AMD readies new high-end Athlon 64 X2

helmutcheese · 23 Jul 2007 at 17:56

" After chopping prices and squeezing its entire Athlon 64 X2 line under the $200 mark, AMD may be preparing to introduce a new top-of-the-line dual-core chip to combat Intel in the $200-300 dual-core space—or so the folks at DigiTimes say they have heard from sources at motherboard manufacturers.
According to DigiTimes, AMD is cooking up an Athlon 64 X2 6400+ processor that will run at 3.2GHz and pack 1MB of L2 cache per core. Pricing is expected to be in the $220-248 range, which would place the chip in the gap between Intel's $183 Core 2 Duo E6750 and $266 Core 2 Duo E6850. For reference, the E6750 runs at 2.66GHz with 4MB of shared L2 cache and a 1333MHz front-side bus, and the E6850 is clocked at 3GHz with the same cache size and FSB speed as the E6750.

DigiTimes says its sources claim the Athlon 64 X2 6400+ will perform 10-15% slower than the E6850, although the site doesn't say how the chip compares to the E6750. AMD has reportedly sent samples of the processor to motherboard makers already, and the new Athlon should ship "shortly."

http://digitimes.com/mobos/a20070723PD205.html

Since all X2 6000's can do at least 3250mhz not sure this is good or bad, if new stepping again it may clock more then Rev3's at average max of 3.5GiG on good air (some get bit more)

jaykay · 23 Jul 2007 at 17:58

LOL AMD are seriously pushing the 90nm fab if its like the 6000+. They have done very well to get there.

helmutcheese · 23 Jul 2007 at 18:02

Do you think this 3+year old tech is really only 10-15% slower in real terms than the new Intel 1333's (about 1 year old tech) ?

chaparral · 23 Jul 2007 at 18:12

helmutcheese said:
Do you think this 3+year old tech is really only 10-15% slower in real terms than the new Intel 1333's (about 1 year old tech) ?

I can belive this

As there seems very little difference in system speed between my AMD 4400 x2 (socket 939) running 2.4ghz and went my C2D 6600 is running at 2.4GHZ

helmutcheese · 23 Jul 2007 at 18:15

I have a X2 6000 and it will do 3300mhz with no changes to bios or volts.

ramdor · 23 Jul 2007 at 18:36

helmutcheese said:
I have a X2 6000 and it will do 3300mhz with no changes to bios or volts.

just ask it to go faster?

helmutcheese · 23 Jul 2007 at 18:58

I cant get 3400 or more stable I think my Asus Crosshair is faulty (many reasons nothing to do with OC'ing), been crap since day 1 and bought it 4weeks ago, its got some major issues.

The most I know of on air is 360XXmhz with about 1.55-1.6v.

SkeeterUK · 23 Jul 2007 at 19:10

Wounder how it will overclock.

jaykay · 23 Jul 2007 at 19:50

helmutcheese said:
I cant get 3400 or more stable I think my Asus Crosshair is faulty (many reasons nothing to do with OC'ing), been crap since day 1 and bought it 4weeks ago, its got some major issues.

The most I know of on air is 360XXmhz with about 1.55-1.6v.

Yer people on [H] are serious overclockers, loads have 6000+ around 3.5ghz. So it seems Intel arent the only good overclockers now.

Gashman · 23 Jul 2007 at 20:18

helmutcheese said:
Do you think this 3+year old tech is really only 10-15% slower in real terms than the new Intel 1333's (about 1 year old tech) ?

yes, thats pretty reasonable estimate, C2D isn't the holy grail of microprocessors, its not all that faster than AMDs 3 year old K8 processor, friend runs E6600 at 3.0Ghz and i run my X2 4000+ at 3.2Ghz, and theres nothing in it, at all in any games, the difference in FPS is negligable

Edit: wicked spelling mistake :rolleyes:

stickroad · 23 Jul 2007 at 22:38

Is this new AMD chip going to be the same as the AMD 6000+ for instance, architect wise?

