We finally have it! After well over a year of asking nicely, rudely and creatively - we know when AMD's next generation microarchitecture is being launched.

Well, sort of.

Barcelona, as you maybe remember, is the code name for AMD's next-generation server processors. AMD recently announced that in August, it will unleash Barcelona unto the world at clock speeds of "up to 2.0GHz." But Barcelona only applies to the server world, and today we're reviewing a desktop microprocessor, so when do we get to see AMD's brand new Phenom processors on the desktop?

We'd expect Phenom in our hands 30 days after Barcelona's launch, making it approximately September/October by the time you'd see a preview/review and widespread availability about 30 days from that. If all goes perfectly, AMD's Phenom chips should be in customers' hands by November or December at the latest.

Penryn, Intel's 45nm update to its current Core 2 processors, will also make its debut at the end of this year, potentially spoiling AMD's launch party. A few possibilities exist with Penryn:

1) Penryn could launch across the board at all clock speeds and at competitive prices, quite possibly the worst case scenario for AMD, or
2) Penryn could launch strictly at upper clock speeds/price points, allowing AMD to have an easier time competing at lower speeds, or finally
3) Penryn could launch at lower clock speeds and price points, giving AMD an equally hard time as in the first scenario

It's important to recap AMD's impending launch as we've had yet another round of price cuts, making buying a new CPU today very attractive.

Today is supposed to mark the introduction of the first 1333MHz FSB quad-core Core 2 Extreme processor, the QX6850 (mouthful anyone?), as well as the official launch of the entire 1333MHz FSB lineup. But this is the second Core 2 Extreme launch that coincides with a ridiculous (in a good way) price drop, so we can't help but shift our focus for this story, at least for starters...

 CPU Clock Speed FSB L2 Cache Pricing
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 3.00GHz 1333 4MBx2 $999
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.00GHz 1333 4MB $266
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66GHz 1333 4MB $183
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33GHz 1333 4MB $163
What's launching today

Once More, With Feeling
POST A COMMENT

67 Comments

View All Comments

  • MrKaz - Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - link

    I don’t know but I have very doubts that someone who buys some premium and highest end CPUs will even bother in OC.
    If I was going to buy one AMD CPU for OC I would choose one of the single core or one dual up to the X4400+, higher than that I was shooting myself in the foot.
    With Intel I would go for one of the lowest FSB versions (800/1066) or the slowest of the 1333Mhz (but I doubt I would go for one of this). Going for the 3.0Ghz Intel versions I was again shooting myself in the foot. Why OC something that is already so fast and already in its limits.
    Reply
  • Pirks - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    quote:

    the same folks who are enough of an enthusiast to know that the AMD MB's can save them a bit, and then apply that savings towards either the GPU or grabbing a higher-end AMD processor are very likely to overclock
    VERY far from truth - I'm kind of enthusiast myself, but I specialize in silent & inexpensive gaming computers, and AMD gear is VERY solid choice here, I pick old single core AMDs for nothing on ebay, like $45 for a fast gaming San Diego 4000+, pick older 7900GTX cards on ebay as well for cheap (only the ones I know are silent 'cause reviewers say so) and then I stuff it all in Antec P182, do some other voodoo with Cooler Master or ThermalRight gear... voila, a SILENT gaming rig, chews through S.T.A.L.K.E.R. just like that! and cheap, compared to some intel rigs from overclocking Intel freaks - it is DIRT cheap, cause there are no water, no overheating from fashionable overclocked quad-core intel shit, nothing like that.

    so you are TOTALLY wrong when you classify all enthusiasts as overclocking intel freaks - there are a lot of us who specialize in silent & inexpensive PCs, including gaming ones. it's easy to pay intel $$$ $$$ $$$ and get watercooled quad extreme blah blah blah, or get a cheap and noisy overclocked aircooled rig. but to get 1) gaming 2) silent 3) cheap PC - this is REAL ART, btw it's not covered at anandtech at all
    Reply
  • relic2279 - Monday, December 17, 2007 - link

    A User said:
    "the same folks who are enough of an enthusiast to know that the AMD MB's can save them a bit, and then apply that savings towards either the GPU or grabbing a higher-end AMD processor are very likely to overclock."

