Launch of E2000 CPUs to mark the end of Pentium D

[Marduk_25]

Next month Intel will be releasing the 65nm-built E2160 and E2140 processors and that will mark the beginning of the end for the Pentium D 900s which are set to be phased out by 2008.

- Source: http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=14956&catid=2

There's a song in here somewhere :D .

'Bye bye love
Bye bye happiness
Hello loneliness
I think Im gonna cry
Bye bye love
Bye bye sweet caress
Hello emptiness
I feel like I could die
Bye bye my love, goodbye'

Simon And Garfunkel - Bye Bye Love :party2:

[nguyenquochuy]

Here in my country, Vietnam, These 2 models have already sold in stores :D

[Shintai]

Ouch, cant be long till then X2 3600 dips below 50$.

[DeathReborn]

- Source: http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=14956&catid=2

There's a song in here somewhere :D .

'Bye bye love
Bye bye happiness
Hello loneliness
I think Im gonna cry
Bye bye love
Bye bye sweet caress
Hello emptiness
I feel like I could die
Bye bye my love, goodbye'

Simon And Garfunkel - Bye Bye Love :party2:

Everly Brothers did it so much better though ;).

I do wonder how they are going to fit in the Core 2 Solo/Celeron CPU's if the Pentium E2xxx chips are literaly cheap as chips.

[DEVIL K-ce]

Next month - lol

I have retail box E2140 :) Not tested yet. Also 2160 is ready to sold in shop.


Martin

[MAS]

Pentium E to be replaced with Pentium F (45nm) (in alphabetical order) =)

[LOE]

there are 2 models available here also

the 1.6 Ghz part has almost the price of a 3600+

but I think it will perform worse, reviews indicated the 2000 series is about 20% slower than the 4000, that are a bit slower compared to the 6000

[Shintai]

there are 2 models available here also

the 1.6 Ghz part has almost the price of a 3600+

but I think it will perform worse, reviews indicated the 2000 series is about 20% slower than the 4000, that are a bit slower compared to the 6000

Interresting...

Got anything to back it up? Because this site dont seem to agree with you.

Its about 10% when OCed to 3Ghz. And alot less at stock speeds. And the X2 3600 looks..well. You can see.

http://www.pconline.com.cn/diy/cpu/reviews/0704/993288.html

http://shintai.ambition.cz/pics/E2160-1.jpg
http://shintai.ambition.cz/pics/E2160-2.jpg
http://shintai.ambition.cz/pics/E2160-3.jpg
http://shintai.ambition.cz/pics/E2160-4.jpg
http://shintai.ambition.cz/pics/E2160-5.jpg

[Neon Biker]

Well, it's about time they threw those stupid NetBurst chips into the garbage can of IT history.

BTW, those benchies look good. The performance delta between 1MB and 2MB Conroes seems even smaller than between 2MB and 4MB. :D

[pengizzle]

we consider these benches trustworthy?

[Shintai]

we consider these benches trustworthy?

More here:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6765

[pengizzle]

more here:
http://xtreview.com/temp.php?search1=1
they show a 15% gap between E2160@3GHZ and 3600+3GHZ and a 30% difference between 3600+@3Ghz and E4300@3GHz. Thus the difference between E2160@3GHz and E4300@3GHz should be about 15%. Cache makes a difference i guess.

[[XC] gomeler]

Of course cache makes a difference, similar difference between 2MB and 4MB E6xxx chips. Glad to hear that Netburst is FINALLY dying, took forever and a day.

[WillyWonka]

:banana::banana::banana::banana:burst finally bites the dust. Good riddance :up:

[HamidFULL]

best budget cooming!

[Ron 61]

Looks like the best bang for buck cpu there is. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=143549

[xlink]

i thought netburst died in 2003...

[nn_step]

Ouch, cant be long till then X2 3600 dips below 50$.

Since they are already at $59 shipped. That isn't exactly a stretch

[Shintai]

Since they are already at $59 shipped. That isn't exactly a stretch

That means they are close, if not already, selling them with a loss.

[alpha0ne]

Its great that Intel can release such a powerful DC at this low price range but I will continue to play with AMD Brisbane 3600+ and over simply because of motherboard choice and low cost compared to similar Intel compatible boards

[pengizzle]

@stock the difference between E4300 and E2160 is negligible (1-5%), but the higher u OC, eg @3GHz, theres already a 15% difference between E4300@3Ghz and E2160@3GHZ.
How come?

[Miwo]

Good riddance, Netburst needed to be put away :)

Intel is really aiming at AMDs throat with these chips. They are about as cheap as the lowest end x2 3600s, yet they can still be OCed to 3.0+GHz on easy air. I'd love to see how well these undervolt, I'm sure they'd make for some killer HTPC CPUs and silent systems

[Shintai]

@stock the difference between E4300 and E2160 is negligible (1-5%), but the higher u OC, eg @3GHz, theres already a 15% difference between E4300@3Ghz and E2160@3GHZ.
How come?

