No 2.6GHz Phenom in Dec

[21stHermit]

According to DigiTimes today, AMD will NOT have a 2.6GHz Phenom for sale in December, 2007.

Here's some of the article:

"Amid stiff barriers from 90nm and 65nm conversion, sources at Taiwan motherboard makers do not expect AMD to roll out the highest frequency 2.6GHz version of its new quad-core Phenom CPU family before 2008.

AMD declined to comment on the speculation, saying that it cannot reveal details about the upcoming Phenom launch.

The sources noted that AMD will only introduce two Phenom CPU at the November 19 launch, the 2.2GHz 9500 and 2.3GHz 9600 models. A 2.4GHz 9700 model is expected to launch during December, but a 2.6GHz one will not be introduced until 2008, they noted.

While expressing satisfaction about the new 65nm desktop CPU lineup, the motherboard makers explained the key reason for AMD failing to meet its roadmap on the launch of a 2.6GHz Phenom is because of barriers relating to conversion to 65nm."

One has to wonder if 65nm is a problem, how AMD expects to have 45nm next summer?

It would appear that IC fab IS Rocket Science!!!

 

[Arkaign]

So the 9700 name rises again!! Woot!

In other news, AMD unable to deliver a competitive product!?

SHOCKER!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dravic]

Originally posted by: 21stHermit
According to DigiTimes today, AMD will NOT have a 2.6GHz Phenom for sale in December, 2007.

Here's some of the article:

"Amid stiff barriers from 90nm and 65nm conversion, sources at Taiwan motherboard makers do not expect AMD to roll out the highest frequency 2.6GHz version of its new quad-core Phenom CPU family before 2008.

AMD declined to comment on the speculation, saying that it cannot reveal details about the upcoming Phenom launch.

The sources noted that AMD will only introduce two Phenom CPU at the November 19 launch, the 2.2GHz 9500 and 2.3GHz 9600 models. A 2.4GHz 9700 model is expected to launch during December, but a 2.6GHz one will not be introduced until 2008, they noted.

While expressing satisfaction about the new 65nm desktop CPU lineup, the motherboard makers explained the key reason for AMD failing to meet its roadmap on the launch of a 2.6GHz Phenom is because of barriers relating to conversion to 65nm."

One has to wonder if 65nm is a problem, how AMD expects to have 45nm next summer?

It would appear that IC fab IS Rocket Science!!!

I didnt think AMD's timeline had Phenom process on the desktop till 1Q08 anyway? Weren't they suppose to focusing on the server side till then?

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
So the 9700 name rises again!! Woot!

In other news, AMD unable to deliver a competitive product!?

SHOCKER!!!!!!!!!

Who says it will not be competitive? No one even has benchmarks yet for the Phenom, yet people are speculating that it will not compete with Intel. The Phenom only has to come close to the Pernym to be competitive. How AMD prices these processors will determine how competitive they will be.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Dravic

I didnt think AMD's timeline had Phenom process on the desktop till 1Q08 anyway? Weren't they suppose to focusing on the server side till then?

AMD's timeline for Phenom has been Q4 for the initial launch for quite some time. Q1 08 is when they are supposed to introduce the higher clocked versions.

 

[21stHermit]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
So the 9700 name rises again!! Woot!!!

I clugged this from the DailyTech article on Tuesday if you want to read more.

What we know from today's DailyTech article:

Phenom X4 9500 ...... 95-Watt ..... 2.2GHz .... $280.00 ... HD9500WCGDBOX
Phenom X4 9600 ...... ...................2.3GHz .... $320 ....... HD9600WCGDBOX
Phenom X4 9700 .... 125-Watt ....... 2.4GHz .... $330 ...... HD9700XAGDBOX

I think we know why their is no 3.0GHz!!!

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: 21stHermit
According to DigiTimes today, AMD will NOT have a 2.6GHz Phenom for sale in December, 2007.

Here's some of the article:

"Amid stiff barriers from 90nm and 65nm conversion, sources at Taiwan motherboard makers do not expect AMD to roll out the highest frequency 2.6GHz version of its new quad-core Phenom CPU family before 2008.

AMD declined to comment on the speculation, saying that it cannot reveal details about the upcoming Phenom launch.

