Q3'05 AMD Roadmap; DDR2 and New Sockets for AMD
by Kristopher Kubicki & Jarred Walton on July 21, 2005 1:47 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
The Desktop
| AMD Desktop Athlon 64 Roadmap | ||||
| Processor | Core Name | Clock Speed | Socket | Launch Date |
| Athlon FX-59 | San Diego | 3.0 GHz 1MB | Socket 939 | Q1'06 |
| Athlon FX-57 | San Diego | 2.8 GHz 1MB | Socket 939 | Now |
| Athlon 64 X2 >=5000+ | Windsor? | 2.6 GHz? | Socket M2 | Q2'06 |
| Athlon 64 X2 >=5000+ | Toledo? | 2.6 GHz? | Socket 939 | Q1'06 |
| Athlon 64 X2 4800+ | Windsor | 2.4 GHz 1MB? | Socket M2 | Q2'06 |
| Athlon 64 4000+ | Orleans | 2.4 GHz 1MB? | Socket M2 | Q2'06 |
| Athlon 64 3800+ | Orleans | 2.4 GHz 512K? | Socket M2 | Q2'06 |
| Athlon 64 3500+ | Orleans | 2.2 GHz 512K? | Socket M2 | Q2'06 |
Besides the single core M2 processors, we also have the dual core parts, codenamed Windsor. We have a 4800+ part for socket M2, as well as parts greater than or equal to 5000+ for both socket 939 and M2. As with the single core variants, we see two likely possibilities. The first is that the M2 parts will directly match the 939 parts in features, making the 4800+ a 2.4 GHz 1MB per core design. On the other hand, improvements in the performance of the platform through the use of DDR2 may allow AMD to use a 2.4 GHz 512K part for the 4800+. Part of the attractiveness of such a change is that the 2x512K parts would have a smaller die size, decreasing the manufacturing costs. Time will tell what AMD's precise plans are, and at present all we have are model names with which to speculate.
The last addition to the performance desktop market is a new FX model, the FX-59. While in the past we have speculated that AMD would switch the FX to a dual core design, the roadmap instead indicates that the FX-59 is intended to use a San Diego core running at 3.0 GHz. Other details in the roadmap show that AMD intends for the FX line to offer top single core performance. AMD market the FX line as being "ideal for 3D games and single-threaded applications." The X2 line on the other hand is "designed for sophisticated power users who run multiple processor intensive applications simultaneously," and is "ideal for digital content creation as well as for listening and viewing entertainment." It seems pretty clear from such statements that the FX line will remain single core for a while longer.
M2 isn't just a switch to DDR2 memory support, though. Besides DDR2, AMD indicates that the Orleans and Windsor processors will also have "Security and Virtualization" features. Previously codenamed Pacifica, the virtualization technology adds hardware support that allows a system to run multiple operating systems simultaneously. It was possible to do this in the past with such tools as VMware, but hardware support should dramatically improve performance. The security technology mentioned is likely to be very similar to Intel's LaGrande Technology and was code named Presidio. Whether or not you'll need a tin foil hat to operate your computer is yet undecided.
You'll notice that socket 754 is no longer even represented in the desktop arena. There are a couple parts that will work on socket 754 motherboards, but they are no longer marketed as mainstream or performance desktop processors. That brings us to the desktop Sempron processors.
| AMD Desktop Sempron Roadmap | ||||
| Processor | Core Name | Clock Speed | Socket | Launch Date |
| Sempron 3700+ | Palermo Ex | 2.2 GHz 256K | Socket 939 | Q2'06 |
| Sempron 3700+ | Palermo Ex | 2.2 GHz 256K | Socket 754 | Q2'06 |
| Sempron 3600+ | Palermo Ex | 2.2 GHz 128K | Socket 754 | Q1'06 |
| Sempron 3500+ | Palermo Ex | 2.0 GHz 256K | Socket 939 | Q1'06 |
| Sempron 3400+ | Palermo Ex | 2.0 GHz 256K | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| Sempron 3400+ | Palermo Ex | 2.0 GHz 128K | Socket 939 | Q3'05 |
| Sempron 3300+ | Palermo Ex | 2.0 GHz 128K | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| Sempron 3200+ | Palermo D0/Ex | 1.8 GHz 256K | Socket 939 | Now? |
| Sempron 3100+ | Palermo Ex | 1.8 GHz 256K | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| Sempron 3000+ | Palermo D0/Ex | 1.8 GHz 128K | Socket 939 | Now? |
| Sempron 3000+ | Palermo Ex | 1.8 GHz 128K | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| Sempron 2800+ | Palermo Ex | 1.6 GHz 256K | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| Sempron 2600+ | Palermo Ex | 1.6 GHz 128K | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
There are quite a few upcoming parts in the value desktop computing sector. Launching very soon will be the Ex stepping of the Palermo core, which will add - or rather enable - 64-bit extensions on all the Sempron parts. All of the presently available Sempron parts are for socket 754 (and even a few older socket A models that are being phased out), but we also have Sempron parts targeting socket 939 that should be launching any time now. Information contained within the roadmap actually seems to indicate that 3000+ and 3200+ Sempron parts have already started shipping for socket 939, though we haven't seen any. It could be that they are going straight to OEMs, as the same parts show up as DTR (Desktop Replacement) notebook processors.
Looking forward to 2006, we still have a few more speed bumps to the Sempron line on both sockets with the 3500+, 3600+, and 3700+ parts. Somewhat interesting to note is that the Sempron 3700+ will apparently be a 2.2 GHz 256K cache part on both sockets - normally AMD has rated the equivalent clock speend and cache socket 939 parts slightly higher than socket 754 parts due to the dual-channel memory support of 939.
Besides the above value processors, we also have some information on the upcoming M2 value processor. Code named Manila, the processor won't support the virtualization and security features that other M2 processors have. That isn't too surprising, as frankly we expect virtualization technologies to be far more useful for the performance sector. However, it will support dual channel DDR2; typically we don't see dual channel support on value processors, so that's a welcome change.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
51 Comments
View All Comments
Zebo - Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - link
Hehe I hear ya this new format is confusing to say the least.. I much prefered the "flat" version. :)Anyway isolating CPU power today is faily trivial to do since all modern CPU's are fed by the 12V 4 or 8 pin dedicated auxiliary power connector. For specfic methodology please look here: http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_venice/5.shtml">http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_venice/5.shtml
JarredWalton - Saturday, August 6, 2005 - link
SO the 4-pin ATX12V is *only* for the CPU and the CPU doesn't draw power from anything else? Damn, learn something new each day! I guess a clamp around the two +12V lines would be able to measure the current with moderate accuracy.KristopherKubicki - Sunday, July 24, 2005 - link
Zebo: We have one coming up... And yes; Turion can't compare to Pentium M per watt.Pentium M isn't worthwhile outside of mobility; and no one argues it's an awesome mobility chip. Turion is nice, but AMD has an incredibly long way to go to catch up in the mobile sector. Expect an AnandTech review in the near future, although it's going to have a desktop focus.
Kristopher
Zebo - Sunday, July 24, 2005 - link
"AMD has been trailing in the mobile performance per Watt competition ever since Intel launched the Pentium M. "How do you know? You refuse to do a turion notbook review. Actually it's been 6 months since you've done a moblie review what's up with that? I sent anand an email, never heard back from him.
Anyway lets look at someone who HAS done the legwork;) :P Albeit not anandtech high quality standards.. just a few synthetics and batt life similarly equiped.
http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/hardware/notebooks/0,...
I know Intel fans think the Pentium M is the second coming of christ but the numbers simply don't bear that out.. Turion, at least in acer form, is very competitive performance and battery wise with the Pentium M, indescerable really, and it's usually cheaper.
Like this sweet little MSI jobber... Purdy and only $700
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/print.php?cid...
.. it's about time for Anandtech to clear up the noise with a real review don't you think?....
JarredWalton - Saturday, July 23, 2005 - link
20 - The current is reported from the AMD specs listed in the roadmap. While there will certainly be parts that run at lower power output than the maximum we've listed, the highest performing parts will likely approach those values.Maybe someone with a better knowledge of electronics can verify this, but just because the socket can supply 80 Amps on current 939 boards doesn't mean the CPU has to use all 80 Amps, right? It's like a water pipe going to the house: it might provide enough water pressure to run all the sinks at once, but the individual sink may never use that much water.