Memory latency and speed.

[LuckyNV]

Memory latency and speed.

and cache :)

[Shintai]

and cache :)

It was the answer to the cache question. Cache hides/remove those 2 issues.

[LOE]

well, those chips are looking good, if they are indeed faster clock for clock than brisbane

whats the average overclock with the stock cooler? and what temps?

[nn_step]

That means they are close, if not already, selling them with a loss.

actually Minus vendor costs/profit and manufacturing costs. Each an every single 3600+ X2 gains AMD about $45 profit :fact: So I wouldn't call that a loss
(all of it going to R&D but no actual loss)

[AkXb70]

actually Minus vendor costs/profit and manufacturing costs. Each an every single 3600+ X2 gains AMD about $45 profit :fact: So I wouldn't call that a loss
(all of it going to R&D but no actual loss)

You're saying that out of $59
-$45 pure profit

leaves $14 to manufacture and figure in dealer markups?

I find that VERY hard to believe...I'm not going to say theyre making a loss on it, but that it only costs AMD less than $14 to build, package, and sell (ie tacking on dealer/distributor markups) seems impossible.

[Shintai]

actually Minus vendor costs/profit and manufacturing costs. Each an every single 3600+ X2 gains AMD about $45 profit :fact: So I wouldn't call that a loss
(all of it going to R&D but no actual loss)

AMD posted a gross margin of 30%, not over 300% or so. You should really get back to reality one day. 45$ is hardly, if even enough to cover the cost of the production of the X2 3600.

[savantu]

actually Minus vendor costs/profit and manufacturing costs. Each an every single 3600+ X2 gains AMD about $45 profit :fact: So I wouldn't call that a loss
(all of it going to R&D but no actual loss)

Priceless...:rofl: :ROTF:

AMD had an ASP of $76 in Q4 2006 which probably droped in Q1 07.If with ~$70 ASP they made over half a billion loss , you claim they make a profit on the $59 3600+ ??!

Have you considered the fact that AMD gets on it probably $45-48 ? Intel's costs per CPU were estimated to be $40. AMD's are significantly higher no doubt.

I wouldn't be surprised that for each 3600+ they lose as much as they earn.

[nn_step]

Priceless...:rofl: :ROTF:

AMD had an ASP of $76 in Q4 2006 which probably droped in Q1 07.If with ~$70 ASP they made over half a billion loss , you claim they make a profit on the $59 3600+ ??!

Have you considered the fact that AMD gets on it probably $45-48 ? Intel's costs per CPU were estimated to be $40. AMD's are significantly higher no doubt.

I wouldn't be surprised that for each 3600+ they lose as much as they earn.

everyone seems to be forgetting that the vast majority of the cost is R&D.
You also forget that AMD's Process is leaner than Intel's (thus each CPU costs less to make)

[Stuperman]

CPU's are made of what? $0.03 worth of sand? Most of thier costs would be R&D, factory re-tooling, ect...

[savantu]

...
You also forget that AMD's Process is leaner than Intel's (thus each CPU costs less to make)

What a nice word , leaner...In what way ?

Do they have better economies of scale ?
Are they using smaller dies ?
Are they using a more mature process ?
Are they using fully ramped up FABs ?

[alexio]

CPU's are made of what? $0.03 worth of sand? Most of thier costs would be R&D, factory re-tooling, ect...
Silicon of the required purity is actually pretty expensive, however you are right about R&D and machines for productions being most expensive.

NN, you are smoking *something* too much. There is no way that AMD makes their CPU's cheaper. Intel has incredible high yields on 65nm and AMD is still shifting from the 90nm process.

[Periander6]

everyone seems to be forgetting that the vast majority of the cost is R&D.


Bzzzzzt wrong.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/Q107Results.pdf

Mar. 31, 2007
Cost of sales 886
Research and development 432
Marketing, general and administrative 335

R&D was 26% of AMD's operating expenses last quarter, excluding acquisition related costs. Pretty far from "vast majority", no?

You also forget that AMD's Process is leaner than Intel's (thus each CPU costs less to make)

From what are you pulling that statement?

[naokaji]

actually Minus vendor costs/profit and manufacturing costs. Each an every single 3600+ X2 gains AMD about $45 profit :fact: So I wouldn't call that a loss
(all of it going to R&D but no actual loss)

you forgot to factor in the cost for developing future products....


btt:

finally intel is going to kill off those damn netburst celeron's and p4's.... that's actually good news for once... (except for amd which had no real competition in the low end market due to selling athlon 64's at same price as intel its old netburst celeron's)

[Shintai]

everyone seems to be forgetting that the vast majority of the cost is R&D.
You also forget that AMD's Process is leaner than Intel's (thus each CPU costs less to make)

No, you seem to forget what gross margin is. It doesnt include R&D. And a single 300mm wafer cost alone over 2000$. Now the big complex math for you, how many brisbanes can you make on 1 300mm wafer. Let me give you a hint, its way below 100.

[nn_step]

No, you seem to forget what gross margin is. It doesnt include R&D. And a single 300mm wafer cost alone over 2000$. Now the big complex math for you, how many brisbanes can you make on 1 300mm wafer. Let me give you a hint, its way below 100.

umm wow, how are you that dumb.
Brisbane wafers are 8mm x 15.75mm for a grand total of 126mm^2
Which on a 300mm wafer, there are 510 candidates for working wafers. Now take into effect AMD's Industry leading yields and you get what I am saying.

[savantu]

umm wow, how are you that dumb.
Brisbane wafers are 8mm x 15.75mm for a grand total of 126mm^2
Which on a 300mm wafer, there are 510 candidates for working wafers. Now take into effect AMD's Industry leading yields and you get what I am saying.

There is no space between dies in your world , isn't it ? Or the fact that AMD had yields around ~50% for their fined tuned 90nm process.I doubt their 65nm process is there yet.

[Shintai]

umm wow, how are you that dumb.
Brisbane wafers are 8mm x 15.75mm for a grand total of 126mm^2
Which on a 300mm wafer, there are 510 candidates for working wafers. Now take into effect AMD's Industry leading yields and you get what I am saying.

Let me help you.
The real wafer price seems to be 3300-3400$ for a CPU grade wafer. About 2500$ for a memory one.

Then there is Murphys yield model:
http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/journal/rd/276/ibmrd2706M.pdf

And 510 dies? Not much left. Sure you didn´t count abit too many partial dies?

Does AMD have a 100% yield rate? Or more about 40-60%?
How about the factory, employees, chemicals and other production requirements are free? And here we not even talking about buying equipment. Simply what it uses and requires in the process. So again, what is AMDs gross margin? Is it over 300% or around 30%?

http://www.investorwords.com/2245/gross_margin.html
No R&D there or new factories.

Even Josh doesnt agree with you. And he seems to like AMD aswell:
http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/company/amd/65nm/amd_65_3.htm

[red]

So there is going to be a Pentium E series coming soon..

[nn_step]

There is no space between dies in your world , isn't it ? Or the fact that AMD had yields around ~50% for their fined tuned 90nm process.I doubt their 65nm process is there yet.

let us just assume that only 1/3 of the candidate actually work, that is still 170 Working wafers. (these are low yields, even for Intel)

[Verisimilitude]

Even Josh doesnt agree with you. And he seems to like AMD aswell:
http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/company/amd/65nm/amd_65_3.htm

Josh Walrath makes me <3 penstarsys and the fact that he benches everything and is as unbiased as they come.

[savantu]

Let me help you.
The real wafer price seems to be 3300-3400$ for a CPU grade wafer. About 2500$ for a memory one.

..

Is that the price for a SOI or bulk one ? I head around $5K for a SOI 90nm grade wafer.

[Frank M]

Guys, personal attacks are :down:

The news is about E21x0 cpu-s.


I'll take one with a P35 board as nicely-performing cheap oc'er and a placeholder
for a 45nm QC-upgrade sometime next year. Nice chips. Funny they are called
Pentiums... :D

[xlink]

i seem to recallhearing 20$/CPu figures before. then add in a 10$ heatsink and 5$ worth of packaging.

that's ~$35 a CPU in terms of cost to AMD anything above that is profit. if they sell the CPu for around $60 and newegg or whoever sells it for around $70-80, that's still around a $25 profit(someone tell me if my numbers sound crazy)

[mAJORD]

Well, when you can sell a 90nm sempron for as low as, what 30 $US (40 au) retail, boxed with HS, that would make some sense..

[LOE]

There is no way amd sell a chip with loss

they better dig a hole and jump in

If a x2 3600+ indeed costs more to make than it actually sells, AMD wound discontinue it, I doubt there is a single chip thats not capable of running at atleast 2.5 ghz

bump the freq up, and sell it for 20$ more...

a company can offord to sell at loss only products that it need to throw away, like chips with defected cache, but thats not really a loss, even 1$ is better than throwing it away, insted sell it as an inferior product and gain at least some of the cash it costed to make...

[duploxxx]

Silicon of the required purity is actually pretty expensive, however you are right about R&D and machines for productions being most expensive.

NN, you are smoking *something* too much. There is no way that AMD makes their CPU's cheaper. Intel has incredible high yields on 65nm and AMD is still shifting from the 90nm process.

says who? you?

any links with figures on that high yield statement?

amd still shifting? fab 36 only has 65nm waffers.
fab 30 is in progress of changing to 300mm and 45nm Q12008
chatered is producing 90nm

they are closing the gap faster than you think.

so yes amd is still shifting. even Intel has just stopped producing netburst on 90nm.

There is no space between dies in your world , isn't it ? Or the fact that AMD had yields around ~50% for their fined tuned 90nm process.I doubt their 65nm process is there yet.

again.... nice statement any decent source on that one?