No More 1MB Athlon X2

[freethrowtommy]

Read this on HardOCP today:
http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=MTk1MzgsLCxobmV3cywsLDE=

Looks like AMD is saving the 1MB cache for the FX line.

Not that the performance really differed between the 512 and 1MB anyhow...

 

[emilyek]

A loser's strategy.

Bad move, imo.

 

[Makaveli]

Its not that big of deal, they are only losing 5% of the performance with half the cache. Most people are just bitching about it cause they like seeing biggers numbers next to L2. They also need this to fix the processor lines, so many overlapping processors with same core speed just more cache.

As with most of us, we are hardcore and we don't like seeing anything that will give us less performance but the hit isn't that big. And if it really worries u so much. just go buy a chip now before they are gone.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

It's not a huge deal, and most people won't even know or care, but it seems like a better idea would have been to increase the cache on the FX line to 2MB or 4MB from a performance standpoint. I think an FX60 or 62 (63? I forget, heh) with 4MB of cache could offer some pretty big numbers. I guess we won't know for sure though, at least not right now.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: Krakn3Dfx
It's not a huge deal, and most people won't even know or care, but it seems like a better idea would have been to increase the cache on the FX line to 2MB or 4MB from a performance standpoint. I think an FX60 or 62 (63? I forget, heh) with 4MB of cache could offer some pretty big numbers. I guess we won't know for sure though, at least not right now.

While I agree that it would be better from a performance standpoint to just increase the FX line's L2 cache, that would be that much more power, heat, and die size for AMD to deal with.

I personally don't mind that X2 chips will be 512KB now. Like mentioned earlier, the performance difference in basically anything is 5% or under. The prices on these chips are being cut 35-50% anyway, so I can't complain about $175 X2 chips with 512KB of cache.

 

[Ionizer86]

Now it also makes sense why AMD didn't drop pricing on the A64 3700+ and 4000+ SD chips!

Who thinks the X2 4000+ will become a collector's part, getting axed right after getting introduced?

 

[avi85]

Just get a dual core opty!!!

 

[ahock]

Well in my opinion this is a smart move for AMD now that they are planning to match Intel's price cut. Sure Intel will snatch some share due to this cuts plus the release of conroe and AMD desperately needed to put some stops so as not to rode their gain share drastically when they match the price war.

 

[eLiu]

Originally posted by: Krakn3Dfx
It's not a huge deal, and most people won't even know or care, but it seems like a better idea would have been to increase the cache on the FX line to 2MB or 4MB from a performance standpoint. I think an FX60 or 62 (63? I forget, heh) with 4MB of cache could offer some pretty big numbers. I guess we won't know for sure though, at least not right now.

Problems with that: yield, power consumption (so heat too), cost

 

[secretanchitman]

or just wait for core 2 duo which has 4MB of cache (2x2MB) if im not mistaken...

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: Ionizer86
Now it also makes sense why AMD didn't drop pricing on the A64 3700+ and 4000+ SD chips!

Who thinks the X2 4000+ will become a collector's part, getting axed right after getting introduced?

Glad to know I'm getting one in that case Too bad I'll be using it when it arrives next week.

But yeah, guy at monarch said the 2x1mb cache X2 chips are discontinued.

 

[DidlySquat]

Another reason why AM2 sux. At least for socket 939 many people already have 1MB L2 processors. Now socket 939 with 1MB processor overclocked to around 3GHz (like mine) will be top AMD performer for a long time

 

[the Chase]

This is a great move by AMD, and they really had no choice. They need production capacity in the worst way, and just think, no more, "how much performance difference is there between the 1MB and 512KB cache models" threads.

 

[DidlySquat]

AMD is just making bad decisions on all fronts, it's kind of like what Intel was doing in the last few years. Based on this trend I laso predict their next CPU core will suck too (compared to what Intel will have by then). I understand it seems like they have no choice because of various considerations, but man oh man what do you think people will do when comparing AMD CPUs with 512KB L2 cache (just like Athlon XPs from 3 years ago !!1) to 2MB and 4MB Intel CPUs ? it's a disaster in the making. In fact the larger cache was MOSTLY helping in....gaming apps (read x-bit labs review of the opteron 165 if you dont believe it) so it's another nail in the AMD enthusiast gamer coffin.....


