AMD Launches Five New Six-core Opterons

Status
Not open for further replies.

bk420

Distinguished
Apr 24, 2009
264
0
18,780
0
This will be huge for eco-friendly server farms!
55W for six cores...that's amazing.
I can't wait for the 12 core cpu's to come out.
 

B-Unit

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2006
1,837
1
19,810
5
[citation][nom]Upendra09[/nom]Why are the opterons always on the slower side, i mean 2 ghz? come on my laptop can do that. Ignoring the fact it is a C2d[/citation]
Because unlike your laptop, a server receives greater benefit from more cores than clock speed. Add to that the savings in electricity both from the chip itself and in cooling and these are very nice CPUs.
 

matt87_50

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2009
1,150
0
19,280
0
I was so glad to see the athlon64 absolutely slaughter this stupid misconseption about "more ghz is bettarr!!"

A 2.4ghz athlon would pwn a hot, noisy 3.8ghz p4! (or something like that, not sure on exact comparisons).

so for those who forgot or weren't around: clock speed is MEANINGLESS when comparing different architectures, it is ONLY useful for comparing cpus in THE SAME LINE where higher clocks mean more power, in more ways than one.

seeing as I am not currently in the market for 1000 $1.5k processors, i can only hope the desktop equivalents are on there way?
 

Upendra09

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2009
3,174
0
20,960
52
[citation][nom]B-Unit[/nom]Because unlike your laptop, a server receives greater benefit from more cores than clock speed. Add to that the savings in electricity both from the chip itself and in cooling and these are very nice CPUs.[/citation]

I meant compared to the Xeon, the opteron is slow and Xeons also come in 4 cores at 2.6 ghz
 

computabug

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2009
458
0
18,780
0
Honestly, I don't think 200mhz or less would make such a big impact... so it's kind of pointless to spend more to buy a cpu with 1 more multiplier lol.

>>off-topic
 

justjc

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2006
235
0
18,680
0
Am I the only one that's impressed that they managed to get 6 cores to run on 55W?

I doubt even Intel can match that.
 

ohim

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2009
1,195
0
19,360
26
[citation][nom]Upendra09[/nom]I meant compared to the Xeon, the opteron is slow and Xeons also come in 4 cores at 2.6 ghz[/citation]
what part of "different architectures" you didn`t got ? Xeons and Opterons even thow they are designed for servers they are still different and don`t have the same computing power at the same frequency.

[citation][nom]justjc[/nom]Am I the only one that's impressed that they managed to get 6 cores to run on 55W?I doubt even Intel can match that.[/citation]no, you`re not :)
 

anamaniac

Distinguished
Jan 7, 2009
2,447
0
19,790
1
I'd like to get a quad socket motherboard (seen cheap ones for $400 for AMD systems) and throw four of these in. Who needs a video card when you have 24 2.0 GHz processing cores?

What's the possibility that dual and quad socket motherboards will ever hit mainstream? Even the Skulltrail rig is still designed to be a workstation.
 

Pei-chen

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2007
1,254
0
19,280
0
The new chips run at 2 GHz and 2.1 GHz and are priced from US$455 to $1,514 each in 1,000-unit quantities.
100MHz for $1,000?

[citation][nom]justjc[/nom]Am I the only one that's impressed that they managed to get 6 cores to run on 55W?I doubt even Intel can match that.[/citation]
Am I the only one that's impressed AMD managed to get 6 cores to run on 55W but can't produce a mobile chip that runs below 31w or goes above 2.4GHz? Turion ZM-86 (dual core) runs at 2.4GHz but consumes 35w while C2E QX9300 (quad core) only needs 45w to run at 2.53GHz.

The fact is, Intel still leads over AMD and until AMD decided to charge more for their chip so they’ll have the R&D money, Intel will continue to lead and AMD will continue to get 2nd hand IBM technology.
 

downer88

Distinguished
Aug 8, 2008
63
0
18,630
0
These low watt wars are great. I hate that 130 Watts has become the new standard in desktop.

@Pei-chen, but $1000 mobile chip for something that will get stomped by a desktop Q9550S at 65 Watts, 2.83 Ghz, and $350 is kinda pricey.
 

scook9

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2008
826
0
18,980
0
the Q9550s has been shown to be a joke. It used the EXACT same power as the standard Q9550 (and in some tests even used more). Just because the TDP is rated at that, doesn't mean that the CPU uses that much power. That is just the maximum it will use.

This is impressive for AMD, however, like Pei Chen pointed out, if AMD is so good at making power efficient chips, why does their mobile line-up completely suck?
 
G

Guest

Guest
I would like to see one of the cheaper opterons (aka the $450 one),compare to a corei7 for day to day tasks like office, windows experience, and perhaps some gaming too!

I never really looked at how server CPU's perform in gaming, and video encoding environments

I know they most likely are not meant to game but still, perhaps a $450 CPU could give me more fps compared to a Phenom2?
 
G

Guest

Guest
100MHz for $1,000? Yes. That is the cost of going 8-way. Just getting the wife to go with a 3-way is costly enough.
 

mlcloud

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2009
356
0
18,790
1
Hm... apparently the less-than symbol cuts out everything after it. My third attempt to heart daenku32, blegh.

And about the pricing, why is that such a surprise? Just look at the i7s.
 

martel80

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2006
368
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]mlcloud[/nom]Hm... apparently the less-than symbol cuts out everything after it.[/citation]
It seems to be a bug in their page code, they should definitely handle them (like <).
 

fans 6

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2009
39
0
18,530
0
Am I the only one that's impressed that they managed to get 6 cores to run on 55W?

I doubt even Intel can match that.




Yeah right..... in december intel will have 32nm and they'll make 6 core processors run on 45 w
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS