AMD to ditch 1mbx2 cache am2 processors

[snakeraiden89]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2858

Better buy those x2 4000+s while you can.

[Leon2ky]

Yeah, this really pissed me off when I found out.

[Iconyu]

Cache takes up a lot of die space, so AMD couldn't go into a pricewar while using 1MB per core. Sad I know, but true.

[snakeraiden89]

Just ordered an OEM x2 4000+ am2 at excaliberpc.com

4 left after my order


Retails versions are gone everywhere

[ludeboy12]

wow now im really pissed newegg messed up my 4400 order....now i'll probably never get one

[taemun]

They haven't even landed in this country yet and they are already axed.....

[ludeboy12]

They haven't even landed in this country yet and they are already axed.....

some of them landed. Newegg already received and sold out thier first shipment of 4400s. The are supposed to have 2 more shipments coming in so hopefully those will be the last of them.

That will at least give me the chance to once again try and get one.

[taemun]

some of them landed. Newegg already received and sold out thier first shipment of 4400s. The are supposed to have 2 more shipments coming in so hopefully those will be the last of them.

That will at least give me the chance to once again try and get one.

Ahh .. wrong country

I'm from Australia (mate), and all [local] sites that I've seen list it as "pre-order" or "TBA"

t

[ludeboy12]

ah my bad. Dont know why i just assumed you meant the states. sorry bout that.

[xenium]

this seems to be the scary start of AMD's downhill roll

[003]

Why are you all quickly ordering AM2s when you could get conroe which is cheaper and faster?

It's intels turn to shine. I love my opty 165 w/ 2x1mb but amd has been taking a lot of wrong turns lately.

[Bloody_Sorcerer]

where has AMD made such "wrong turns"? there was no "wrong turn" with AM2; they never touted it as kickass performance boost, just 1-5%, and it delivered that. it did exactly as promised. dropping 1Mx2 makes sense for AMD, because they need to start plummeting their ASP to keep market share, and ASP is a lot easier to plummet with 512x2 than 1x2 chips. Also, the performance between 1x2 chips and 512x2 chips is quite close that they could simply up everything a speed grade and get better performance returns from that than wasting vast amounts of die real estate on extra cache.
Also, they're not asleep at the wheel. K8L is knocking at the door in 07 and its a nice, strong, healthy response to Conroe.
Intel did the ASP-murder move for 3 years while AMD reigned king and they retained market share... now AMD plans on murdering ASP for 6-10 months to retain market share until they can return with K8L on AM2.

[ludeboy12]

because i like AMD. Doesnt really bother me that i wont have the fastest computer.

[Lestat]

well you have to look at it from a cpu to cpu comparison.

now we already know outside the conroe the AMD chips just kick the e out of intel.. ther ejust is no argument.

no wlook at it from a $ for $ cpu to cpu perspective and if you can get an 802 2x1mb cpu that clocks like nutz...
and get... well.. the new AM2 lets say 3800 X2 2x512k ...
dollar for dollar someone is going to look at the intel and guy them..
performance wise the amd will still mop the floor with intel but the lack of a 2x1mb cache is hurting its performance even more.

Pent D to AM2 the AM2 wins hands down anyone who argues to the contrary has no clue what they are talking about.

but this isnt a speed war its a price war,,, and in that price people look for several things.
Price - intel
Performance - AMD
overclocking - Intel Pent D
WE look at the performance more than anything and then overclocking then price.

overall when people are looking to pinch some pennies adn get a new cpu mobo etc. they will go with Intel cuz its cheaper.


this is a BAD move on amd's part unless you are people like us who know that the amd will still kick the intel's nutz...

its an undeniable fact we all know it.

but we also know the performance increase using a single or dual core with a 1meg L2.... its better.

[Andrewv]

1mb and 512KB have same performance for same Ghz ?

[sealion]

1mb and 512KB have same performance for same Ghz ?

No, 1mb is slightly better; 1-3% better but it cost alot more. This is only true with AMD though.

[Pipi]

AMD isn't affected by the size of cache that much because of the on-die memory controller. That's how it was on s939 though. DDR2 has looser timings which hurt AMD's performance. Intel's CPUs on the other hand LOVE bigger cache.

[Bloody_Sorcerer]

DDR2 still has lower latencies than DDR1 because of the massively higher clockspeeds.
[linky]

[kais]

lucky thing i got my x2 4000+ from monarch before they left

[vitaminc]

AMD isn't affected by the size of cache that much because of the on-die memory controller. That's how it was on s939 though. DDR2 has looser timings which hurt AMD's performance. Intel's CPUs on the other hand LOVE bigger cache.

Can't be more wrong than this.

Regardless of architecture, more cache is always better. Simple fact: Opterons have larger cache than the Athlon 64s.

The sole reason AMD getting rid of the 1MB Athlon 64 x2s is cost. 1MB cache is just too costly to produce for AMD on 90nm process, especially at price points post 7/24 price cut. AMD is bone dry.

[breakfromyou]

there is barely any performance gain between an AMD with 512kb of L2 cache and one with 1mb of L2 cache. I dont see a problem with this move. very little performance gain, if any at all. makes sense though. also makes the FX's look a little better...

[arisythila]

Only thing im concerned about is clock.... We have a 3800+ with 512k per core, with 2000 mhz, then we have a 4000+ with 1mb per core, and 2000 mhz... 4200 with 512k per core, 2200 mhz. ect ect.

I wonder if they are going to sell the 3800+ and the 4000+ both same clock speeds, and same cache... All im wondering about, I dont care if we have 1 mb of cache or 2 mb of cache, performance isnt much to include the 512k of cache.

~Mike

[arisythila]

Maybe they will cut the 1 mb counter parts. 4000+, 4400+, 4800+

Who knows.

~Mike

[AJF]

I guess it makes sense, but they'll probably increase it again once K8L drops, maybe a shift to the use of ZRAM. Short-term, they're aiming for a shift to 65nm and increased clock speeds, or so it seems.

[burningrave101]

there is barely any performance gain between an AMD with 512kb of L2 cache and one with 1mb of L2 cache. I dont see a problem with this move. very little performance gain, if any at all. makes sense though. also makes the FX's look a little better...

More L2 cache does improve performance, especially in games. Its not a huge difference but its as much as you would see with like a 200MHz increase in clock speed for AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2762&p=6

AMD is cutting the 4000+, 4400+, and 4800+ because with the deep price cuts they're going to be more expensive to produce and everyone will go for the 2x1MB models instead of the 2x512kb models.