CPU-Z AMD 65nm Brisbane

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

12-04-2006, 03:22 PM
nn_step

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrace215

Don't kid yourself. It's clocked lower 'cos it doesn't clock any higher right now. The schedule slip was an indication of process troubles, and the low launch clocks confirm it.

umm just a little bit of History for you.
180nm
130nm
90nm
all done on AMD's LOW END FIRST.
Once the process is perfected and ONLY then will the high end migrate to it.
nVidia does the exact same thing.
It is very low risk and the "Smart" thing to do
the whole R520 issue was a matter of Process problems constantly delaying a wonderful design.
12-04-2006, 03:33 PM
metro.cl

yep is the way companies test the process, if you go with a simpler designs is easier to fix it, if you go with a more complex design is harder.
12-04-2006, 03:37 PM
wedfighter

i dont see any vcore change by this new 65nsm size
am i wrong?
12-04-2006, 04:05 PM
dinos22

well that was a bit of a flop :(
12-04-2006, 04:41 PM
terrace215

Quote:

Originally Posted by nn_step

umm just a little bit of History for you.
180nm
130nm
90nm
all done on AMD's LOW END FIRST.
Once the process is perfected and ONLY then will the high end migrate to it.
nVidia does the exact same thing.
It is very low risk and the "Smart" thing to do
the whole R520 issue was a matter of Process problems constantly delaying a wonderful design.

No, that's not really accurate. 90nm debuted with mobile, for low power, true, but a 400MHz deficit is quite large, and combined with a long-delayed launch, should tell you something about the health of the process.
12-04-2006, 04:43 PM
terrace215

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lead Head

Do you know from personal experience that they are clocking lower? AMD wants to make sure that 65nm is a proven process with the mainstream. If they moved right in with the high end server/FX stuff, and there is problems in the process, people won't be happy. They can't ramp the clocks up higher on the mainstream stuff yet too, because it would be performing better then the FX series, Which would blow the whole point to even buying an FX. Look what happened with ATi and the R520, they released new tech with higher clock speeds on an unproven process, and they got tons of problems that needed to be worked out before they could even launch it. Even Intel did these kind of tactics. When they moved to the 65nm Presler core. Those parts weren't clocked any higher then Prescott, and no one doubted that they didn't clock higher then 90nm Prescott. Intel was testing out 65nm before they put C2D on full production. Simple as that. Also when Intel was going to the Presler core, NO ONE doubted that they could clock higher then the 90nm Prescott, but with AMD, tons of people believe 65nm is clocking WORSE then 90nm, even though Intel did the same thing with the same launch clocks.

EDIT:
@accord, yes it would have helped the launch, but 65nm is still an unproven process, If AMD sent out 65nm FX parts with defects, imagine what that would have done to the launch.

The AMD roadmap, that shows only 100-200MHz in clock bump over the 2.6GHz 65nm top clock @ launch, 2 QUARTERS down the road, should also tell you something. :)
12-04-2006, 05:01 PM
VulgarHandle

i'm sorry, but i just don't get the arguement of... lower clocked mass production instead of high-end because they wouldn't want the FX's to have bugs....

that argument can only mean that if there would be a bug, the mass would be the one's to get it first? you think Dell would like that? having just launched with AMD's only to have them be bugged? what's AMD to say? "Sorry, Rev H is on it's way." I don't think so.

It's marketing, pure and simple. They don't want to release chips at clocks or performance greater than their high-end out now. That way they can still sell off their supplies of older CPU's. This way they can also supply Dell and HP and other OEMs their 65nm, which will force the other channels(etailers and such) to dry up the those older supplies. sucks for us, but hey, it will come. at least, that's how i see it.

we all know AMD dosn't have the FAB capacity to hard launch with all ranges of speeds covered and enough to cover the big oems and all other channels.
12-04-2006, 05:13 PM
Lithan

Quote:

Originally Posted by VulgarHandle

i'm sorry, but i just don't get the arguement of... lower clocked mass production instead of high-end because they wouldn't want the FX's to have bugs....

that argument can only mean that if there would be a bug, the mass would be the one's to get it first? you think Dell would like that? having just launched with AMD's only to have them be bugged? what's AMD to say? "Sorry, Rev H is on it's way." I don't think so.

It's marketing, pure and simple. They don't want to release chips at clocks or performance greater than their high-end out now. That way they can still sell off their supplies of older CPU's. This way they can also supply Dell and HP and other OEMs their 65nm, which will force the other channels(etailers and such) to dry up the those older supplies. sucks for us, but hey, it will come. at least, that's how i see it.

we all know AMD dosn't have the FAB capacity to hard launch with all ranges of speeds covered and enough to cover the big oems and all other channels.

That's what I think it boils down to. AMD doesnt have the capacity to migrate much over to 65nm yet, and it's probably assumed that the dies won't be as consistant for 65nm as 90nm... so they want to be able to use as many as possible without downbinning, hence not initially converting their flagship models to 65nm.
This is also where the savings of the new process can be realized best, isn't it? With lower end processors, more of the cost goes towards the raw material. Thus with a shrink of the raw material, a greater percent of that origional cost can be shifted to profit versus a lesser percent when the higher end models are compaired. This assumes that AMD has good enough yields on 90nm to fill demand for the top tier models that aren't initially having 65nm counterparts released.
12-04-2006, 05:28 PM
ozzimark

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrace215

No, that's not really accurate. 90nm debuted with mobile, for low power, true, but a 400MHz deficit is quite large, and combined with a long-delayed launch, should tell you something about the health of the process.

no, it really is accurate. how much did 90nm lag behind 130nm in mhz AT STOCK SPEEDS when it first hit consumer desktop parts? about 400mhz.. ;) says nothing about overclockability btw. makes perfect sense to introduce the low-end parts in the new tech first, as mentioned: easier to make, and it's where the money is

typical of amd. nothing more, you're reading wayyyyyy too far into it, and obviously haven't been around for the game amd plays for very long :p:
12-04-2006, 05:30 PM
DilTech

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrace215

No, that's not really accurate. 90nm debuted with mobile, for low power, true, but a 400MHz deficit is quite large, and combined with a long-delayed launch, should tell you something about the health of the process.

No...

90nm debuted with winchester, which had a, get this, 400 mhz deficit between the top-end winchester(2.2 ghz) and the top-end 130nm FX-55(2.6 ghz).

See a pattern forming here?
12-04-2006, 05:34 PM
VulgarHandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by DilTech

No...

90nm debuted with winchester, which had a, get this, 400 mhz deficit between the top-end winchester(2.2 ghz) and the top-end 130nm FX-55(2.6 ghz).

See a pattern forming here?

i do
12-04-2006, 05:39 PM
ether.real

I want some results Metro....not all this jibber jabber about channels and markets!
12-04-2006, 05:46 PM
Lithan

Thats not to say these will be the miracle chips some are expecting (I think I saw someone suggest the first ones out will outclock conroes which would put them at 3.4-3.8ghz average overclock on air if Im not mistaken). Remeember Tbred A's... Pallys were not hard to get past 1800-1900 at the time, and tbred A's made 2000 common, but saw few over 2.1 on air. Tbred B's which didn't feature a die shrink saw MUCH better gains, we went from 2.0-2.1 typical clocks to 2.4-2.5 clocks pretty much overnight.

Again this is nothing but speculation, but I'd suspect early .065's will make 3-3.2ghz a fairly common thing on air with a few examples pushing 3.4... when paired with boards and ram that will allow those clocks.
12-04-2006, 06:18 PM
nn_step

Quote:

Originally Posted by brentpresley

Hmm. 130nm hit 2.6GHz. 90nm hit only 400MHz higher for top bin (might get to 600MHz).

