AMD adds new flagship Athlon 64 X2 processors 5400+,5600+

[Pippero]

The new processors 5400+ and 5600+ use socket AM2 and increase the clock speed from 2.6 GHz of the 5000+/5200+ to 2.8 GHz. As previously, AMD uses different cache sizes for different performance ratings of its processors: The 5400+ has 1 MB L2 cache, the 5600+ 2 MB.

While we do not have the performance numbers of the X2s yet, AMD feels confident enough to price the 5400+ and 5600+ right against the E6700. Intel's fastest mainstream processor currently lists for a tray-price of $530 (retail: $525), while AMD charges $485 for the 5400+ and $505 for the 5600+.

(source)
As much as we'd all like to see AMD being more competitive soon, this launch seems to be ridiculous.
The 5600+ is obviously a joke, and the 5400+ should be priced around 300$ to be taken seriously...

 

[ajfink]

The new processors 5400+ and 5600+ use socket AM2 and increase the clock speed from 2.6 GHz of the 5000+/5200+ to 2.8 GHz. As previously, AMD uses different cache sizes for different performance ratings of its processors: The 5400+ has 1 MB L2 cache, the 5600+ 2 MB.

While we do not have the performance numbers of the X2s yet, AMD feels confident enough to price the 5400+ and 5600+ right against the E6700. Intel's fastest mainstream processor currently lists for a tray-price of $530 (retail: $525), while AMD charges $485 for the 5400+ and $505 for the 5600+.

(source)
As much as we'd all like to see AMD being more competitive soon, this launch seems to be ridiculous.
The 5600+ is obviously a joke, and the 5400+ should be priced around 300$ to be taken seriously...

Why is it obviously a joke? I doubt they'll be horribly competitive with the E6600 and E6700, but AMD has got to release something until Barcelona & Co. arrive.

 

[sandmanwn]

it may be a joke to enthusiasts with the higher power consumption and lack of overclocking but...

it however makes perfect sense to release these for the OEM market. since OEM users almost never overclock, and even if they did their components are usually sub-par for such tasks. their only alternative is to upgrade to factory overclocked processors which ensures their warranties remain intact and also gives them higher performance. so in this instance it makes perfect sense for AMD to stretch the performance as much as the toledo core will allow them to in order to keep their relations with the big OEMs

 

[Pippero]

Because they're priced in the range of the E6700, but their performance should be a bit lower than the E6600.
Especially the 5600+, i'd expect it to perform nearly identical to the 5400+, cache doesn't seem to make much of a difference on AM2 CPUs.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Possibly the most interesting part of that article is that Intel will finally be putting the Xeon Woodcrest's 1333 MHz FSB on the E6x50 Core 2 Duos. I don't know if it will help out performance much, but a desktop 1333 MHz FSB requires a new Intel chipset, which *will* help with getting the quad cores to a faster bus speed.

 

[gOJDO]

it may be a joke to enthusiasts with the higher power consumption and lack of overclocking but...

it however makes perfect sense to release these for the OEM market. since OEM users almost never overclock, and even if they did their components are usually sub-par for such tasks. their only alternative is to upgrade to factory overclocked processors which ensures their warranties remain intact and also gives them higher performance. so in this instance it makes perfect sense for AMD to stretch the performance as much as the toledo core will allow them to in order to keep their relations with the big OEMs

It does not make a sence. 5600 is performing slighlty slower than E6600. The price of E6600 is $300, while the price of 5600 is $500. Ofcourse some noobs will buy it, but most people will buy what offers better performance/price. No doubt, that is the E6600.
Also, the price of X2 5200+ is ridiculous. It performs slightly better than E6400, but being owned in everything by E6600. Its PIB price is $400, while E6400 is $200 and E6600 is $300.
I understand that the parts with 2x1MB of L2 are more expencive to produce, and I wonder why they are releasing those X2 models?
What I don't understand is the pricing of the X2 with 2x512kB of L2.
Looks like that AMD and Intel have changed their roles.
With Netburst, Intel offerings were slower, more expencive, wasted more energy and dissipated more heat. Now the same is happening with K8, it is slower, more expencive, wastes more energy and dissipates more heat.

 

[boduke]

I'm still dumbfounded as to why these parts are even being released on a 90nm process. I'm also dumbfounded as to why you can't yet purchase a 65nm x2 anywhere.

I realize that the chips are initially slated to go to OEM's first, but I have ALWAYS (when the launch wasn't a paper launch that is) seen OEM procs up within a few days of release on at least one or two sites but here we are almost two weeks out and I've yet to see any 65nm parts *anywhere*.

 

[Pippero]

Uhh, i thought so at first.
But from the point of view of enthusiasts (overclock), these CPUs are less attractive, having a lower multiplier.

 

[Pippero]

1) 65nm production is still scarce
2) at the moment 65nm probably can't clock as high as 90nm. And these are close to the maximum frequencies that AMD can release at the moment.

 

[Pippero]

Yep, if it was for me, i'd launch only 2x512KB CPUs, clocked at 2.6, 2.8 and 3.0GHz, without all the intermediate (and confusing) model numbers.

 

[dvmoo7]

I'm still dumbfounded as to why these parts are even being released on a 90nm process. I'm also dumbfounded as to why you can't yet purchase a 65nm x2 anywhere.

I realize that the chips are initially slated to go to OEM's first, but I have ALWAYS (when the launch wasn't a paper launch that is) seen OEM procs up within a few days of release on at least one or two sites but here we are almost two weeks out and I've yet to see any 65nm parts *anywhere*.

Like I posted before, AMD 65nm, Paper launch. Maybe these new 90nm 5400, 5600 may also be a paper launch? But in this case, this would actually be a good thing for AMD since they are essentially worthless as compared to Conroe at similar price points.

 

[sandmanwn]

It does not make a sence. 5600 is performing slighlty slower than E6600. The price of E6600 is $300, while the price of 5600 is $500. Ofcourse some noobs will buy it, but most people will buy what offers better performance/price. No doubt, that is the E6600.
Also, the price of X2 5200+ is ridiculous. It performs slightly better than E6400, but being owned in everything by E6600. Its PIB price is $400, while E6400 is $200 and E6600 is $300.
I understand that the parts with 2x1MB of L2 are more expencive to produce, and I wonder why they are releasing those X2 models?
What I don't understand is the pricing of the X2 with 2x512kB of L2.
Looks like that AMD and Intel have changed their roles.
With Netburst, Intel offerings were slower, more expencive, wasted more energy and dissipated more heat. Now the same is happening with K8, it is slower, more expencive, wastes more energy and dissipates more heat.

I think it does if you are sitting on an existing X2 3800+ OEM machine and are looking for an upgrade. If you were to swap brands and buy a whole new machine then you are looking to spend well over $1200+ to get a whole new setup versus $500 for roughly the same performance.

Then again you may end up paying that back in energy bills. But I would personally rather do that than spend all that time integrating a new machine into the domain, loading up all that software, debugging all those settings, lesser shipping costs, and so forth. Yeah, just crack the case swap processor and be done with it. If only it was that easy everytime. :x

Now your argument is definitely true if their isnt an already existing platform. Then the C2D makes much more sense.

I do agree fully that it would have been a much better decision to do this on 65nm with the reduced heat and power consumption.

 

[jrabbitb]

its clear that amd is not going to really do much with these as far as competition goes. but they will drive the cost of the existing amd chips down more making them more competitive on entry level value which they still hold up to $150 or something like that.

 

[dasickninja]

Seriously, I'd wait till K8L is released before I buy an AMD processor again.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Seriously, I'd wait till K8L is released before I buy an AMD processor again.

Why? What you're actually saying is that ONLY the X6800 is worth buying since any other dual, Intel or AMD is actually slower. Because AMD chips can STILL get excellent frame rates out of all levels of GPU - with reasonable power, they are still a viable option.

Those two chips are basically FX62 (now it's $400). No wonder they canceled it.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Well, yeah, you have a $1000 CPU in your rig. I'd be trying to milk that sucker for a while too

 

[turpit]

The new processors 5400+ and 5600+ use socket AM2 and increase the clock speed from 2.6 GHz of the 5000+/5200+ to 2.8 GHz. As previously, AMD uses different cache sizes for different performance ratings of its processors: The 5400+ has 1 MB L2 cache, the 5600+ 2 MB.

While we do not have the performance numbers of the X2s yet, AMD feels confident enough to price the 5400+ and 5600+ right against the E6700. Intel's fastest mainstream processor currently lists for a tray-price of $530 (retail: $525), while AMD charges $485 for the 5400+ and $505 for the 5600+.

