Q3'05 AMD Roadmap; DDR2 and New Sockets for AMD
by Kristopher Kubicki & Jarred Walton on July 21, 2005 1:47 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Server and Workstation Processors
Not much has changed in the server and workstation segment other than the actual launch and availability of the dual core Opterons. Here's what we have looking at the present and near future.
| AMD Server/Workstation Roadmap | ||||
| Processor | Core Name | Clock Speed | Socket | Launch Date |
| Opteron 875 | Egypt | 2.2 GHz 1MB | Socket 940 | Now |
| Opteron 870 | Egypt | 2.0 GHz 1MB | Socket 940 | Now |
| Opteron 865 | Egypt | 1.8 GHz 1MB | Socket 940 | Now |
| Opteron 865 HE | Egypt | 1.8 GHz 1MB | Socket 940 | Now |
| Opteron 860 HE | Egypt | 1.6 GHz 1MB | Socket 940 | Now |
| Opteron 854 | Athens | 2.8 GHz 1MB | Socket 940 | Q3'05 |
| Opteron 275 | Italy | 2.2 GHz 1MB | Socket 940 | Now |
| Opteron 270 | Italy | 2.0 GHz 1MB | Socket 940 | Now |
| Opteron 265 | Italy | 1.8 GHz 1MB | Socket 940 | Now |
| Opteron 265 HE | Italy | 1.8 GHz 1MB | Socket 940 | Now |
| Opteron 260 HE | Italy | 1.6 GHz 1MB | Socket 940 | Now |
| Opteron 254 | Troy | 2.8 GHz 1MB | Socket 940 | Q3'05 |
| Opteron 175 | Denmark | 2.2 GHz 1MB | Socket 939 | Now |
| Opteron 170 | Denmark | 2.0 GHz 1MB | Socket 939 | Now |
| Opteron 165 | Denmark | 1.8 GHz 1MB | Socket 939 | Now |
| Opteron 154 | San Diego | 2.8 GHz 1MB | Socket 939 | Q3'05 |
| Opteron x52 | Venus/Troy/Athens | 2.6 GHz 1MB | Socket 940 | Now |
We've separated the 8xx, 2xx, and 1xx Opteron models into their individual parts for a reason. While older Opterons all targeted socket 940, AMD is apparently moving the 1xx models towards socket 939. The most likely reason is for price/performance advantages of the platform, or perhaps that yields of the newer parts have reached the point where everything works in two socket or higher configurations. 152 is the last single socket Opteron appearing on the roadmap, though determined single socket 940 holdouts can always drop in the more expensive 2xx parts if they want.
Looking at the future, the only new Opterons coming out will be the single core x54 models. As we just mentioned, 154 will actually be a socket 939 part (along with the now available 165, 170, and 175). The switch to socket 939 also means that the 154 will use the San Diego core rather than the Venus core that previous 1xx 90nm parts have been based off. 254 and 854 will also exist, and we must admit we're a little surprised - several of us were surprised to see the x52 models. Almost any application that can take advantage of SMP will perform better on two 265 cores than on two 254 cores, but AMD apparently has received enough requests for another single core Opteron model that the x54 parts are being made. The price of the 254/854 parts is identical to that of the 265/865 parts, however, so the parts are essentially being rated as equivalent. Users that have applications that depend more on pure clock speed rather than multiple threads are the likely target of the x54 parts. The socket 939 154 part is priced the same as the FX-57, and actually costs more than the 254, so single socket 940 users shouldn't fret too much. The 939 152 is also priced the same as the FX-55, while the 940 152 is substantially cheaper.
Besides the various Opteron models most of you have probably seen before, we also included the HE models. HE stands for "High Efficiency" and the efficiency we're talking about is performance per Watt. Where the standard Opterons have a TDP of 95W, the HE models are only 55W. You basically give up two bins of performance for the lower TDP, however, so the 865 HE costs as much as the 875 and the 850 HE costs as much as the 865. They also max out at two levels below the fastest models, which isn't too surprising.
Looking to the future of Opterons, the current roadmap doesn't contain any information about what's planned. DDR2 is in the works for all the other markets, so it would make sense for Opteron to eventually move that way as well. However, there have been difficulties in the past with getting ECC and registered memory to work with DDR2, so perhaps Opterons will move to FB-DIMMs (Fully Buffered DIMMS) instead. We do know that AMD has something in the works called socket F, a 1207 pin socket for future Opterons, but we don't know what type of RAM is used. That transition is likely more than a year off, but we'll let you know as soon as we get any clearer picture of what AMD has planned.