I smell an architectural limitation. Looks like the pipeline is too short to scale well.

Hopefully that will be fixed in K8L.

with 2 less integer stages and a larger process than Conroe, that would make logical sense.
12-04-2006, 07:37 PM
dinos22

Quote:

Originally Posted by brentpresley

Hell froze over (we agreed on something). ;)

that's very true hahah
12-04-2006, 08:37 PM
speed bump

Hate to sound like a broken record but any overclocking results Metro? Or do we have to wait a few more Hours.
12-04-2006, 08:45 PM
dinos22

Quote:

Originally Posted by speed bump

Hate to sound like a broken record but any overclocking results Metro? Or do we have to wait a few more Hours.

i think he's basically saying they do the same as 90nm parts so nothing special to report there
12-04-2006, 08:47 PM
nn_step

Quote:

Originally Posted by brentpresley

Hell froze over (we agreed on something). ;)

umm I think we can officially agree that regardless of the process, Processors at best will only hit 27.9566667% of the theoretical possible predicted for the stages. Which is about +/- 0.05% for both AMD and Intel. (based on Conroe and K8 Numbers only)
Given that tiny of a variance between AMD and Intel for that value. One could almost assume all the money blown by Intel in Netburst, didn't really help them out much in the Stage design process.
Now assuming that percentage is held for BOTH AMD 65nm and Intel 45nm.
Intel's Switch to 45nm will only bring cheaper Procs with More Cache w/o much Clock speed increase.
However that is just conjecture at this point and time.
12-04-2006, 09:01 PM
MaxxxRacer

Quote:

Originally Posted by nn_step

umm just a little bit of History for you.
180nm
130nm
90nm
all done on AMD's LOW END FIRST.
Once the process is perfected and ONLY then will the high end migrate to it.
nVidia does the exact same thing.
It is very low risk and the "Smart" thing to do
the whole R520 issue was a matter of Process problems constantly delaying a wonderful design.

a bit off topic, but fwiw ATI usually sticks to that philosophy too.
12-04-2006, 09:09 PM
Revv23

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxxxRacer

a bit off topic, but fwiw ATI usually sticks to that philosophy too.

true, but not on r520.
12-04-2006, 11:41 PM
Serge84

You can not compare K8 with K8L. Or K8L with conroe. There is nothing to compare/test until its out physically!!! K8 will be dead when K8L comes out. That is why no more effort will be made to make K8's on going faster. Whats the use when K8L will perform better then K8 by a greater level. BTW K8L will "NEED TO" run at 3.5ghz to run the max HT3 clocks. 2.6ghz 5.2gt/s chipset fsb... http://badhardware.blogspot.com/2006...y-rainier.html

AMD

FX
FX-62: OPPAINTER - 3635.9 MHz http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=100443
FX-60: gloatlizard - 3875.44 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=97927
FX-57: before - 4208.1 MHz http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/9243/cpu42089kx.jpg
FX-55 (ClawHammer): |RickY|&Pedro Rocha - 4005.23 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=10680
FX-55 (San Diego): -De$troyeR- - 4056.86 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=108727
FX-53: |RickY| & Pedro Rocha - 3602.8 MHz http://resources.vr-zone.com/ocdb/da...tel_or_amd=amd

Dual Core (X2)

Manchester:

X2 4600+: Onepagebook - 3687.15 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=78999
X2 4200+: sson74 - 3613.06 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=83165
X2 3800+: OC-Team.BE - 3700.86 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=102531

Toledo:
X2 4800+: BB Mods's - 3607.99 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=89669
X2 4400+: Fosco - 3408.27 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=62072
X2 3800+: isulk - 3350.3MH http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=106101

Windsor:
X2 4600+: JuanFlatier - 3000.1 MHz http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=100742
X2 4200+: Cole Riemer - 2915.17 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=107317
X2 4000+: DrJay - 3137Mhz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=112440
X2 3800+: anaboliss - 3102,92MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=106039
X2 3000+: Amiteriver - 3022.6 MHz http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d=11543992 89

Single Core Athlon64

Clawhammer:
4000+: gubben - 3614.77 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=25221
3700+: twillius_basic - 3331.38 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=16530
3500+: ojdr2001 & Silence - 3521.6 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=49904
3400+: eshbach & Evil Spork - 3320.71 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=12416
3200+: dsl & Spd - 2854.15 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=100425
3000+: fr@me - 3156 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=65931
2800+: setyotomo & ilyas - 3204.14 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=18206

Manchester:
3500+: Willis - 3205.02 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=79721
3200+: hey & tosunermc - 3405.83 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=103390

Newcastle:
3800+: Shamino - 3201MHz http://www.vr-zone.com/ocdb/data.php...tel_or_amd=amd
3500+: |RickY| - 3604.0 MHz http://www.teampuss.com/forums/files/3500caa2c_234.jpg
3400+: Jrocket - 3359.59 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=18225
3200+: .::Maddog::. & mosin_nagant - 3024MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=22563
3000+: Ssilencer - 3276.60 MHz http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/4638/32765gm.gif

Newark:
4000+: metalman2785 - 3394.26 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=100828

Oakville:
3000+: firefly - 2700.13MHz - http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=65488

Orleans:
3500+: Kiner - 3150.11 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=93986
3000+: andre X-X - 3215.07 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=110890

San Diego:
4000+: El Snorro - 3750.83 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=76885
3700+: Misteroadster - 3704.71 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=38280
3500+:

Venice:
3800+: PC Ice - 3878.05 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=10699
3500+: cpulloverclock - 3571.42 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=46575
3400+: damarble - 2850.66 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=67088
3200+: s7e9h3n - 3723.6MHz - http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...8&postcount=12
3000+: cpulloverclock - 3644.18 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=41857
3000+ (754): [ZIZI]@XS - 3207.22 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=83602

Winchester:
3000+: easypanic - 3412.61 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=15933
3200+: NewBeetle - 3463 MHz http://cal930.sakura.ne.jp/cgi-bin/c...le/3463MHz.gif
3500+: Boogotop - 3271,70 MHz http://www.vr-zone.com/ocdb/data.php...tel_or_amd=amd

Opteron

Toledo:
Opteron 180: cupra - 3450.99 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=76888
Opteron 175: ixtapalapaquetl - 3420.73 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=80573
Opteron 170: Absolute_0 - 3473.7 Mhz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=74927
Opteron 165: Brian Mychajluk (TheLawnRanger) - 3460 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=112439

Venus:
Opteron 154: s7e9h3n - 4005.19MHz - http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=70094
Opteron 150: dumo - 3769 MHz http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/8...shot0930im.jpg
Opteron 148: SPLMANN Overclocking Team Switzerland - 3788.19 Mhz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=97911
Opteron 146: MOSO - 3813 Mhz - http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=70263
Opteron 144: Overcrash - 3657.8 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=75334

Turion

ML series:
Turion ML-42: hey & tosunermc - 2833.5 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=103141
Turion ML-37: Trouffman - 2288.56 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=74997
Turion ML-32: victorsea - 2844.9 4MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=62558
Turion ML-30: Richard Cheung - 2840.1 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=28080

MT series:
Turion MT-40: ryan.crest - 2935.4 MHz http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d=11416511 89
Turion MT-32: marcoland - 2745.4 MHz http://img466.imageshack.us/my.php?image=305mhz9cj.jpg
Turion MT-30: Badong - 3200 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=82405

