Socket M2, the 940 pin DDR2-ready Athlon 64 Socket, will launch a little bit later than we originally expected with mass production just starting in late April. However, even though the launch has been slightly delayed from the original March timeframe, there is still good news for those on DDR1; Socket 939 will stick around well into Q1'07 on the performance desktop - and well beyond that for Sempron. In fact, AMD's latest roadmap goes all the way to Q2'07 with Socket 939 Sempron.

The new Pacifica enabled DDR2 processor code names expected to launch during the end of Q2'06 will be:

  • Windsor: Dual Channel DDR2, Pacifica enabled Socket M2 dual core
  • Orleans: Dual Channel DDR2, Pacifica enabled Socket M2
  • Manila: Dual Channel DDR2 Sempron, Socket M2

The new chips will debut on NVIDIA's recently announced M2 platform, complete with MCP55 and C51XE. Straight from AMD's latest roadmap, here are a list of all the newest products, cores and launch dates:

AMD Desktop Roadmap
Product Core Socket Launch Date
Athlon 64 FX-62 Windsor M2 Q2'06
Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Windsor M2 Q4'06
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Windsor M2 Q2'06
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Windsor M2 Q2'06
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Windsor M2 Q2'06
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Windsor M2 Q2'06
Athlon 64 4000+ Orleans M2 Q2'06
Athlon 64 3800+ Orleans M2 Q2'06
Athlon 64 3500+ Orleans M2 Q2'06
Sempron 3800+ Manila M2 Q3'06
Sempron 3600+ Manila M2 Q2'06
Sempron 3500+ Manila M2 Q2'06
Sempron 3400+ Manila M2 Q2'06
Sempron 3200+ Manila M2 Q2'06
Sempron 3000+ Manila M2 Q2'06


Other interesting noteables include the lack of any new Socket 939 SKUs. Hopefully Socket M2 sticks around long enough to actually get one or two different processors on the same board like in the old days of Socket 462. In fact, even though the roadmap explicitly claims that Socket 939 Semprons will show up before the end of the year, the only new Semprons listed are Socket M2.

We hope this M2 roadmap isn't the whole picture. There are obviously quite a few of us who have Socket 939 motherboards still - and some new chips to give Intel's Presler and Cedar Mill 65nm processors a run for their money would be great.



POST A COMMENT

28 Comments

View All Comments

  • psychobriggsy - Saturday, November 05, 2005 - link

    We will be getting the 2.6GHz S939 FX60 dual-core processor soon - I assume it has 2x 1MB L2 cache. This will be a nice performance processor for people who like spending money on their system.

    Sadly I assume there will be no FX59 3GHz single core FX. I imagine that this speed isn't a real goer on the 90nm process for AMD! It's sad because 3GHz would have been a nice number for AMD to reach this year, even if it cost $1200 a processor and they only ever made 1000 or so, lol.

    What is interesting is that by the middle of next year, AMD will have a dual-core 2.8GHz FX62 processor - the same speed as the current FX57, but with two cores! I assume this will cost around $1100 and thus be pointless for most of us, but if AMD can make them, then a Socket M2 4200+ starts to look very interesting for overclocking (wot, no M2 X2 3800? :( ) Also the 2.6GHz X2 will emerge, and that's a good thing too. It'll certainly keep the pressure on Intel through 2006.

    And what's with the M2 Sempron 3500+? Why not make the line-up neat for once - 3000+, 3200+, 3400+, 3600+, 3800+?
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Friday, November 04, 2005 - link

    Jarred Walton said he thought of IPC on Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 as follows:

    Pentium 4: ~1.5
    Athlon 64: ~2.2

    The relative figures are right but I have to disagree on the numbers. Itanium 2 1.6GHz 9MB L3 cache's IPC on specint is ~1.5(if anyone doesn't agree that spec is a good benchmark for real world apps, IT IS for workstation/HPC apps).

    Considering that Itanium 2 at 1.6GHz it achieves score of 1590 for best score on specint, and Athlon 64 FX gets 1970 at 2.8GHz and Pentium 4 gets 1815 with 3.8GHz and 2MB L2, I have to say I disagree with your numbers.

    Just on specint, the numbers would be:
    Pentium 4: 0.7
    Athlon 64 FX: 1.05

    I would say the figures are also right for other apps since most CPUs don't even get close to ideal IPC.
    Reply
  • bob661 - Friday, November 04, 2005 - link

    Anyone here planning to buy a M2 socket CPU when it's released? I'm kind of on the fence. I COULD use Pacifica and dual cores though. Reply
  • Googer - Thursday, November 03, 2005 - link

    A few years ago, I took the time to read the DDR2 white papers. They stated that as part of the specification that DDR2 Memory controllers maintain backward support for the original DDR specification, meaning that a DDR2 controller should function with DDR1 installed in it's sockets. Intel seems to have completely ignored this in almost all of their chipsets, Except for the i915 chipset memory controller. I sure hope AMD maintains backward compatability with DDR1 on socket M2.

    But again it has been a while since I read this and somethings probably have changed, all I can do is be hopefull.
    Reply
  • xsilver - Thursday, November 03, 2005 - link

    has it been discussed as to if M2 will bring cost savings to amd? cost savings and hence cheaper prices for us? (staring straight at the x2-3800 for around $200)

    also would it be a bad time to go from 1gb ram to 2gb because of the immenent move to ddr2?
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, November 03, 2005 - link

    I don't expect M2 chips to be any cheaper to produce (until they move to 65nm process), and I also don't expect them to be significantly faster than their 939 counterparts. I think this will be very much like the change from socket 478 to socket 775 Pentium 4 chips. A few areas will be faster, but if you have a fast 939 system there won't be a major incentive to immediately upgrade to M2. Reply
  • Anton74 - Thursday, November 03, 2005 - link

    The 3700+ and X2 4400+ are not listed, and a Manchester core FX instead of Toledo?

    Is AMD cutting down on cache, or is this just a coincidence?
    Reply
  • stephenbrooks - Friday, November 04, 2005 - link

    Yes, I noticed that too. Right now they have a sort of 2x2 matrix of products with all combinations from {2x512KB,2x1MB}x{2.2GHz,2.4GHz}. That's actually quite a confusing product line for your average pleb to understand in a way.

    I think what they might be seeing is that people are reluctant to pay for extra cache on a lower-clocked chip - they prefer to go for the higher clocks first (which garauntees a performance increase) and then up the cache (which only gives patchy increases), so we're seeing the large caches only on the top processors.
    Reply
  • stephenbrooks - Thursday, November 03, 2005 - link

    What do you folks think the frequencies of these things are? I'm guessing:
    FX-60 2x2.6GHz
    FX-62 2x2.8GHz
    ...so you could see that as +5 for dual core.
    Reply
  • xenon74 - Thursday, November 03, 2005 - link

    Well if X2 5000+ M2 will be 2,667GHz (8x333)
    then X2 5200+ M2 may be 2,833GHz (8,5x333), or even 3GHz (9x333) but highly unlikely
    and:
    X2 4800+ M2 (7,5x333=2,5GHz) full L2
    X2 4600+ M2 (7,5x333) half L2
    X2 4400+ M2 (7x333=2,33GHz) full L2
    X2 4200+ M2 (7x333) half L2
    and:
    FX?? 939 DC(13X200=2,6GHz) full L2
    FX62 M2 DC(8,5x333=2,833GHz) full L2

    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now