Thursday, November 29th 2007
AMD Triple-core CPUs to Launch in February 2008
AMD recently notified its partners that it plans to launch two triple-core CPUs (Toliman) in February next year while two dual-core CPUs (Kuma) will appear by the end of the second quarter, according to DigiTimes. The triple-core 7700 and 7600 will have core frequencies of 2.5GHz and 2.3GHz, respectively, and a TDP of 89W. Frequencies for the dual-core 6250 and 6050 have not yet been set, but the CPUs will have a TDP of 65W. In addition, AMD also plans to adjust its entry-level product lines launching the single-core Athlon CPU (Lima) LE-1640 in January of 2008, while higher frequency Lima CPUs will follow in the second quarter. The company will also launch the single-core Sempron (Sparta) CPU LE-1300 with a core frequency of 2.3GHz and TDP of 45W in the first quarter 2008.
Source:
DigiTimes
37 Comments on AMD Triple-core CPUs to Launch in February 2008
Naming a Sempron chip with a name such as Sparta? My respect suddenly dropped for AMD.
I honestly find single core useless. I see the best majority of them being sold through Dell and alike. So to me personally, single core is long dead. It's those companies that know they can rip people off who know nothing about computers, that are keeping the market for 'cheap' single core rigs alive.
phenom is no phenomenon , the new 45nm line from intel is gonna put them back 100 miles again ........... but if Amd comes with something better than intel and also price wise i will surely switch to whats better:)
Im jealous :cry:
for the record my single core amd cpu at 3 gig played all my games just as well as my now current dual core chip does at 3 gig.. i dont have all the games out but i can vouch for.. fear.. prey.. cod 4.. shame i cant do a crysis compare i never had it installed when i was still useing the single core sandy.. but i would like to lay odds it would do just as well as my current dual core..
course i aint in the habit of encoding video at the same time as playing demanding games but who in their right mind is..
it comes down to core speed not how many cores u have for 99% of games.. it is possible that the less cores the chip has the faster it might clock.. i would sooner have a single core cpu at 4 gig anyday over a slower quad..
i would imagine the single core amd chips will be very cheap and snapped up by box builders.. but the bottom line here is that given a decent power supply.. a decent grafix card.. enough ram.. pretty much any old modern cpu will play games in a reasonable fashion..
an ancient 200mhz pentium will browse and do email.. he he he
trog
ps.. and the quad phemons aint worth a wotsit till they manage to get the core speed up..
When it comes to High Definition media play single core cant cut it. You need a bare minimum dual core cpu. May be the software coders built the software like that. I upgraded my media pc to play HD movies with a Dual Core X2 3800. Now I can play movies as well as record my favourite TV shows at the background with out missing a beat. So I guess 3 or 4 cores would be better in that way.
And ofcourse its fashion like owning a IPhone:D
FYI clock speed myth is gone with crappy P4s. Now CPUs can do more work even at lower clock speeds.
somewhere an amd executive got quoted as saying quad core will be wasted on most people.. but as u say when "fashion" dictates we all have to follow.. he he
the speed myth aint entirely dead in fact it aint dead at all.. it still counts big time when u are talking similar chips and quad against dual for example.. the phenom core speed has to go up quite a way before i will chuck out my amd dual core and by a quad core phenom..
trog
So I don't know if ATI is really going to do well.
Set aside my Fanboyism and listened to my mind.
My son and I did our own test about two years ago. We wanted to find out if cpu gigs really made a difference in synthetic tests. He used an Asus with a 2500 mobile o/c to an actual 2.5 and I used a Dfi 148 optron o/c to 2.5, both of us using the same o/c Video card and on the cpu test with 3dmark there was a difference of 100 to 150 points . Again I lay it out, do you spend good hard earned cash on marketing and play Crysis for a few hours or get back to reality and play all your games with what you have.
Remember a few years ago when the rage was duel core and where we were going to be headed to, I had visions I was going to be in heaven the way the Industry was explaining things to me, where are all the two threaded software progs or even all the 2 threaded games. I'm still waiting. It looks like someone at the top said Hey lets skip the duel cores and get everyone on the band wagon for quads and maybe a little tri cores. So don't let the Jones next door break the bank for you, theres still life for the 939.
Another thought how many years ago were we all going to 64 bit, I got prepared but for some reason the Industry that keeps pushing us didn't get on the bandwagon, lots of chip sales but look around most progs are still at the 32 bit level. AH it must be my age, I have a good memory and don't quite easliy get moved by the hype from the industry anymore and neither does my 18 year old son. As Walter Cronkite use to say " Thats the way it is Nov29, 2007."
It said that the fact that AMD is doing true quad-core (instead of intel's 2x dual core setup in Q6600, etc), is that the risk ratio increases tremendously of having a die go bad. So, they test each CPU, and sell the ones with a single bad die as "Triple Core" CPUs... its really a pretty good efficiency strategy, but I myself now will not trust the Quad Core originals or the Triple Cores...
FOUND THE ARTICLE!:rockout: I'm not down with "We'll sell the broke ones for cheaper..."