    Pirks replied to this:

    "VERY far from truth - I'm kind of enthusiast myself, but I specialize in silent & inexpensive gaming computers."
    -----------------------------------------------------------


    Very far from the truth? Possibly for you specifically but he was generalizing and I believe he is correct. People who do care enough and are being specific, building their own PC's tend to be the same people who tinker, and OC their computers. People intrigued enough to read this whole article and pay attention to the benchmarks are more likely to overclock then not.
    So to say that it's "VERY far from the truth" is not only incorrect, but ignorant. It's just more fanboys spouting propaganda for their favorite company.

    I don't have a preference personally. I buy what the best is for my money, at the time. If it's AMD, then I buy them, if it's intel, then them. I suggest everyone do the same. I've purchased 6 intel chips and 7 amd chips in my life. Most of my intel chips were 286's 386's or pentium 1-2's. Lately I was buying AMD cause they were the better buy, but not now. For the money, I get alot more with intel. I have noticed an increase in reliability as well, after switching to intel.
    I may have to take that into consideration on my next chip purchase which (if the wife allows me) will hopefully be soon. :)

    Oh and I noticed that some people mentioned that the price cuts would be bad for intel as far as profits go etc... The price cuts benifit us, and thats what matters. I don't care if amd/intel's revenue is down this year by 100% and neither should you. What matters is that we get a good price and a good cpu. If someone brings that up, it just further proves they are fanboys and care more for that particular company then they probably should. Again, getting a decent price is what should matter, not profit margins of a huge company.
    Reply
  • Sunrise089 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    please learn to tell the difference between "most likely" and "all" Reply
  • Pirks - Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - link

    quote:

    please learn to tell the difference between "most likely" and "all"
    doesn't matter if you classify all enthusiasts as OC guys, or just "most of them" as OC guys - this is still your subjective opinion, you have no facts to prove it.

    I classify "most of enthusiasts" as silent PC guys, not OC guys, so what? here ya go, my subjective opinion versus yours. enjoy your meal :P

    yeah, and when you get some solid arguments besides your opinion - don't forget to post them here, I'm interested! maybe I'm wrong about most of us being silent PC people, who knows ;)
    Reply
  • Accord99 - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link

    quote:

    I classify "most of enthusiasts" as silent PC guys, not OC guys, so what? here ya go, my subjective opinion versus yours. enjoy your meal :P

    Well, silence enthusiasts would be better off with Intel seeing as how most of their Core based dual-core lineup now uses less power under load than the 4000+ San Diego, and with the G0 stepping Intel has only increased its performance/watt.
    Reply
  • Pirks - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link

    quote:

    silence enthusiasts would be better off with Intel seeing as how most of their Core based dual-core lineup now uses less power under load than the 4000+ San Diego
    nice shot, but, alas, a miss - you have no idea how much AMD 65nm and 35watt dualcore chips consume under load. get back to school, read you hardware docs, come back - we'll talk again. good luck ;)
    Reply
  • Accord99 - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link

    http://www.matbe.com/images/biblio/art_core-se-dec...">http://www.matbe.com/images/biblio/art_...e-en-pen...

    Complete domination of Intel Core processors in full load power consumption.
    Reply
  • Pirks - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link

    quote:

    Complete domination of Intel
    you're right about consumption, intel is slightly ahead, but if we take prices and upgrade scenarios (like copious amount of old DDR RAM in the system) into account, the picture is not so rosy for Intel
    Reply
  • Accord99 - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link

    quote:

    you're right about consumption, intel is slightly ahead

    In the same way that AMD's K8 was slightly ahead of Prescott.

    quote:

    but if we take prices and upgrade scenarios (like copious amount of old DDR RAM in the system) into account, the picture is not so rosy for Intel

    How so? There aren't any of the low-voltage or 65nm X2s on Socket 939, they're all high-power 90nm models where even the lowly 3800+ uses as much power under load as the fastest dual-core C2D. Meanwhile there are a few DDR1 MB that support C2D if you want, and with the excellent power usage of the C2D, passive cooling is a piece of cake with a half-decent tower heatsink.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now