Final Thoughts
Echoing what we said in our last AMD roadmap, there aren't a whole lot of speed increases showing up on the future roadmaps. FX-59 will add another 200 MHz to the fastest AMD processor in terms of clock speed, and we can guess that the X2 5000+ will do the same. Again there is another low clock X2 coming up that we can't talk about just now, but fortunately you won't have to wait too long for details on that processor to emerge. Rather than focusing on increasing raw clock speed, AMD and Intel have both shifted to improving the features of their various chips. Dual core was the first step in that direction, and quad core (or maybe tri core) is a likely evolution at some point. 65nm processors are also on the horizon, and likely AMD will begin releasing the first such processors just beyond the range of the present roadmap - i.e. in late 2006 or early 2007. The process shrink should bring improved clock speeds as well as more cores per die. The increasing numbers of mobile parts are another indication of the changing goals. We may not be able to get much faster without spending significant effort, but we can try to focus on making the current designs more portable at the very least. We'll take a look at the Intel roadmap in the near future, but the trends are similar to what we see with AMD.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
51 Comments
View All Comments
KristopherKubicki - Sunday, July 24, 2005 - link
Zebo: We are doing desktop tests; so yes everything is the same but the motherboard.Kristopher
Zebo - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
Kris- That's pretty lame. How's that supposed to give a notebook buyer a clue using desktop motherboards and desktop chipsets?? The whole idea with centrino is it's platform..low power chipset and mobo and chip. AMD same deal with "Turion 64 mobile technology" their complete platform. I want to see how those techs compete with one another not those chips in hacked desktop setup which only works with 1 or 2 motherboards.Not only that Anandtech has done at least 7 Pentium M notebook reviews by my count, is'nt it a bit irresponsible not to have done even one with it's direct competitor?
Lame-- GamePC lame.
KristopherKubicki - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
We have other mobility only reviews scheduled as well. This is just a comparison of the two chips on the desktop.Kristopher
Zebo - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
Well Kris (i can call you Kris right:)) I just don't get doing yet another desktop preview of pentium M. I mean you have like 3-4 of them out now in a couple part series and with a .. 855 and the asus adaptor. We know how it performs in the limited desktop. We also know how turion performs for the most part from two years ago in tens of 754 reviews and you had a couple 754 chips inside those very same Pentium M reviews.What I'd like to see is the compete platform technology, done by a thorough site like anandtech using same equiped notebook parts then see how they stack up. No one one has done one yet (at the AT quality level) which is totally bewieldering to me.. not to compare direct competitors in a market which saw sales higher than the desktop first time last month.
Zebo - Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - link
BUMPJarredWalton - Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - link
Zebo - any specific laptop that you'd suggest? I'm not the mobility reviewer, but I can at least put the word out to the others and see what happens. Part of the problem is that non-Pentium M laptops are often billed as more affordable solutions, including the Turion systems. If the battery size is significantly smaller on a Turion, it doesn't really make it a better mobility laptop.Looking at power requirements, which are now 25W for the low power Turion/Athlon 64-M and 22W for the Pentium M, you can pretty much say that all other things being equal, battery life should be similar. Unfortunately, rarely are the other things equal - different screen is a big one, but different battery, HDD, RAM, GPU, etc. will all have an impact. Until someone comes out with a Turion notebook specifically tailored to compete against the high-end mobile Pentium M notebooks, getting anything resembling an apples to apples comparison will be difficult. (Which of course is why I ask for a suggested Turion notebook.)
Zebo - Sunday, July 24, 2005 - link
I'm definity not buying one of these new X2 chips.. Throttle?? No thanks! Even having that potential bugs me to no end. I'd rather burn my chip than throttle. I want Mhz I paid for, not what they feel like giving meNot only that DDR right now is hitting 2-2-2 @270Mhz which DDR2 has no hope the trump.
Then the whole tin foil thing- converting your Personal Computer(PC) into a corporate-controlled terminal(CCT).
Zebo - Sunday, July 24, 2005 - link
The cnet article linked did just that and disagrees with your conclusion.. How do you explain this discrepancy?Performance was split, battery life was within 2% of one another.
Zebo - Sunday, July 24, 2005 - link
Jarred please stop quoting TDP's. Thier highly erronous MANUFACTURES numbers, which should be taken with a grain of salt. You don't use MANUFACTURES benchmarks why use thier power numbers? For example:AMD says X2 has a TDP of 110W while Xbit measured 96W from the 4800+.
Intel says P4E 670 has a 112W TDP Xbit measured 162W!!!
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/penti...
Same story everywhere. Intel signifigantly under rating thier TDP while AMD not only overrating it, but applying that number to almost every chip in the series. Even the lower clocked and less cache ones to that over rated number.
Test it, dont quote it.
Kris: Same battery (mAh), same screen, same hurtz lancaster/M or Sempy/cele , same HDD, Same video card, and same DVD I hope?
JarredWalton - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
Wow... gonna have to get used to the change. :pAnyway, we don't really have an accurate and reliable way of measuring TDP for ourselves. The change from 80Amp to 95Amp is pretty surprising, though whether it's just a spec change for future stuff or a real change at present is impossible to say. If you can give me an accurate way of measuring TDP on our own (without exotic tools), I'd love to hear it. At present all we can usually do is plug the system into a wall socket device that measure total system power draw. You're right, though: take the TDP with a healthy helping of salt. :)