(source)
As much as we'd all like to see AMD being more competitive soon, this launch seems to be ridiculous.
The 5600+ is obviously a joke, and the 5400+ should be priced around 300$ to be taken seriously...


Sniff....Sniff.....Smells like................


PAPER LAUNCH

 

[the_vorlon]

There are two types of people buying computers.

The 2 percent who what is going on, and the 98% who don't.

The 2% know EXACTLY how a 5600+ will perform, at 2.8 ghz x2 with 2 x 1 megs of cache, this is a renamed FX-62.

An FX62, taken across the board, is just barely faster than an E6600. (or a tad slower, depends on the mix of benchmarks used, but it's +/- an E6600 speed wise)

Given that cache makes almost no difference on the x2 series chips, I would bet a nich stack of chips the 5400+ will be also basically a dead heat with the E6600.

An E6600 is a $325 chip, which uses less power than an Athlon x2, and overclocks a heck of a lot better as well. (it's also less picky about memory as well)

This makes the 5600+, at best, a $300 chip, at least in my eyes.

But there are fanboys who will buy AMD regardless, just as there were Intel fanboys who actually bought EE965 chips..

I am sure Dell and Bestbuy and HP will make a pile of cash of these 5400+ and 5600+ chips.

<<sigh>>

 

[turpit]

The new processors 5400+ and 5600+ use socket AM2 and increase the clock speed from 2.6 GHz of the 5000+/5200+ to 2.8 GHz. As previously, AMD uses different cache sizes for different performance ratings of its processors: The 5400+ has 1 MB L2 cache, the 5600+ 2 MB.

While we do not have the performance numbers of the X2s yet, AMD feels confident enough to price the 5400+ and 5600+ right against the E6700. Intel's fastest mainstream processor currently lists for a tray-price of $530 (retail: $525), while AMD charges $485 for the 5400+ and $505 for the 5600+.

(source)
As much as we'd all like to see AMD being more competitive soon, this launch seems to be ridiculous.
The 5600+ is obviously a joke, and the 5400+ should be priced around 300$ to be taken seriously...


Sniff....Sniff.....Smells like................


PAPER LAUNCH

If it follows like the 5000+ and 5200+ did, then yep this would likely fall in the paper launch catagory -- however, most of AMD's launches these past few rounds have been 'silent', 65 nm was not really headlined much -- no sample to be seen, 4x4 was trumped by a task manager demo to avoid a great deal of attention....

I wonder what is really going on here.

Smells like.....fear or desperation

 

[Pippero]

There are two types of people buying computers.

The 2 percent who what is going on, and the 98% who don't.

The 2% know EXACTLY how a 5600+ will perform, at 2.8 ghz x2 with 2 x 1 megs of cache, this is a renamed FX-62.

But there are fanboys who will buy AMD regardless, just as there were Intel fanboys who actually bought EE965 chips..

I am sure Dell and Bestbuy and HP will make a pile of cash of these 5400+ and 5600+ chips.

Agreed.
But those who bought the Prescotts, and *will* buy the 5600+, are not fanboys, but rather uninformed people who will walk into a shop, and be presented with these CPUs from major brands like Dell and HP as being roughly equivalent to the similar priced C2D...
And probably will never even notice the difference when they run only Word, IE7 and watch a movie.

 

[RB9269]

Although, looking at this from a weird point of view, debuting a processor that is slower than Intel’s and is priced higher means that Intel wont lower prices to become more competitive.

Is this just AMD damage control? They have a (relatively) long wait till their new uArch comes out and they dont have much to fight back with until then

Edit: Shamless use of Words autospell to correct my post so BM wont try using my grammer against me.

 

[Pippero]

Edit: Shamless use of Words autospell to correct my post so BM wont try using my grammer against me.

Pssst...
that would be spelled "shameless", "Word's", "won't" and "grammar" :lol:

 

[RB9269]

LMAO, damnit i failed by fogetting to spell check the edit...

 

[Pippero]

My my..
it's all good.
But it was so darn funny! :lol:
I hope nobody puts your sentence there in his sig... :twisted:

 

[bobfan]

intel can make chips for less, and sell them for less (cause intel makes 65nm chips and amd makes 90nm atm), so why compare prices between chips by intel and amd. maybe intel should raise their prices to match amd or we should wait for the 65nm amd's to compare to the conroes. . .