The sources noted that AMD will only introduce two Phenom CPU at the November 19 launch, the 2.2GHz 9500 and 2.3GHz 9600 models. A 2.4GHz 9700 model is expected to launch during December, but a 2.6GHz one will not be introduced until 2008, they noted.

While expressing satisfaction about the new 65nm desktop CPU lineup, the motherboard makers explained the key reason for AMD failing to meet its roadmap on the launch of a 2.6GHz Phenom is because of barriers relating to conversion to 65nm."

One has to wonder if 65nm is a problem, how AMD expects to have 45nm next summer?

It would appear that IC fab IS Rocket Science!!!

Conversion to 65nm? AMD is now 100% 65nm production (there are no longer any 90nm lines now that Fab 30 is closed for the Fab 38 conversion), so I don't quite understand what they mean...

 

[sonoran]

Originally posted by: 21stHermit
One has to wonder if 65nm is a problem, how AMD expects to have 45nm next summer?

It would appear that IC fab IS Rocket Science!!!

Well, I don't know how challenging rocket science is, but I can assure you that fabricating 65nm CPU's (and doing so by the millions) is by no means a trivial feat. Working for their competition, I can appreciate at least some of the challenges they face.

I do wonder if this is their version of Prescott - late not because of process issues, but because of design issues? Looks like leakage is also becoming a serious issue, much as it did with Prescott. 125W at 2.4GHz? Ouch. And it gets worse - power consumption is an exponential function of clock frequency - not linear. So higher clock speeds would be MUCH worse in terms of power consumption.

Here's hoping they sort things out soon. The CPU biz would be soooo boring without the competition.

* Not speaking for Intel Corp *

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Arkaign
So the 9700 name rises again!! Woot!

In other news, AMD unable to deliver a competitive product!?

SHOCKER!!!!!!!!!

Who says it will not be competitive? No one even has benchmarks yet for the Phenom, yet people are speculating that it will not compete with Intel. The Phenom only has to come close to the Pernym to be competitive. How AMD prices these processors will determine how competitive they will be.

Well, I hope it's good, but if the Anand Barcy checkout and various leaked benchies add up, then Phenom = dud. From most indications, for desktop apps, the Phenom will be slower clock-for-clock than even Kentsfield, which means that to compete with a Q6600 (at stock, mind you), they'd have to launch a ~2.6ghz part @ $300 or less. Is that very likely? Bah. Let's hope it's not as dire as it seems, but it's been a brutal time for AMD lately, delay after delay, disappointment after disappointment.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Well, I hope it's good, but if the Anand Barcy checkout and various leaked benchies add up, then Phenom = dud. From most indications, for desktop apps, the Phenom will be slower clock-for-clock than even Kentsfield, which means that to compete with a Q6600 (at stock, mind you), they'd have to launch a ~2.6ghz part @ $300 or less. Is that very likely? Bah. Let's hope it's not as dire as it seems, but it's been a brutal time for AMD lately, delay after delay, disappointment after disappointment.

Intel went through the exact same thing with the Prescott, yet managed to stay competitive and outsell AMD 3 to 1. AMD is still increasing sales of it's outdated Athlon64 line despite being significantly slower clock for clock than Intel. I agree that things look dire from the enthusiasts point of view. Regular computer buyers tend to be a little more budget conscious than concerned about having the absolute fastest CPU. If Phenom is a disappointment to us, it still may be a hit with the general public if the price of the platform is right.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Well, I hope it's good, but if the Anand Barcy checkout and various leaked benchies add up, then Phenom = dud. From most indications, for desktop apps, the Phenom will be slower clock-for-clock than even Kentsfield, which means that to compete with a Q6600 (at stock, mind you), they'd have to launch a ~2.6ghz part @ $300 or less. Is that very likely? Bah. Let's hope it's not as dire as it seems, but it's been a brutal time for AMD lately, delay after delay, disappointment after disappointment.

Intel went through the exact same thing with the Prescott, yet managed to stay competitive and outsell AMD 3 to 1. AMD is still increasing sales of it's outdated Athlon64 line despite being significantly slower clock for clock than Intel. I agree that things look dire from the enthusiasts point of view. Regular computer buyers tend to be a little more budget conscious than concerned about having the absolute fastest CPU. If Phenom is a disappointment to us, it still may be a hit with the general public if the price of the platform is right.

Well I can heartedly agree with that. If they can really get this thing on the market at the right price it's a solid performer, then it will be a good value, and buy time for them to crank it up to meet performance parity with Intel. It's just a hard pill to swallow, an AMD launch that will potentially be weaker than the Intel side.

When AMD brought out their high-end 486/586 chips, they outperformed Intel
*dark days where K5 was very weak against Pentium/MMX*
When K6 came out, it was better than PMMX (P2 was too $$$ to really compare against)
When K7 came out, it was better than P3-Katmai
When Thunderbird came out, it was better than P3-Coppermine
When Athlon XP came out, it was better than P4-Willamette
*dark days where P4-Northwood was better than Athlon XP*
When Athlon64 came out, it was better than P4 (ALL)
When X2 came out, it was better than PD
*dark days where C2D/C2Q are far better than AMD (ALL)*

So, historically, AMD has been kicking butt in the performance area, and it's sad to see that status slip so severely. If AMD can at least bring out a product that gives 85% of the performance for less or equal to the same percentage in price, I think they are still in the game.

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
So the 9700 name rises again!! Woot!

In other news, AMD unable to deliver a competitive product!?

SHOCKER!!!!!!!!!

LOL! I wonder if it will be a perfect match with my ATi 9700 Pro?

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: sonoran
Ouch. And it gets worse - power consumption is an exponential function of clock frequency - not linear. So higher clock speeds would be MUCH worse in terms of power consumption.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Dynamic power = c*v^2*f. If you increase frequency by increasing voltage, you get an approximately cubic increase in power, and if you increase frequency by improving the transistors or fixing slow circuits, you get a roughly linear increase. Are you assuming static power is the largest knob in play?

 

[dmens]

cubic increase

squared? unless the voltage is increased at the same scaling as frequency in order to get it working, in which case, it would be cubic

the power numbers at idle looked decent so static leakage imho is not sticking out. no one outside would know for sure.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: soonerproud
Who says it will not be competitive? No one even has benchmarks yet for the Phenom, yet people are speculating that it will not compete with Intel. The Phenom only has to come close to the Pernym to be competitive. How AMD prices these processors will determine how competitive they will be.

This is the real answer. Back in the days of Athlon XP and Athlon 64, AMD never really had the performance advantage, but they were way cheaper. If they can do that with the Phenom, they'll be set

 

[bfdd]

I was just thinking, these could be great HTPC quad cores especially the low end teamed up with like a hd2600xt, especially since they're gona be cheap.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
This is the real answer. Back in the days of Athlon XP and Athlon 64, AMD never really had the performance advantage, but they were way cheaper.

Where did you get that idea?

 

[bradley]

Amazing what happens in the absense of pure scientific data. Similar to what happens in the absense of light or oxygen. 9 days, 19 hours...

 

[imported_TechKid]

Wat the heck is AMD doing? The XP pooned the Northwood and the 64 owned Prescott and now AMD get smahsed to kingdom come by Core 2 Duos. Their new poducts can't even beat Intel's counterparts from what I've heard. This is shame.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: TechKid
Wat the heck is AMD doing? The XP pooned the Northwood and the 64 owned Prescott and now AMD get smahsed to kingdom come by Core 2 Duos. Their new poducts can't even beat Intel's counterparts from what I've heard. This is shame.

Actually, Northwood C's held the performance crown until A64 hit.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: dmens

cubic increase

squared? unless the voltage is increased at the same scaling as frequency in order to get it working, in which case, it would be cubic

Right, you're increasing voltage to increase the frequency, so you're increasing all 3 together => cubic. For simplification, I'm assuming linear voltage increases buy you linear frequency increases, but over small regions that's reasonably accurate.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Arkaign
So the 9700 name rises again!! Woot!

In other news, AMD unable to deliver a competitive product!?

SHOCKER!!!!!!!!!

Who says it will not be competitive? No one even has benchmarks yet for the Phenom, yet people are speculating that it will not compete with Intel. The Phenom only has to come close to the Pernym to be competitive. How AMD prices these processors will determine how competitive they will be.