[pwned]

 

[Griswold]

Originally posted by: DidlySquat
AMD is just making bad decisions on all fronts, it's kind of like what Intel was doing in the last few years. Based on this trend I laso predict their next CPU core will suck too (compared to what Intel will have by then). I understand it seems like they have no choice because of various considerations, but man oh man what do you think people will do when comparing AMD CPUs with 512KB L2 cache (just like Athlon XPs from 3 years ago !!1) to 2MB and 4MB Intel CPUs ? it's a disaster in the making. In fact the larger cache was MOSTLY helping in....gaming apps (read x-bit labs review of the opteron 165 if you dont believe it) so it's another nail in the AMD enthusiast gamer coffin.....

Or maybe you just have no clue about how to run a company like that. There are strategic reasons for this move, not some "omgz0rz I got more cache than j00" thinking behind it. As it has been said numerous times, the performance difference we're talking about in most situations is below 10%. The masses never have nor will care about the cache size...

 

[DidlySquat]

In fact the masses can't tell the performance difference but they CAN tell the difference in specs, that's why AMD started rating their CPUs not by actual GHz speed because that would make them look bad in the eyes of the non-technical public. So they came up with the rating XXXX+ system. Same thing for L2 cache, thwe masses don't really know how much it matters to performance, but if they actually SEE the spec that Pentium/Conroe has 4 times the cache size of Athlon they will be definetely see it as an advantage of Intel. So AMD has to be careful here and hope people don't pay attention to this spec. Also AMD for the last few years always had the claim that thier CPUs are more efficient, thus even with lower clock speed they're equivalent to higher speed Pentiums, but not any more....so why would anyone believe now that the Athlon's smaller cache size doesn't matter or is cacelled out by other advatage it has (because it no longer has advantages to compensate....)


AMD = PWNED

 

[fliguy84]

Originally posted by: DidlySquat
In fact the masses can't tell the performance difference but they CAN tell the difference in specs, that's why AMD started rating their CPUs not by actual GHz speed because that would make them look bad in the eyes of the non-technical public. So they came up with the rating XXXX+ system. Same thing for L2 cache, thwe masses don't really know how much it matters to performance, but if they actually SEE the spec that Pentium/Conroe has 4 times the cache size of Athlon they will be definetely see it as an advantage of Intel. So AMD has to be careful here and hope people don't pay attention to this spec. Also AMD for the last few years always had the claim that thier CPUs are more efficient, thus even with lower clock speed they're equivalent to higher speed Pentiums, but not any more....so why would anyone believe now that the Athlon's smaller cache size doesn't matter or is cacelled out by other advatage it has (because it no longer has advantages to compensate....)


AMD = PWNED

 

[Effect]

AMD pretty much has to either cut prices, or the 1mb cache cores, it's as simple as that. They can't really have their cake and eat it too, so to speak. The 1mb cores cost more to produce and make less profit, there is little point in keeping them if they're not making money, right? AMD might be PWNED and all, but they have alot of smart people, who get paid lots to be smart, coming up with these plans.

 

[pxa270]

This is a completely sensible decision. The 1MB parts generally perform worse than the 512KB parts clocked 200Mhz higher (see the ratings) so they sell for less. However, they are more expensive to produce due to the die size and higher probability of defects. Cutting parts that are expensive to make but can't sell at higher prices is a no-brainer.

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: DidlySquat
In fact the masses can't tell the performance difference but they CAN tell the difference in specs, that's why AMD started rating their CPUs not by actual GHz speed because that would make them look bad in the eyes of the non-technical public. So they came up with the rating XXXX+ system. Same thing for L2 cache, thwe masses don't really know how much it matters to performance, but if they actually SEE the spec that Pentium/Conroe has 4 times the cache size of Athlon they will be definetely see it as an advantage of Intel. So AMD has to be careful here and hope people don't pay attention to this spec. Also AMD for the last few years always had the claim that thier CPUs are more efficient, thus even with lower clock speed they're equivalent to higher speed Pentiums, but not any more....so why would anyone believe now that the Athlon's smaller cache size doesn't matter or is cacelled out by other advatage it has (because it no longer has advantages to compensate....)


AMD = PWNED

Well I understand your point here and if we had knowledgeable enough salespeople who could explain the whole IMC thing to negate the need for extra cache this wouldn't even matter. But still- Joe sixpack is in the store to buy a computer- if the cache size thing is going to sway him to Intel- does it matter if its- 4MB versus 1MB or 4MB versus 512KB. AMD just can't compete even with there 1MB parts so why bother. Save production costs and compete on price. Heck Joe sixpack might even think 512KB is a lot better than 4MB-it is a bigger number right?

 

[Oemo]

I'd guess the 1MB cache chips are still going to be produced, they will just be sold as opterons instead of X2's. AMD has said before if needed they would focus on the server space. It makes prefect sense, sell your 1MB cache chips at a price premium, and "price war" with the smaller 512KB chips.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Griswold

Originally posted by: DidlySquat
AMD is just making bad decisions on all fronts, it's kind of like what Intel was doing in the last few years. Based on this trend I laso predict their next CPU core will suck too (compared to what Intel will have by then). I understand it seems like they have no choice because of various considerations, but man oh man what do you think people will do when comparing AMD CPUs with 512KB L2 cache (just like Athlon XPs from 3 years ago !!1) to 2MB and 4MB Intel CPUs ? it's a disaster in the making. In fact the larger cache was MOSTLY helping in....gaming apps (read x-bit labs review of the opteron 165 if you dont believe it) so it's another nail in the AMD enthusiast gamer coffin.....

Or maybe you just have no clue about how to run a company like that. There are strategic reasons for this move, not some "omgz0rz I got more cache than j00" thinking behind it. As it has been said numerous times, the performance difference we're talking about in most situations is below 10%. The masses never have nor will care about the cache size...

Yea they dont care YET, they never gave a toss about mhz either until the Intel marketing team decided to market their chips based on clock speed.

Soon there will be signs or adverts with "4MB CACHE" or some other more marketable word than cache advertising Intel CPU's. That and the mhz rating, which tbh i dont think the mhz race every really ended, its still a good way to judge a cpu's speed just as long as you have a good idea about the IPC of the chip, and you dont consider stuff liek itanium.

 

[lopri]

What I don't understand is, that they have (or had) a plan to introduce those "Energy Efficient" line of processors and they actually include 4800+, 4400+, 4000+. These EE and EE SFF (3800+) are supposedly to be priced higher than regular processors. Will these CPUs be canceld also? I have a feeling that we'll still see 2x1MB L2 cache X2s, but only in EE line. I guess that's better than nothing.

 

[DidlySquat]

Originally posted by: Oemo
I'd guess the 1MB cache chips are still going to be produced, they will just be sold as opterons instead of X2's. AMD has said before if needed they would focus on the server space. It makes prefect sense, sell your 1MB cache chips at a price premium, and "price war" with the smaller 512KB chips.

yep, AMD is throwing the towel on mainstream desktop CPU market, or more accurately they are admitting defeat in the performance war and are hoping to compete on price, thus they are repositioning their mainstream desktop CPUs (Athlon 64) as a budget choice in this market segment.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: DidlySquat

Originally posted by: Oemo
I'd guess the 1MB cache chips are still going to be produced, they will just be sold as opterons instead of X2's. AMD has said before if needed they would focus on the server space. It makes prefect sense, sell your 1MB cache chips at a price premium, and "price war" with the smaller 512KB chips.

yep, AMD is throwing the towel on mainstream desktop CPU market, or more accurately they are admitting defeat in the performance war and are hoping to compete on price, thus they are repositioning their mainstream desktop CPUs (Athlon 64) as a budget choice in this market segment.

The Sempron is their budget cpu. If intel releases a dual core conroe for $200, would that also mean it's a budget cpu? Cutting cache is a good strategy to reduce losses in a price war, and unlike intel's primitive FSB-based design, the A64 doesnt need a huge cache, nor does it benefit from a bigger cache in most apps. Whatever losses you see in games from a smaller cache would be reduced to nothing with a better video card, so for the enthusiast games it's not an issue either.