AMD Phenom X2, X4, FX processor specs leak
'Star' chip roll out runs through to Q1 2008
Details are beginning to come through about just how AMD will roll out its next-gen desktop 'star' processors - so called because of their astronomy inspired codenames. While Q3 appears to be the key launch point, the shift extends through Q4 into Q1 2008.
The roadmap lists two clock frequency ranges: 2.2-2.4GHz and 2.4-2.6GHz. The top band is taken by a Socket 1207+ part sitting on a HyperTransport 3 bus clocked at 3600MHz. The lower speed range extends two processors, both with 3200MHz HT3 buses, but one that connects using Socket 1207+ and the other with AM2+.
The same quarter will see the debut of two Phenom X4s, the report says - both quad-core desktop CPUs with Socket AM2+ interconnects, four 512KB L2 caches, one 2MB L3 cache and a power rating of 89W. A 2.2GHz part with operate on a 3200MHz HT3 bus, while the 2.4GHz version will sit on a 3600MHz bus.
Come Q4, and the 'Kuma' dual-core desktops will appear, as the Phenom X2 series. Expect three models: 65W parts running at 2.4GHz and 2.6GHz, and an 89W chip clocked to 2.8GHz. All three have two 512KB L2 caches and a 2MB L3 cache. They sit on 3600, 3800 and 4200MHz HT3 buses, respectively.
'Star' Athlons and Semprons won't appear, apparently, until Q1 2008: the 'Rana' dual-core 65W chip, clocked to 2.2GHz and with two 512KB L2 caches but no L3. The next-gen Athlon 64 X2's HT3 bus will be clocked to 3200MHz.
Expect two single-core Semprons, each with 512KB of L2, no L3, a 45W TDP, and clock speeds of 2.2GHz and 2.4GHz. Their HT3 buses will be set to 3200 and 3600MHz, respectively.
The Athlons and Semprons will be accompanied by three "energy efficient" Phenom X2s, clocked at 1.9, 2.1 and 2.3GHz for a TDP of 45W. Their HT3 buses will be set to 2800, 3000 and 3400MHz, respectively.
@ Mr Lieberman: Ohh I see. You had your time polluting the envirnoment when the subject was not well understood and hence no one pointed fingers at you and your nation. Now as research and knowledge have improved and the subject has been understood better, you are pointing fingers to all others who are trying to develop and improve their countries and homes. Now how fair is that!!!!!
Besides, which ever countries has imported all those goods they have themselves to blame. Why? It is because the orders are generated by demands from consumers and particularly we all want goods and services to be cheaper while keeping our jobs and salaries increasing each year, it is natural for the companies to have something made in those Chinese or [slot any developing countries here] factories to archive that.
Furthermore, there are technologies avalible to improve the situation and who is withhelding all those wonderful technologies and not releasing to the developing countries? Who on earth has those technology exporting rules? I still remember 5 years ago I was looking at a Sun Microsystem carton box outside my shcool and has those rules printed as cautions and China was on the list of the countries that are forbidden to buy whatever equitment the box was containing.
I don't think I need to elaborate myself any more coz the point has been made.
I'm feeling allot of bad vibes coming from you lot about "power users" and "gamers", I agree, give the guys who just surf the web or use excel our old PCs, but leave us guys who want to enjoy games the hell alone!
Most people don't actually have those kinds of cards anyway, except for gamers and so-called "power users" who think they're great cause they know how to spend $5000 on a computer and install 5 anti-virus packages.
Typical PCs use cheap, low power, low performance "integrated graphics", and one of the main reasons Vista needs a NEW graphics card is not exactly performance but Shader Model support. I have a GeForce5 ("FX") 5200 around here that is actually about HALF the speed of my older GeForce2 because it's the low end (not gaming class) model but it still supports pixel shaders and other features that the older high-end GeForce2 does not. Lower power, lower performance, but more features.
Vista is like that. It needs DX10 support and shader model support which will soon be available in low-end cards.
Other than that, home PC power usage is a drop in the bucket in terms of environmental impact. The main thing driving all these low power CPUs is the ability to pack more of them headless and video-card-free into huge datacenters with less heat output and less electricity cost relative to performance.
Hence they say "performance per watt".
If you want to be environmental about your computing and aren't a gamer, get an old 500mhz Celeron. It's less than 20 watts, will run Windows 2000 or XP and Youtube and all the latest websites and light programs just fine, and RE-USE IS BETTER THAN RECYCLING.
(It'll run fine if you just stuff in plenty of RAM, trust me.)
I'll continue as usual.
My Mac Pro consumes 600 watts of power constantly. And I leave it on 24/7 running BOINC. I figure, if I can cure some disease by spending an extra 17$ a month on my power bill, I'll do it.
Simple answer for most non-games players, and just about anyone who buys a cheap box, is to go for a motherboard with built-in graphics. They've been good enough for 2D work for over half a decade - my f-in-law runs a PC with a Matrox G400 in it (circa 2000?) and slow screen redraws are the least of that PCs problems.
Anyone who is ignorant enough to believe they need 512Mb graphics memory to run excel probably isn't too worried about the environment. Actually, scrap that, they're probably exactly the sort of person who frets about a few extra watts of energy usage whilst ignoring the fact that 99% of the (many) useless gadgets they own were produced in an environmentally disasterous (in the chemical pollution, not just CO2 way) Chinese factory.