Anyway, 80 A * 1.4V = 112W. Revision E 939 is as follows: X2 chips have a TDP of 110W, meaning they can use everything the socket provides. FX-939 can use 104W, and the single core chips are 89W. Revision C/D used higher voltages but lower Amps and had FX-55 at 104W, FX-53 and other single cores as 89W. 60A * 1.7V = 102W, roughly the value listed for FX-55. The 1.5V chips were 90W in comparison.
Finally, we have M2 parts slated to use 95A. 95A * 1.3V = 123.5W, indicating that the FX will use all the Amps available. X2 will remain at 110W, so it will either use less of the available Amperage or else it will run at lower voltages. Single core will be 104W, slightly lower than X2. These are all maximums, however, so the mid-range parts probably won't be any worse than current parts; it's AMD building for future parts - they have to make sure that all motherboards can supply the power required by the top chips.
Jeff7181 - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
Thanks for the response Jarred. Your response is accurate, but that doesn't explain this quote from the article.That's impossible unless the revision E San Diego's run on 1.125 volts. I understand 80A and 90W are "worst case scenario's." Still, it can't have a maximum amperage of 80 AND a maximum wattage of 90 because that means the voltage will NEVER be over 1.125 volts.
aldamon - Saturday, July 23, 2005 - link
With regards to your comments on the Newark 4000+:"As virtually any socket 754 board should have no trouble supporting these mobile variants, 754 owners looking to upgrade for additional CPU performance might be interested in checking out these parts."
My 8KDA3J won't support Newarks and as far as I can tell it's just a BIOS limitation. The 8KDA3+ is in the same predicament. It would be nice if Epox would make a effort to support ALL 754 CPUs for our older S754 boards. They're being stubborn so far.
PrinceGaz - Saturday, July 23, 2005 - link
#19 Jarred- you make some good points on whether the 4400+ is really a better buy than the 4200+. Yes I do intend to overclock as I'll be pairing whichever I go for up with a DFI mobo, and a Thermalright XP-90C heatsink (and suitable fan) which I've heard is one of the best coolers, and seeing what I can get out of it.The upcoming 3800+ is tempting as it should be a good bit cheaper, but I'm concerned that what they'll be are all the speed-binned rejects of both the Manchester and Toledo cored X2's that had very little headroom. The Toledo parts would have half the cache disabled of course, providing a further means for AMD to offload rejects with a fault in part of the cache (similar to what they did with .
I think I'll wait and see rather than possibly spend a small fortune on a 4400+ that overclocks no better than a part little more than half the price. Another month hardly matters as I'm not desperate, but it does seem a bit of a waste running my two new 1GB PC3200 CAS2 sticks on an old KT266A mobo at 138 FSB :)
Jeff7181 - Saturday, July 23, 2005 - link
Kristopher Kubicki & Jarred Walton... could you explain something to me?Watts = volts x amps
90 watt CPU running on 1.4 volts = 65 amps (90/1.4=~65)... how'd you get 80?????
JarredWalton - Friday, July 22, 2005 - link
13 - PrinceGaz, I realize that having more cache can be helpful, but in general is the $100 price increase worth the extra 4% performance for the X2 4400+? More importantly (if you're willing to overclock), it's probably $250 more than the X2 CPU that was mentioned above. and still only slightly faster. If I could get my hands on them, I'd like to try overclocking the 4200+ and 4400+. My instinct tells me the extra cache may reduce overclocking headroom a bit, making the two basically equal in performance.18 - I don't think DDR1 will dry up that quickly, so Q2'06 seems reasonable for DDR2. The 65nm parts from Intel are going to be the interesting competition. Pressler/Cedar Mill aren't too special, but Conroe/Merom could present a tought matchup for K8+DDR2. Unless K9 is coming out sooner rather than later, the new architecture from Intel may regain the performance crown for a while. Still, competition is good for us, so whatever happens happens. 200 MHz per quarter is going to be unlikely for a while, though. Some are saying we'll stay in the 2 to 4 GHz range for many many years and just add more cores.
As for DDR2/3 and FB-DIMM, while the base technology may be similar, I'd be surprised if the DIMMs are interchangeable. FB-DIMM is really targeting servers/workstations, where the current 2 DIMM per channel maximum memory is extremely limiting. It won't be quite as fast, but it should allow for 4 DIMMs per channel at least, and possibly more (?). Like registered vs. unbuffered DIMMs, the boards/chipsets/CPUs will either require FB-DIMM or not support it at all I think.