Sempron

Sempron64 3400+ (Manila): Ozzimark - 3119.6mhz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=97360
Sempron64 3400+ (Palermo): fr@me - 2928.25 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=66864
Sempron64 3300+ (Palermo): AndreyKV & Nickolas - 3070 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=84032
Sempron64 3200+: AeGis - 3065.32 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=78404
Sempron64 3100+ (Palermo): dsl & Spd - 3195.79 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=100426
Sempron64 3000+ (Manilla): QSS - 2669.33 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=106505
Sempron64 3000+ (Palermo) S939: pr1nce - 3208.18 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=75376
Sempron64 3000+ (Winchester): TiN_EOF - 3031.20 Mhz http://www.topmods.net/tin/3031.png
Sempron64 3000+ (Palermo): dsl & Spd - 3316.08 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=110827
Sempron64 2800+ (Manilla): QSS - 2747.59 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=107555
Sempron64 2800+ (Palermo): fr@me & Xupyp1 - 3311.93 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=93955
Sempron64 2600+ (Palermo): pawell262 - 3220.99 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=67685
Sempron64 2500+ (Palermo): JunQiang - 3003.86 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=75385
Sempron 3100+ (Paris): fr@me & Xupyp1 - 2731.31 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=85371
Sempron 2800+ (Palermo): turez - 2498.25 MHz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=38643
Sempron Mobile 3000+ : hs - 2972.41 Mhz http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=69610

And I am sick and tired of hearing AMD can't OC above 3ghz BS. Ever forget about the 939? More then one person has gotten these clocks before with regular chips. Some on AM2 have gotten a bit higher lately. But it has nothing to do with production limits. It has to do with what they did to AM2 chips in the fab process transformation from SOI-1 to SOI-2 witch sucks ass compared to the 939 fabed chips. Look at the clocks, no AM2 can reach 939 OCabilities and perform vr'ly the same. The only reason to go AM2 is for future chips. 939's are dead only because they had to move on. 939's are currently the better OCing socket AMD has. If they stayed with DDR1 until 2007 when K8L came out they should have made the change then to DDR2. Right now was a very bad time. Don't beleave me. Look at the damn 1000mhz OC difference 939's get over AM2 OC's.

All some old school dude has to do is flash his 3.8ghz OC over here and tell you how AMD's can reach 3.8ghz or 4.2ghz for that matter like some here have. It may not be stable, but it can bench, and it can show the clocks. Thats what we want is to show off right. Buy a 939 if you want to show off like these people above. Don't expect AM2 to get speeds you know are impossible unless SOI-3 really will make the difference.

I think they really should go back to SOI-1 if they want to do OCing more and try to perfect that process instead. Amazing SOI-2 was such a crappy process. They tried to make it better but apperently they ran into a wall with trying to make it more EE. To a OCer AMD fan would rather have a 939 then a AM2. Or a C2D. Cus something went seriously wrong when AMD made the transission to AM2. It was a big mistake.
12-05-2006, 12:27 AM
Astennu

Well i dont know about that SOI-1 and SOI-2 thingy. But the K8 Will needs some ajustments to run 3000+ MHz without extra volt ( 1.35v ) stock.

I hear that the C2D's will do arround 3600 Max with toch volt air ?

I wonder how far the K8L can go. Its a Tweaked K8 core so i guess 3600 Will be the max we will see on 65nm. Somehow i dont think the K8L will clock like the C2D cores. But i can be wrong ( i hope i'm wrong i love AMD )

My current Opteron 170 S939 dous. 2800 MHz @ 1.267v Prime stable. When i whant 2900 MHz i need 1.35v. Its a CCBBE 0617 FPMW. This is air cooled with a freezer 64 Pro. @ 1800 RPM max. The most 170's will not do these speeds / volt. But there are some..
12-05-2006, 12:55 AM
Astennu

Well i think a Dual core K8L will outperform a C2D @ performance per clock. But i don't think the K8L clock more then 3400 in the beginning.

K8L will be native quad core @ 2900 MHz/ But Intel will also have a Native quad core by that time. It will probably be able to clock 3400-3600 MHz. So AMD will need to make the K8L very good in performance per clock if they want to beat it.

If will be a hard fight. Intel will have a new ref of the C2D by the time AMD that has the K8L.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page