had like 4 MB of cache or more, were on par performance wise with AMD processors which only has a 1 or 2 MB shared cache. I think these chips could be really nice. It would also be nice if there were benchmarks.
  • 1 Hide
    kschoche , October 1, 2008 9:07 PM
    No official numbers from AMD yet?

    I've heard the 20% performance increase over claim 1,000 times before from all cpu manufacturers.
    However even a 10% boost in practical multithreaded server applications would be astounding and welcomed :D 
  • 3 Hide
    kschoche , October 1, 2008 9:21 PM
    Logan81Shanghai, a 45nm quad core processor..In order to gain ground on Intel in performance, these new Shanghai based chips will have three times more cache (6MB total)...AMD can not compete in performance with intel...probably they will have to compete in price. Here is why1. Nehalem has 8MB L3 cache (25%) If AMD claims more cache will give shanghai more performance, intel is ahead of them.2. Nehalem will have multithreading (8 logical cores) with automatic turbo mode (overclocking).3. Intel's 45 nm process is based on metal gates. Extremely power efficient and extremely fast. AMD's 45nm is just a shrink of 65nm old technology.


    The important thing you forgot to mention while comparing Intel's cache and AMD's cpu cache is that AMD's chips even since the Athlon line were optimized to run well (and sickeningly fast) with very little cache. Comparing an Intel chip with gobs of L2 cache to an AMD chip with the same amount of cache wont do anything, its how efficiently the cpu's use the cache that matters. Intel using throwing gobs of memory onto its Netburst line was a crutch and temporary fix which seems to have stuck around. AMD's got its own problems too.
  • 1 Hide
    boduke , October 1, 2008 9:39 PM
    the last resortto Logan81, this round of processors from AMD is not just a die shrink. They too now incorporate metal gates. And as for the cache, some of Intel's processors, which had like 4 MB of cache or more, were on par performance wise with AMD processors which only has a 1 or 2 MB shared cache. I think these chips could be really nice. It would also be nice if there were benchmarks.


    Provide a link showing that these CPU's are using metal gates please.
  • -1 Hide
    onearmedscissorb , October 1, 2008 11:02 PM
    "Shanghai, a 45nm quad core processor, will be available by the end of 2008, beating original expectations."

    Aaaah an anomoly in the time stream! The recent estimate of Q1 2009 has switched places with the original estimate in place of Q2 2008.

    It appears that AMD has played us all for fools, making us think they're falling behind, when they actually built a time machine and are using it against us. We have to stop them before they go too far, for such anomolies could create a time paradox, the results of which could start a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space time continuum, and destroy the entire universe! Granted, that's a worst case scenario. The destruction might in fact be very localized, limited to our own galaxy.
  • 0 Hide
    nlukin_27 , October 2, 2008 2:27 AM


    boduke

  • -1 Hide
    nlukin_27 , October 2, 2008 2:28 AM
    http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/AMD__45nm_Press_Q-A.pdf
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , October 2, 2008 6:10 AM
    Why are websites reporting Q4'08 as ahead of schedule? Was there an AMD release that required folks to misinform on this? Look at ANY recent AMD roadmap over the last year and they say either H2'08 or Q4'08 for 45nm server chip release (look further back and you would hear mid-2008, with some sites even speculating Q2'08). This is also 2 years after 65nm products not 18months as AMD had told everyone... so how again is this ahead of schedule?

    I wonder if people are confusing this perceived "pull-in" with the Q1'09 DESKTOP schedule.... these are server chips. Desktop is still Q1'09.

    So Tom's, and specifically Devin, when you say "beating expectations" you really should provide a link where it shows 2009 was the expectation for Shanghai. Since apparently you are too lazy for this... let me provide you some recent roadmaps which show.... Q4'08 (or even earlier) as the plan! (stunning!)

    From May08:
    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080507-aray-of-sunshine-amd-talks-shanghai-performance-roadmap.html
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10054038-64.html
    http://www.eetasia.com/ART_8800521709_499495_NP_493b9bc3.HTM

    From Jul07 (which actually had 45nm even earlier then end'08)
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3050&p=2
    http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/07/amd_promises_ag.html

    From Aug08:
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20080818171952_AMD_to_Start_Shipping_Shanghai_Processors_in_Q4.html

    Can we stop the cheerleading? If you are going to make claims like ahead of schedule - you should provide the schedule it was (theoretically) ahead of.

    Apparently onearmedscissorb is the only person who isn't easily duped.
  • 2 Hide
    ceteras , October 2, 2008 8:41 AM
    :)  I thought about it too, but my guess is that for AMD, usual expectations are long delays from their roadmaps.
    And when they meet the roadmap, it beats the expectations, lol.

    Anyway, it's a good news, despite financial problems, if they make it on time, thumbs up!
    I wonder how the problems in US's economy could affect sales. I guess AMD's lower pricing could win more customers, in that environment.
  • 0 Hide
    caskachan , October 2, 2008 9:45 AM
    "three times more cache 6mb"

    :raise arms and makes angry face:

    ABOUT FUCKING TIME AMD
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , October 2, 2008 10:48 AM
    6MB L3 Cache + 2MB L2 Cache = 8MB
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , October 2, 2008 10:59 AM
    The total cache size of the Shanghai is not 6mb. AMD Shanghai uses 2MB's of L2 + 6MB's of L3 for 8MB's total.
  • -1 Hide
    cushgod , October 2, 2008 12:38 PM
    Quote:
    The important thing you forgot to mention while comparing Intel's cache and AMD's cpu cache is that AMD's chips even since the Athlon line were optimized to run well (and sickeningly fast) with very little cache. Comparing an Intel chip with gobs of L2 cache to an AMD chip with the same amount of cache wont do anything, its how efficiently the cpu's use the cache that matters. Intel using throwing gobs of memory onto its Netburst line was a crutch and temporary fix which seems to have stuck around. AMD's got its own problems too.

    Ahem... uhhh.. .how do I say this... ok ok ok GOBS GOBS WTF GOBS of L2 !! thats what u thuink Intel has.. AND if IF AMD is ""Better"" optimized them why wouldnt AMD stomp Intel with an FX chip once every 2 years with "GOBS" of L2!!LOL yea right.. I love AMD but they cant touch C2D "efficiently" with its GOBS AND GOBS of L2!! you kill me kid/..
  • 0 Hide
    cushgod , October 2, 2008 12:38 PM
    Quote:
    The important thing you forgot to mention while comparing Intel's cache and AMD's cpu cache is that AMD's chips even since the Athlon line were optimized to run well (and sickeningly fast) with very little cache. Comparing an Intel chip with gobs of L2 cache to an AMD chip with the same amount of cache wont do anything, its how efficiently the cpu's use the cache that matters. Intel using throwing gobs of memory onto its Netburst line was a crutch and temporary fix which seems to have stuck around. AMD's got its own problems too.

    Ahem... uhhh.. .how do I say this... ok ok ok GOBS GOBS WTF GOBS of L2 !! thats what u thuink Intel has.. AND if IF AMD is ""Better"" optimized them why wouldnt AMD stomp Intel with an FX chip once every 2 years with "GOBS" of L2!!LOL yea right.. I love AMD but they cant touch C2D "efficiently" with its GOBS AND GOBS of L2!! you kill me kid/..
  • 0 Hide
    blackened144 , October 2, 2008 12:51 PM
    kami3kTo anyone saying hyperthreading will do anything for performance it won't. Few programs will use 4 cores effectively, never mind 8 cores.Nahelem isn't what people make it out to be.


    I'll bet that almost everyone reading this article is using a program that can use as many cores as your throw at it. Its called Microsoft Windows.
  • 0 Hide
    enforcer22 , October 2, 2008 1:03 PM
    kami3kTo anyone saying hyperthreading will do anything for performance it won't. Few programs will use 4 cores effectively, never mind 8 cores.Nahelem isn't what people make it out to be.


    Lets also not forget that HT isnt adding a core ffs. HT trys to do what ddr does and use both sides of the clock cycle. It trys to use the refresh cycle of the cpu to process a small bit of information it isnt a logical core otherwise it would be a 8 core not a 4 core. Not to mention of course HT didnt really do a whole hell of alot before i doubt it will be different now.

    To a point however more cores will release the system from lagging programs running. Games might not use 4 cores unless they are multi threaded but windows and load balance pretty well ;)  i believe the cap is around 16 cores then the advantages of adding more is to low for the cost and power also cooling them.

    If amd doesnt do something on thier next release that makes me wana buy a new AMD i might go back to using intel which i switched from back in the K6-2 - 300 days when buying a cpu and mobo from amd was $80 and a p-2 was $400 for just a cpu. Sorry AMD but get your chips inline or you lost another customer :/ 
Display more comments