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.

Mobile and Transportable Processors
Comments Locked

51 Comments

View All Comments

  • john matthews - Saturday, January 21, 2006 - link

    The Sempron 3200+ socket 939 processors are being used in Compaq presario's, model # SR1603. I have been trying to find any documentation I could on this chip because AMD's website said it did not exist despite the fact that SANDRA and CPU-Z were telling me that I had a socket 939 Sempron. CPU-Z reports the chip as a Sempron 3200+, Code Name Palermo, Brand ID 38, socket 939, Family F, Model F, Stepping 2, Ext Family F, Ext Model 2F, Revision E6. I have been searching the web for the last three weeks looking for some info on this processor and this is the first documentation I have found on it. I even EMailed AMD tech support and they denied any knowledge of it.
  • Griswold - Friday, August 5, 2005 - link

    Guess I'll just buy me a X2 soon and dont bother with M2 for a year or two (from the time it is released)
  • Anemone - Friday, July 29, 2005 - link

    Presently I have a relatively cheap Intel chip and a nice 2gb of ram (it makes what I do work out fine). If AMD were to have DDR2 support right now, I'd switch cpu's and mobo in an instant. Guess I'm just kinda sad it'll take a year before that's a possibility.

    However, saying that I am still wishing they'd spend till 2007 supporting upgrades for the 939 socket folks. Imo, supporting them with better cpu's to plug in to their systems would be a nice thank you for giving the business to AMD. I know, but it's my $.02.

    So I guess I wait till next year, as I'm not going to invest in 2gb of DDR at this point. OH well!

    $.02
  • OC DETECTIVE - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link

    Strange you say you cant mention the lower speed X2 aka 3800+ after all it is on AMD's website if you look hard enough.(Just click on processor)
    http://www2.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalReso...">http://www2.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Te...182_869_...
    Couple of other comments - to date there are no cache disabled Manchesters (they have a different die size to the Toledo 147 v 199mm2) and the X2 3800+ and X2 4200+ TDP is only 89W.
  • KristopherKubicki - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link

    That's the unfortunate problem of NDA. AMD hasn't actually leaked the specs yet, even though they leaked the name it looks like. I don't think anyone from AMD is going to hammer us about talking about the chip, but I'm not in the mood to push my luck either.

    Kristopher
  • aldamon - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link

    Kristopher, could you please back up this statement:

    "As virtually any socket 754 board should have no trouble supporting these mobile variants, 754 owners looking to upgrade for additional CPU performance might be interested in checking out these parts."

  • KristopherKubicki - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link

    aldamon: In comparison to Turion, Athlon 64-M is pretty well supported by motherboard manufacturers. I've heard various horror stories of getting Turion to work in desktop motherboards, howeever.

    Kristopher
  • aldamon - Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - link

    You didn't say "well supported" in the article. You said "virtually any socket 754 board" could run the 4000+. As far as I know, only the DFI Lanparty UT nForce3 can run mobiles without problems. The MSI and Chaintech boards can do it too but with quirks. That's a far cry from "virtually any socket 754."

    Also, mobiles do not come with an IHS. That messes with the HSF spacing for a lot of mobo / HSF combos.

    What I'm getting at here is that virtually any S754 SHOULD be able to run the chip but they can't. Maybe if AT called out a few of these companies we'd get proper BIOS support. I'd love to have an upgrade path for my Epox 8KDA3J.

    How about an AT article on 4000+ Newark support?
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - link

    First it has to be realeased. Then we need to email the board manufacturers and ask about support for Athlon 64-M and Turion. We may be looking at a Turion/64-M article in the future, so that will give me a good reason to email a variety of manufacturers and ask about support.
  • aldamon - Thursday, July 28, 2005 - link

    That would be great. Thanks.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now