So it will still be slightly slower than Intels E6850?

Jabbs · 23 Jul 2007 at 22:51

CPU's ain't all that important in gaming imo, c2d shows its true colours in encoding etc, i would prefer a slower cpu and a high end gfx card than a high end cpu and a mid range gfx card.

From what i seen a c2d has around 300/400 mhz in the pocket over a amdx2, so a 6000 clocked at 3 gig a c2d would only need to hit 2.6-2.7 to be on par seeing as you can hit 3.4 on even the budget ones costing £60 this is the reason people rave on about them, there amazing over clocking potential.

FrankJH · 23 Jul 2007 at 22:56

I am glad AMD can produce something about as quick as the top C2D's - however surely there has to be a better price difference?

These chips are about as good as they are going to get so its unlikely many people will buy them -wiht no real upgrade route (and it being such old tech)

The good thing about Intel is, you can get a decent C2D or reasonable C2Q for the same kind of money (ok mobo will cost more) and still have a good upgrade route

Iraklis F.C. · 23 Jul 2007 at 23:58

its alright i already have one , its even 40mhz faster

cells · 24 Jul 2007 at 00:34

Iraklis F.C. said:
its alright i already have one , its even 40mhz faster

1million points is not really a good one to compare processors on.

do 32mil

just for ref. my C2D 6300 @ 2.8GHZ does 32mil in 18min 44sec but that is with light browsing too.

helmutcheese · 24 Jul 2007 at 00:44

I dont think he is comparing, he is showing his OVERCLOCK is stable, I prefer Othos.

Iraklis F.C. · 24 Jul 2007 at 01:55

dude , when the heatwave is over i hope i can show you 8 hours of orthos.
was supposed to be a easygoing post

Sean_UK · 24 Jul 2007 at 04:02

Jabbs said:
so a 6000 clocked at 3 gig a c2d would only need to hit 2.6-2.7 to be on par seeing as you can hit 3.4 on even the budget ones costing £60 this is the reason people rave on about them, there amazing over clocking potential.

Would have to agree, my former PC with 939 4800+ o/c 3GHz (there's little if any between that and 6000+ at same speed) was slower by enough of margin compared to what I have now (see sig) for me to be content, well that along with me selling old to buy new without extra £'s added (got to love auction sites). Gaming wise the fps was up in all the summer 2006 onwards titles i tested by around 7 to 15fps dependent on the game, along with core temps far superior using the very same Scythe Infinity cooler. Not much gain in fps i agree, but for example; if you were getting max 30fps in certain game with all eye candy on and now say 37 to 45fps, result & noticable enough. Bear in mind this is simply what I observed when moving from one platform to another by changing just mobo, CPU, memory.

I have great respect to AMD for squeezing all they can out of the old tech though, great chip (along with 6000+) for thouse down the lower end of the AM2 platform CPU wise. Would not advise anyone on 939 to jump to AM2, its just a silly move to make when you compare prices.

Edit: Below comparison (just go with the idea the dearer 6400+ is in 6000's place with in this pic), as you can see price diff is very little and would be on 'par' if using this soon to be new top end AMD CPU in the example.

Yes there's 'cheaper' parts mobo + memory wise than above if your're penny pinching, total price still wont change much tbh. If you’re on 939x2 tech & looking to upgrade, sensible money is still better spent on newer tech Intel build. Not after war of words with anyone btw, just trying to put things in perspective when comparing current prices.

jaykay · 24 Jul 2007 at 11:11

LOL ive only just noticed something AMD have the fastest clock speed cpu on the market. I wonder how many average joes would buy into that????

Richdog · 24 Jul 2007 at 11:15

helmutcheese said:
I dont think he is comparing, he is showing his OVERCLOCK is stable, I prefer Othos.

Doubtful, as 1MB SuperPI is the last thing to show any sign of stability.