bit-tech.net

Unannounced Athlon 64 X2 6000+ rolls up

Unannounced Athlon 64 X2 6000+ rolls up

The X2 6000+ is already for sale, despite its launch not being scheduled until 20th February.

Weeks ahead of its official launch, AMD's last high-end Athlon 64 X2 processor has shown up on Newegg in the US.

The chip, which is clocked at 3.0GHz, is based on the 90nm Windsor die and comes with 1MB of L2 cache for each core. Newegg already has OEM versions of the chip in stock for $599 USD, despite DailyTech suggesting that the official launch is not until the 20th February.

In addition, the X2 6000+ has a 125W TDP - almost double that of its competitors, the Core 2 Duo E6600 and E6700 chips.

Judging from the performance of AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62, which is clocked at 2.8GHz, the X2 6000+ should slot in somewhere between the E6600 and E6700, but it doesn't slot in between when it comes to price.

With it being a standard Athlon 64 X2, there will be no upwards multiplier adjustments and it's actually cheaper than the FX-62, despite being clocked higher.

By now, I think it's safe to say that most AMD fans are waiting for the company's next generation K8L processors. This release certainly has an air of damage limitation about it. Share your thoughts on the release in the forums.

6 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Mother-Goose 29th January 2007, 14:57 Quote
damage limitation thats going to perhaps push people away? If it was 65nm then I could see a point to it but 90nm just seems.....im searching a verb here.....well it seems random to be honest. The K8L must be a seriously good piece of kit if they have just done this to fill a gap.
Evenge 29th January 2007, 15:31 Quote
Hmm, quite high price if it competes with the E6600.

And 90nm =
Mankz 29th January 2007, 16:16 Quote
Doesn't this mean that the fastest (clock-speed wise) CPU for the desktop isn't either an FX or Extreme edition? Havn't seen that for a while.

If this had been on 65nm, it might have made sense, but with you beith able to pick up an e6300, 650i Mobo and some half-decent RAM for under $600, AMD have just shot them selfes in the foot.

I think they should have done more work on K8L when they were pwning Intel about 1-2 years ago, or they shouldn't have released AM2 (lets face it, its pretty half-baked) and spent that time preparing K8L to wow us all away in the same way Intel has done.
David_Fitzy 29th January 2007, 18:51 Quote
I typically am an AMD fan(boi ) but right now that dream specification in my head is core 2 (quad:D).
Since core AMD has been on the back foot. K8L (and more importantly Hypertransport 2.0 as it's a cores/die race now(I think they're updating)) had better do to processors what xb360 & ps3 did to games consoles for AMD's sake.

I don't think AMD where really pwning Intel at any point, granted AMD had the upperhand in terms of processing power, but it was only a slight advantage and only enthusiasts really knew this (and only a few enthusiasts where utilising the 64bit capabilities). Had AMD actually pwned Intel the media would've reported "a major reversal in processing power", joe average would've been grunting ATH-LON instead of PEN-TI-UM and we'd see a lot more 64bit applications.
DXR_13KE 29th January 2007, 20:05 Quote
crab.... me thinks this will not sell much...still waiting for K8L.
EQC 29th January 2007, 20:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_Fitzy

I don't think AMD where really pwning Intel at any point, granted AMD had the upperhand in terms of processing power, but it was only a slight advantage and only enthusiasts really knew this (and only a few enthusiasts where utilising the 64bit capabilities). Had AMD actually pwned Intel the media would've reported "a major reversal in processing power", joe average would've been grunting ATH-LON instead of PEN-TI-UM and we'd see a lot more 64bit applications.


Yah, it's kindof strange with AMD not getting too much credit in the media Average Joe sees....

I remember (I'm going to say 5 years ago...but maybe more or less) when, say, an AMD 2000+ didn't quite keep up with an Intel chip at 2GHz. Then some time later, AMD got to work, and an AMD processor actually did beat the Intel processor that it's name competed with. But most non-tech folks still saw AMD as more of the "bargain" chips, and Intel as the ones you really want for performance.

Now, with the Core2, it's all about Intel "again," and Average Joe never really saw AMD as much more than a cheaper, lower-performing alternative.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums