bit-tech.net

Rumour: Athlon II CPU-Z screenshot revealed

Rumour: Athlon II CPU-Z screenshot revealed

If this CPU-Z screenshot is to be believed, then AMD's Athlon II "Rana" CPUs will have no Level 3 cache.

Further reports have now appeared about AMD’s potentially forthcoming Athlon II processor, as German tech site Hardware-Infos (Google translation here) claims to have sourced a CPU-Z screenshot from an Athlon II machine from a motherboard manufacturer.

As previous rumours about the Athlon II suggested, the CPU-Z 1.50 screenshot implies that the CPU uses AMD’s new Rana core, which looks like it might be a radically different beast from AMD’s current Deneb core used in its Phenom II desktop CPUs. For a start, there’s no Level 3 cache. Instead, the Athlon II X3 405e shown in the screenshot has three 512KB blocks of Level 2 cache (one for each core), along with three 64KB blocks of Level 1 Data cache, and a further three 64KB blocks of Level 1 Instruction cache.

This means that there’s no pool of shared cache between the CPU cores, which is a similar cache architecture to the system used in AMD’s dual-core K8 architecture, in which each core also had its own block of Level 2 cache. The main difference between this and K8, of course, is that this architecture can feature three or four cores, rather than just two.

Although the Rana core appears to be built on the same 45nm process as AMD’s current Deneb core, Hardware-Infos claims that it’s been told that the triple-core CPU will consume just 45W. The 2.3GHz chip has a core voltage of 1.2V, and the lack of Level 3 cache would enable AMD to make a significantly smaller die, as well as reducing the power consumption. Similarly, AMD claims that its recently-announced quad-core Opteron EE consumes only 40W, so this isn’t out of the realms of possibility.

The site also has another screenshot of a quad-core Rana processor, which is otherwise identical in terms of specifications. This CPU is detected as a Phenom II by CPU-Z 1.50, but CPU-Z is often understandably inaccurate when it comes to pre-release CPU architectures.

Of course, all of this news is still very much at the rumour stage yet, and none of this has been confirmed by AMD. That said, a low-power multi-core architecture could prove to be popular in media PCs and small form factor PCs. Would it make sense for AMD to remove the Level 3 cache to create a low-power, budget CPU? Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

12 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Ryun 1st May 2009, 17:14 Quote
I have a feeling that these triple core Athlon II's could make a big splash in the OEM market if placed under $100 (which seems likely as the Phenom 8450 X3 is only selling for around $79 in the US). I mean look at how well the X3 720 competes in the midrange against the E8400. I can picture the same thing happening in the low end CPUs.
Skiddywinks 1st May 2009, 18:28 Quote
This could be a decisive win for AMD if these chips turn out at a reasonable price and prove to be as good performers as expected.
Goty 1st May 2009, 18:51 Quote
Well, the question we really need to ask is how much does the Phenom II really rely on its L3 cache for performance? The need should obviously be somewhat reduced with fewer cores, but the issue is still there if one core has to grab a bit of data from another core's cache or, heaven forbid, out to main memory to do the same.
ssj12 3rd May 2009, 04:39 Quote
sadly I have made my bed with Intel. My Athlon X2 7750BE is my last AMD processor. I only have 1 more upgrade for this desktop and thats an AM2+ motherboard with 3GBs of DDR2 1066.
christoefar 3rd May 2009, 14:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
sadly I have made my bed with Intel. My Athlon X2 7750BE is my last AMD processor. I only have 1 more upgrade for this desktop and thats an AM2+ motherboard with 3GBs of DDR2 1066.

What, forever?
leexgx 3rd May 2009, 16:08 Quote
the high end amd cpus are no intrest to me as thay are to hot , only intrested in 45w cpus (or 65w CPUS are cool runners) the X2 phenom 95w is to hot and there 65w 2.7ghz cpus run to hot, this is default heat sink, talking about heat sink if AMD keep putting noisey fans with there cpus (the fan makes an catching noise when its spinning like Most thermaltake fans do it as well) i may had just go with intel

the trade place i get my parts form is now getting the X2 LE-1640 (EE 45w cpu) agane at last but intresting its still at 2.7ghz so hope it runs cooler then the X2 5200+ 2.7 ghz (65w) , 7750 X2 phenom is an joke 95w at 2.8ghz runs quite hot,

i Prefer AMD over intel is for the case asus barbone i get has VGA, DVI, HDMI, firewire, 8 USB ports, amd chipset , the intel ones cost more then £10-£20 and comes with an crapy IGP lower USB ports and no DVI, Nvidia one better IGP but no HDMI or DVI less USB ports no firewire)
Skiddywinks 3rd May 2009, 16:30 Quote
I don't really know what AMD's product chart looks like, or their naming conventions, but aren't the Phenoms the top line chips? Seems a bit daft to be complaining about the high end chips when clearly that is not what you are wanting. You might as well complain about Intel's i7 chips being so hot as well, since they push past 100w.
Dreaming 3rd May 2009, 19:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiddywinks
I don't really know what AMD's product chart looks like, or their naming conventions, but aren't the Phenoms the top line chips? Seems a bit daft to be complaining about the high end chips when clearly that is not what you are wanting. You might as well complain about Intel's i7 chips being so hot as well, since they push past 100w.

I don't think it's an invalid criticism as consumers have become more focused on performance-per-watt (and per-£ too!) in recent years. Just another direction the industry is moving in, focusing on high energy efficiency etc.
Skiddywinks 3rd May 2009, 20:50 Quote
That is true, but there are chip lines out there that address those desires. And then there is also the high end line, for people who do not need to worry about money, heat or performance. It seems silly to me to criticise one line for not being the other; they both exist, so why not just deal with the one that best suits your needs?
Goty 3rd May 2009, 22:42 Quote
People wouldn't have anything to complain about if they used logic!
D-Cyph3r 3rd May 2009, 23:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leexgx
the high end amd cpus are no intrest to me as thay are to hot , only intrested in 45w cpus (or 65w CPUS are cool runners) the X2 phenom 95w is to hot and there 65w 2.7ghz cpus run to hot, this is default heat sink, talking about heat sink if AMD keep putting noisey fans with there cpus (the fan makes an catching noise when its spinning like Most thermaltake fans do it as well) i may had just go with intel

the trade place i get my parts form is now getting the X2 LE-1640 (EE 45w cpu) agane at last but intresting its still at 2.7ghz so hope it runs cooler then the X2 5200+ 2.7 ghz (65w) , 7750 X2 phenom is an joke 95w at 2.8ghz runs quite hot,

i Prefer AMD over intel is for the case asus barbone i get has VGA, DVI, HDMI, firewire, 8 USB ports, amd chipset , the intel ones cost more then £10-£20 and comes with an crapy IGP lower USB ports and no DVI, Nvidia one better IGP but no HDMI or DVI less USB ports no firewire)

AMD's 45nm CPU's run incredibly cool. My 720BE idles around 28*C on a dusty stock cooler.... thats a good 5*C cooler than the old E6600 used to run on a Tuniq Tower.
Saivert 4th May 2009, 19:20 Quote
Skiddywinks: well. people want top of the line performance and energy efficiency at the same time. We want it all these days. Time for manufacturers to get with the programme!

Maybe they should start looking at quantum computing.
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