Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Quote:


Le Inq reports that AMD chips using the Barcelona core will be released on September 10th, with the first chips to surface being a 1.9GHz 2348 and a 2GHz 2350.

Other chips will follow in October of this year although a 2354, which is a 2.2GHz microprocessor, is likely to be available in August through channel distribution. Sources close to AMD's plans in Taiwan tell the INQ that AMD hopes to get 2.5GHz bins out of Barcelona, although dates for such beasts are not yet available.

What we do have now is a projected chart for the chips, which are double socket quad cores with 64K x 4 L1 cache, 512K x 4 L2 cache, so 2MB shared cache, and when you buy them in 1000s.

Opteron 2340 1.9GHz 95W $320
Opteron 2350 2.0GHz 95W $390
Opteron 2352 2.1GHz 95W $450
Opteron 2354 2.2GHz 95W $610
Opteron 2356 2.3GHz 95W $795
Opteron 2358 2.4GHz 120W $1180
Opteron 2360 2.5GHz 120W TBA

Other chips are the 8348 at $790; the 8350 at $1,025; the 8352 TBA; the 8354 at $1,190 and the 8356 at $1,550. No firm dates for many of these chips are yet available.

http://www.guru3d.com/news.html#5523
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,944 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by jonny1989
View Post

This is good news,Do any of then come in AM2 socket,if so i will have to by one,for that price they better own the core 2 and the quads.

They're server parts, they'll be socket 1207.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
65,162 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by sepheroth003
View Post

expensive!

Hope their worth it, I would love to see AMD pull out a rabbit now.

Those are server parts.... always more expensive than desktop. I would say the desktop equivalent of the same parts will be 20-40% less.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,807 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
Those are server parts.... always more expensive than desktop. I would say the desktop equivalent of the same parts will be 20-40% less.
If you are right, and giving a very liberal assumption of 40%, that means that the lowest end quad-core is going to be roughly $192 ($320 * .6). That's not that bad considering the Q6600 will be $266. However, the big wild card is still performance and OCability. The Core chips have been OCing so well so I don't know if lower cost and slightly better performance is going to make up for the OC potential of the Core chips.
 

·
Filthy Casual
Joined
·
8,653 Posts
Wait, is this still a 4x4 type set up with 2 dual cores, or is this actually quad core? I was expecting quadcore, not more stupid dual cores...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
65,162 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheetos316 View Post
If you are right, and giving a very liberal assumption of 40%, that means that the lowest end quad-core is going to be roughly $192 ($320 * .6). That's not that bad considering the Q6600 will be $266. However, the big wild card is still performance and OCability. The Core chips have been OCing so well so I don't know if lower cost and slightly better performance is going to make up for the OC potential of the Core chips.
Based on common assumptions:
On the OCing side... the 1.9GHz chips should be able to do at least 2.5GHz since AMD will be selling one at that clock speed. Since these are server which are usually clocked slower than maximum, I would think a 1.9GHz has the potential to hit 2.7GHz pretty easy. A 40% OC would be nice.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,422 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
Based on common assumptions:
On the OCing side... the 1.9GHz chips should be able to do at least 2.5GHz since AMD will be selling one at that clock speed. Since these are server which are usually clocked slower than maximum, I would think a 1.9GHz has the potential to hit 2.7GHz pretty easy. A 40% OC would be nice.
AMD had to not only delay the launch, but it had to lower the speed of the launch (It was suppose to launch at 2.5Ghz). I think that gives you an idea of how poorly these are going to scale.

Regardless, from the only known benchmarks of these chips, they are slower clock for clock than the Core 2 Quad. How can you figure a $390 chip (2.0Ghz) is going to compete with a $266 Q6600 (2.4Ghz) which is known to scale well above 3.2Ghz.

Really, anyone who buys these chips at these prices has lost their mind.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
715 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
Really, anyone who buys these chips at these prices has lost their mind.
thats the key. hopefully the prices are lower. not only do quads (Q6600) slightly outperform at stock...but they also OC more. 3.2GHz is not EASY, unless good cooling is obtained, but 3GHz is for sure

and btw these are native quad cores
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,422 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sreenath View Post
thats the key. hopefully the prices are lower. not only do quads (Q6600) slightly outperform at stock...but they also OC more. 3.2GHz is not EASY, unless good cooling is obtained, but 3GHz is for sure

and btw these are native quad cores
Well obviously the whole "native" thing isn't helping them out so much.

Guys, native quad core doesn't make this chip super special. Sorry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
1. Inquirer.
2. AMD.
3. LOL!
Assuming you neglect all of the above:
4. Prices

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
Well obviously the whole "native" thing isn't helping them out so much.

Guys, native quad core doesn't make this chip super special. Sorry.
I think the idea behind native quads is that they would naturally generate less heat and take a bit less power, which is the only problem intel's current processors have (since they're sure as hell not bottlenecked). Plus native quads -> non-native octos. Its just a point in technology we should all be looking forward to see. But then again, 45nm should achieve much better results with power and temperature than native quad.
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top