The Lineup - Opteron x75

Prior to the dual core frenzy, multiprocessor servers and workstations were referred to by the number of processors that they had.  A two-processor workstation would be called a 2-way workstation, and a four-processor server would be called a 4-way server. 

Both AMD and Intel sell their server/workstation CPUs not only according to performance characteristics (clock speed, cache size, FSB frequency), but also according to the types of systems for which they were designed.  For example, the Opteron 252 and Opteron 852 both run at 2.6GHz, but the 252 is for use in up to 2-way configurations, while the 852 is certified for use in 4- and 8-way configurations.  The two chips are identical; it's just that one has been run through additional validation and costs a lot more.  As you may remember, the first digit in the Opteron's model number denotes the sorts of configurations for which the CPU is validated. So, the 100 series is uniprocessor only, the 200 series works in up to 2-way configurations and the 800 series is certified for 4+ way configurations. 

AMD's dual core server/workstation CPUs will still carry the Opteron brand, but they will feature higher model numbers; and while single core Opterons increased in model numbers by 2 points for each increase in clock speed, dual core Opterons will increase by 5s.  With each "processor" being dual core, AMD will start referring to their Opterons by the number of sockets for which they are designed.  For example, the Opteron 100 series will be designed for use in 1-socket systems, the Opteron 200 series will be designed for use in up to 2-socket systems and the Opteron 800 series will be designed for use in 4 or more socket systems. 

There are three new members of the Opteron family - all dual core CPUs: the Opteron x65, Opteron x70 and Opteron x75. 

There are a few things to take away from this table:
  1. The fastest dual core runs at 2.2GHz, two speed grades lower than the fastest single core CPU - not too shabby at all.
  2. The slowest dual core CPU is priced at the same level as the fastest single core CPU; in this case, $637.
  3. Unlike Intel, AMD's second core comes at a much higher price. Take a look at the 148 vs. 175. Both run at 2.2GHz, but the dual core chip is over 3.5x the price of the single core CPU.
Now, let's look at the 200 and 800 series CPUs:

The pricing structure at the 200 and 800 levels doesn't change much either - the stakes are simply higher.

While AMD will undoubtedly hate the comparison below, it's an interesting one nonetheless.  How much are you paying for that second core on these new dual core Opterons?  To find out, let's compare prices on a clock for clock basis:

AMD's margins on their dual core Opteron parts are huge. On average, the second core costs customers over 3x as much as the first core for any of these CPUs.  As you will soon see, the performance benefits are definitely worth it, but know that AMD's pricing is not exactly designed to drive dual core into widespread adoption. 

A Look at AMD’s Dual Core Architecture The Lineup - Athlon 64 X2
POST A COMMENT

144 Comments

View All Comments

  • MDme - Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - link

    #133

    i think what #130 was saying was that: from top to bottom, AMD's offerings are really good...if you want the best "bang for the buck" the 3400+ or whatever, or a 3000+ winnie OC'd will provide you with the best performance per dollar you spend...EVEN against the X2's.

    On the other hand if cost is not an issue, an X2 4400+ provides extremely good performance for people willing to pay the $500 premium.

    Zebo's point is in direct response to your point, which is AMD "STILL" has the best bang for the buck, not intel.

    or maybe YOU missed the logic? LOL
    Reply
  • MPE - Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - link

    "Intel is just lucky a 3400+ new castle wasn't in that test suite. It's would win the majority of tests over an 830!! and it's still cheaper. Or did you miss this chart? LOL"

    Why not just admit it. AMD's DC is about 10-20% faster while costing 80-100% more.

    Even if the 3400+ is added, that comparison is moot since if you compare the score of that to the price of AMD's own DC - the price performance ratio is stagerrring? Or did you miss that logic?

    Anyways did you miss the part that even AMD DC was being beaten by their own single core.

    Next.
    Reply
  • nserra - Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - link

    "The Athlon 64 4000+ was the last single core member of the Athlon 64 line.
    The Athlon 64 FX will continue as a single core CPU line, with the FX-57 (2.8GHz) due out later this year."

    Where did you get this info anand, i am not sure if an Athlon64 X2 4400+ could not coexist with a Athlon64 4400+. If this is the last 4000+ than i must say gee thats too bad....
    Reply
  • Zebo - Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - link

    #125

    Techreports review is better for you. 64-bit OS, 64-bit apps when possible, no mystery unreproducable benchmarks like Anand's database stuff.
    Reply
  • Zebo - Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - link

    MPE BS, Intel is just lucky a 3400+ new castle wasn't in that test suite. It's would win the majority of tests over an 830!! and it's still cheaper. Or did you miss this chart? LOL
    http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/amd/athlon...

    Intels DC chips can hardy compete with AMDs single core offerings. Side by side both DC it's a joke.

    So ya, AMD still has the "best bang for the buck" top end to bottom end. And they a far on top of the mountain.
    Reply
  • MPE - Monday, April 25, 2005 - link

    Isn't the shoe on the other foot?

    For several years now, so many touted AMD's cheaper price and competative pricing.

    Now with Pentium4 D, especially with the 3GHz model, you get half the price of the cheapest X2 while probably at best 20% lower performance?

    What happened here?

    Now P4D 3GHz model is the best bang for the buck and not the AMD offering. This is a complete reversal of what a lot of AMD supporters have been touting?
    Reply
  • ceefka - Monday, April 25, 2005 - link

    #125 Yeah, good point.

    Compare:
    A. singletreaded 32-bit app on a singlecore
    B. multi-threaded 64-bit app on a dualcore
    Considering that multithreaded apps already see such large gains on dualcores, going 64-bit too could well mean a more than 100% improvement from A to B.

    But of course, NO ONE needs dual core, 64-bit and +4GB memory in the next 5-10 years :P

    The ball now lies with MS and (Linux) app developpers to write more stuff in multithreaded 64-bit code. From what I hear and read it is not so much the 64-bit part as it is the threading that is a real challenge, even for veterans.
    Reply
  • Ross Whitehead - Sunday, April 24, 2005 - link

    Visual, On P.12 I was referring to the closest Xeon competitor to the 252s which is the Quad Xeon 3.6 GHz 667 MHz FSB.

    Does that make any more sense?
    Reply
  • Ross Whitehead - Sunday, April 24, 2005 - link

    jvarszegi, the actual stored procs are not prefixed with "sp_", we just used that as part of the "analogy" to the real system.

    One could also argue that we did not prefix the analogy example with the object owner either which also incurs a cache miss.

    Honestly, I have never quantified the expense of the sp_ prefix or the object owner.
    Reply
  • Binji7 - Sunday, April 24, 2005 - link

    Where are the dual-core Windows x64 and Linux x64 benchmarks?? That's what I really want to see.

    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now