I think the general consensus is that if a company continues to promise a product, delays and falls back on delivering that product, is unable to produce working samples of that product, and continually has to 'change the story,' that qualifies as failing to deliver a competitive product.

I want AMD to rise again, but they're sure as hell not going to do it at this rate.

 

[nachovidal2]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
When AMD brought out their high-end 486/586 chips, they outperformed Intel
*dark days where K5 was very weak against Pentium/MMX*
When K6 came out, it was better than PMMX (P2 was too $$$ to really compare against)
When K7 came out, it was better than P3-Katmai
When Thunderbird came out, it was better than P3-Coppermine
When Athlon XP came out, it was better than P4-Willamette
*dark days where P4-Northwood was better than Athlon XP*
When Athlon64 came out, it was better than P4 (ALL)
When X2 came out, it was better than PD
*dark days where C2D/C2Q are far better than AMD (ALL)*

So, historically, AMD has been kicking butt in the performance area, and it's sad to see that status slip so severely. If AMD can at least bring out a product that gives 85% of the performance for less or equal to the same percentage in price, I think they are still in the game.

Intel 386s outperformed AMD 386 (ALL).
Intel 486dx/dx2/dx4 outperformed AMD 486/586 (ALL).
Intel P2 outperformed K6,6-2,6-3 (ALL), even celerons outclassed K6 in games.

AMD has "only" really outperformed Intel from K7 days to Intel Core gen. And never so clearly as Intel is doing now with C2D against X2.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: nachovidal2

Originally posted by: Arkaign
When AMD brought out their high-end 486/586 chips, they outperformed Intel
*dark days where K5 was very weak against Pentium/MMX*
When K6 came out, it was better than PMMX (P2 was too $$$ to really compare against)
When K7 came out, it was better than P3-Katmai
When Thunderbird came out, it was better than P3-Coppermine
When Athlon XP came out, it was better than P4-Willamette
*dark days where P4-Northwood was better than Athlon XP*
When Athlon64 came out, it was better than P4 (ALL)
When X2 came out, it was better than PD
*dark days where C2D/C2Q are far better than AMD (ALL)*

So, historically, AMD has been kicking butt in the performance area, and it's sad to see that status slip so severely. If AMD can at least bring out a product that gives 85% of the performance for less or equal to the same percentage in price, I think they are still in the game.

Intel 386s outperformed AMD 386 (ALL).
Intel 486dx/dx2/dx4 outperformed AMD 486/586 (ALL).
Intel P2 outperformed K6,6-2,6-3 (ALL), even celerons outclassed K6 in games.

AMD has "only" really outperformed Intel from K7 days to Intel Core gen. And never so clearly as Intel is doing now with C2D against X2.

Actually, AMD has never held the performace crown for an entire cpu generation.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: 21stHermit
According to DigiTimes today, AMD will NOT have a 2.6GHz Phenom for sale in December, 2007.

Here's some of the article:

"Amid stiff barriers from 90nm and 65nm conversion, sources at Taiwan motherboard makers do not expect AMD to roll out the highest frequency 2.6GHz version of its new quad-core Phenom CPU family before 2008.

AMD declined to comment on the speculation, saying that it cannot reveal details about the upcoming Phenom launch.

The sources noted that AMD will only introduce two Phenom CPU at the November 19 launch, the 2.2GHz 9500 and 2.3GHz 9600 models. A 2.4GHz 9700 model is expected to launch during December, but a 2.6GHz one will not be introduced until 2008, they noted.

While expressing satisfaction about the new 65nm desktop CPU lineup, the motherboard makers explained the key reason for AMD failing to meet its roadmap on the launch of a 2.6GHz Phenom is because of barriers relating to conversion to 65nm."

One has to wonder if 65nm is a problem, how AMD expects to have 45nm next summer?

It would appear that IC fab IS Rocket Science!!!

Conversion to 65nm? AMD is now 100% 65nm production (there are no longer any 90nm lines now that Fab 30 is closed for the Fab 38 conversion), so I don't quite understand what they mean...

Haven't all AM2s been 65nm???