bit-tech.net

Rumour: AMD's AM3+ CPUs delayed until September

Rumour: AMD's AM3+ CPUs delayed until September

The delays could make the AM3+ motherboards hitting the market a difficult sell for manufacturers.

Rumours are currently circulating that AMD has been forced to significantly delay the release of its eagerly anticipated AM3+ CPUs until September, due to unforeseen stability issues.

AMD has yet to comment on the rumour, but an announcement regarding its AM3+ range of processors is expected at a press conference tomorrow. Tomorrow's event was initially believed to be for AMD to formally introduce the AM3+ CPUs, so it would be a major embarrassment for AMD to instead announce that the chips are delayed.

The reason for the delay, industry sources have explained to us, is that the first B0 stepping of the processors that AMD shipped to motherboard manufacturers in March was chronically unstable. This forced AMD to rethink the design of the processor die, a process which takes time.

AMD has now allegedly fixed this instability with the new B1 stepping of the AM3+ processors, we’re told, although the fix comes at the cost of not being able to overclock the chip. As a result, AMD is apparently hard at work on a second revision to the design, which should allow the processors to be overclocked.

These problems have pushed the back the processors' release date significantly, though, as motherboard manufacturers have only just started designing BIOSes for the processors as they haven’t had stable samples with which to work until now. However, one silver lining for AMD fans is that we were told that, apart from the known issues, the performance of the processors was good.

If the rumour is true, it would put motherboard manufacturers in the tricky situation of trying to sell AM3+ motherboards to the public without any AM3+ processors on the market for the next four months, however.

Do you have your eye on an AM3+ motherboard? Will this news make you rethink your purchase? Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

32 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
CrapBag 31st May 2011, 12:08 Quote
I thought they were supposed to delayed until July, now it's supposed to be September, bugger :(.
javaman 31st May 2011, 12:17 Quote
My current upgrade plan is to drop a hex core into my AM2+ board and upgrade to an AM3+ board later on for SLI goodness and more PCI-E slots than my AM2+ board for folding. Tho price-performance of bulldozer would dictate weather I continue with upgrading this path or jump to Intel tho like my current situation and plan, a new chip works out cheaper for the performance boost over an entire platform jump.
fata1_666 31st May 2011, 12:25 Quote
why oh why is it so hard to bring bulldozer to market any advantage these chips had over intel in terms of performance will be lost by september. i'll wait for the 2nd generation just like the am3 processors of today the 2nd generation are far better than first.
TheStockBroker 31st May 2011, 12:30 Quote
Soooo; if this is true - the AM3+'s won't be released until LGA2011 really is just one or two months away.
Meanwhile, we already know that they're only set to be on par with/compete against Sandybridge i5's?

Smells like failure?

TSB
bagman 31st May 2011, 12:30 Quote
that is a real shame, if amd had released them now then they would sell a lot more chips than releasing them later just a few weeks before ivy bridge
MrJay 31st May 2011, 12:32 Quote
Hummmm this smacks of **** smearing.

But if its true = Sad Face : (
.//TuNdRa 31st May 2011, 12:43 Quote
Well damn. Can they at least show examples of the "Performance", to let us know, now, if it's worth waiting for the stable-overclockable variants.

I do like the fact they're going. "Okay... We have Non-overclockable ones. We -could- sell those, but lets work on the OC'able ones instead!"

Shows a bit of commitment there. Then again, part of Bulldozer's marketing was that they'll be "More Overclockable." than Sandy Bridge (I refuse to believe this till I have a 5Ghz Octo-core), but it's a nice touch.
warejon9 31st May 2011, 13:13 Quote
Why don't the release them as non-overclockable versions, at least it will be a launch. Then bring out the big guns with the Fx chips? I think most people will be happy (non-overclockers) with the out of box performance, if they're that good, which i hope they are :)
tonyd223 31st May 2011, 14:37 Quote
AMD need to get this chip, and the associated motherboards into the big box shifters like Dell, HP, etc who sell non-overclocked versions to the business masses. AMD must be watching revenue dry up in the OEM market. As regards us techies who want a overclockable, cheap, low power, low heat processor that can be unlocked to give more that we expected - either a time machine or an Intel platform...
chris66 31st May 2011, 14:43 Quote
Sigh, and I remember fondly having the all-conquering AMD 2500 Barton CPU (I think the 2500k now holds that mantle)– so much better and cheaper than any equivalent Intel CPU. How the tables turn……
Aracos 31st May 2011, 15:13 Quote
Amd are screwed, they're going to end up competing with LGA2011 if this keeps up, I just fail to believe that bulldozer can be THAT much better than K-10 for them to have a successful comeback :-(
Sentinel-R1 31st May 2011, 15:49 Quote
I'm neither a fanboy nor loyal to any CPU manufacturer. I always buy what's 'on top' at the time of upgrade. Having said that, I'm struggling to remember the last time I bought an AMD CPU. It was an Athlon 64 variant a long, long time ago - when they first released.
Snips 31st May 2011, 16:15 Quote
ROFL

So AMD have pointed fingers at the "flawed" original SandyBridge and hope to overtake it with a "flawed" CPU of their very own. Genius!

It worked for Intel because SB is flying out big time. Not too sure the same will happen to AMD though, unless they get that Version 2 out soon.

Looks like my next builds will be Intel again for the foreseeable future.
Bakes 31st May 2011, 16:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
ROFL

So AMD have pointed fingers at the "flawed" original SandyBridge and hope to overtake it with a "flawed" CPU of their very own. Genius!

It worked for Intel because SB is flying out big time. Not too sure the same will happen to AMD though, unless they get that Version 2 out soon.

Looks like my next builds will be Intel again for the foreseeable future.

I feel you may be confusing 'AMD' with 'people who use AMD products'. Also, AMD found out about the problem before they released their product.
l3v1ck 31st May 2011, 16:27 Quote
So are these flawed chips Phenom's (AKA K8's ******* love child) or their new Bulldozer chips?

EDIT

Ah, just looked at your Computex Preview.
Quote:
Socket AM3+ boards are compatible with Socket AM3 CPUs and the forthcoming Socket AM3+ CPUs, but not any new APUs from AMD – the integrated graphics unit of an APU will require a completely new type of socket.
So that won't affect the upcoming Bulldozer chip then.
tonyd223 31st May 2011, 16:29 Quote
dare I say I'm not a "fan boy" (not even sure what that is), but looking back I only seem to have bought AMD processors and graphic cards... just want there still be to a little guy...
Bungletron 31st May 2011, 16:30 Quote
Interesting rumour, however this article does not allude to any source. The article is well written and contains many plausable reasons for why the release will be delayed, unfortunately the lack of any information regarding the source makes all the content completely unsubstatiated, potentially misleading and thus worthless.

I am not a propnent of this type of reporting and must insist certain standards of reporting before an article can be seen to be useful, it is particularly weak journalism to simply repeat rumours without naming or at least alluding to a source, it is a symptomatic flaw with mainstream UK journalism and I was slightly dissapointed to see it here, although the subject matter may seem comparatively trivial. We have a forum, surely this kind of rumour reporting should be confined to unofficial channels such as forum posts?
Fizzban 31st May 2011, 16:36 Quote
Good of them to hold off release to fix their product, but you have to wonder what sort of damage this delay could do.
Snips 31st May 2011, 17:09 Quote
Not at all Bakes, AMD sniggered at Intel as well as their fan base.
3lusive 31st May 2011, 17:43 Quote
Hmm a different story was presented here:Xbitlabs
Quote:
The currently available B0 and B1 stepping Zambezi/Bulldozer processors can function at around 2.50GHz/3.50GHz (nominal/turbo) clock-speeds and at such frequency they cannot deliver performance AMD considers competitive, a person with knowledge of the situation said on Monday. As a consequence, AMD needs to tune the design of the processor and create B2 stepping of the chip with better clock-speed potential amid similar thermal design power (TDP), which will take several months to complete.

If that is true it doesnt look good for AMD
maverik-sg1 31st May 2011, 18:31 Quote
They are all scaremongers I tell ya :)

AMD have obvioulsy had some quality issues from Global Foundries, which is why they went from a 'per waifer' price to a 'per working core' price earlier this year.... all the specualtion surrounding these delays are just the standard 'fill in the gaps' guestimates to improve webhits on their site - especially that tool from semi accurate.


The Real Reason:

Bulldozer Delayed until September - Delays are expected due to a new amitious marketing plan - Originally it was thought AMD were going with 'Neon Pink' packaging, but have since re-evaluated the packaging and, in a stunning turn of events have now opted for for an un-conventional 'blue/amber/white lightning' combo - this has thrown the packaging supplier into turmoil.

A 'source close to the presses' is quoted as saying

"There is a global shortage on 'Electric Blue' ink, as this is the chosen box colour we simply can't get the boxes out in time, the lads are devastated as it will be several weeks before the presses will run again......"

More to follow :0)
balatro2005 31st May 2011, 19:21 Quote
I was waiting for these hoping to build a new rig based on them. Would have been the first AMD rig I have had in about 5 years. Guess ill wait for LGA2011 now :-(.
Action_Parsnip 31st May 2011, 19:42 Quote
Some pretty gooney comments on here^^

It's a long pipeline design, it runs faster for the same level of output. Integrate that into your thinking.

And why on earth would BD be lined up against LGA2011?? They're aimed at entirely different segments. It will be a p67 alternative plain and simple.
3lusive 31st May 2011, 20:02 Quote
Who said they were up against LGA2011? Its going to look embarrassing when theyre releasing Bulldozer that cant even compete with SB (according to that source) and Intel have IB around the corner.
HourBeforeDawn 31st May 2011, 20:05 Quote
more time to save up money :) and I think for the most part when it comes to Intel and AMD, that once they get to B3 then its an ideal cpu :)
Bakes 31st May 2011, 20:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Action_Parsnip
Some pretty gooney comments on here^^

It's a long pipeline design, it runs faster for the same level of output. Integrate that into your thinking.

And why on earth would BD be lined up against LGA2011?? They're aimed at entirely different segments. It will be a p67 alternative plain and simple.

A long pipeline does not affect CPU speed in a positive way.

Think of it this way. We have a factory in which we have four workers, who each put a wheel on a car. Each worker takes (lets say) 5 seconds.
In a different factory, we have a single worker who does the same job as four other workers, again in 5 seconds (but this time for all wheels).

The same numbers of cars are coming out every second, because whilst in factory 2 there's one car being worked on at any one time, there are four cars being worked on at any one time in factory 1. So it all works out - a car is coming out every five seconds in factory one, and a car is coming out every 5 seconds in factory 2.

This is where the clock speed comes into effect - if we decrease the time it takes for each tyre to be fitted, it decreases the amount of time each tyre takes to come out.

So at full load, there's no difference between a long pipeline and a short pipeline.

At part load, however, there's a much bigger difference - if we only have one car being worked on at a time, factory 2 takes 1/4 of the time as factory 1 - because it can take a car from start to finish in 5 seconds, whilst factory 1 will take 20 seconds.

CPUs make mistakes, remember - and every time they make one the entire pipeline must be emptied and it must start filling it again.

This is one of the reasons why Sandy Bridge is faster than the old Pentium 4s. Sandy Bridge has an (IIRC) 12 stage pipeline, the last P4s had a 21 stage or 22 stage (I can't remember) pipeline.

In general a shorter pipeline is an advantage because it stays full for more of the time (mistakes made take less time to correct). You'd only want a longer pipeline if the way your pipeline worked meant you had to use the longer pipeline.

So no, a long pipeline does not help the CPU overall speed, and might be a disadvantage.
OCJunkie 31st May 2011, 21:08 Quote
Though delays definitely suck I'm actually kinda glad to know this now, if it's even true then gives me more time to save for the upgrade since I'll wait for a revision that overclocks instead of jumping on the 1st thing that comes out...
Action_Parsnip 31st May 2011, 21:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Action_Parsnip
Some pretty gooney comments on here^^

It's a long pipeline design, it runs faster for the same level of output. Integrate that into your thinking.

And why on earth would BD be lined up against LGA2011?? They're aimed at entirely different segments. It will be a p67 alternative plain and simple.

A long pipeline does not affect CPU speed in a positive way.

Think of it this way. We have a factory in which we have four workers, who each put a wheel on a car. Each worker takes (lets say) 5 seconds.
In a different factory, we have a single worker who does the same job as four other workers, again in 5 seconds (but this time for all wheels).

The same numbers of cars are coming out every second, because whilst in factory 2 there's one car being worked on at any one time, there are four cars being worked on at any one time in factory 1. So it all works out - a car is coming out every five seconds in factory one, and a car is coming out every 5 seconds in factory 2.

This is where the clock speed comes into effect - if we decrease the time it takes for each tyre to be fitted, it decreases the amount of time each tyre takes to come out.

So at full load, there's no difference between a long pipeline and a short pipeline.

At part load, however, there's a much bigger difference - if we only have one car being worked on at a time, factory 2 takes 1/4 of the time as factory 1 - because it can take a car from start to finish in 5 seconds, whilst factory 1 will take 20 seconds.

CPUs make mistakes, remember - and every time they make one the entire pipeline must be emptied and it must start filling it again.

This is one of the reasons why Sandy Bridge is faster than the old Pentium 4s. Sandy Bridge has an (IIRC) 12 stage pipeline, the last P4s had a 21 stage or 22 stage (I can't remember) pipeline.

In general a shorter pipeline is an advantage because it stays full for more of the time (mistakes made take less time to correct). You'd only want a longer pipeline if the way your pipeline worked meant you had to use the longer pipeline.

So no, a long pipeline does not help the CPU overall speed, and might be a disadvantage.

Thank you for telling granny how to suck chicken ovulations.

"It's a long pipeline design, it runs faster (the clock runs faster) for the same level of output (across a general basket of loads)." This is essentially true and didn't warrant a cuddle-me-elmo response. Rephrasing though for the sake of things:

"it's a long pipeline design therefore it's clockspeed will tend to be higher than that of a short pipeline design. The risk of pipeline stalls and branch miss predictions is higher in a long pipeline design and the number of cycles required to flush the pipeline in such circumstances to allow a restart is greater also. The long pipeline design allow for higher switching speeds potentially mitigating the lower effective IPC across a general usage model. Usage models with less branching code should see a lower number of miss-predicts and pipeline stalls and therefore experience higher #throughput#.

Mentioning Pentium 4 and the perils of a long pipeline design in the same sentence should be avoided. There was a lot wrong with P4 but you will be very hard pressed to effectively pin it to the long pipeline principle. You can take the IBM Power processors as evidence that it can be used effectively.
Chicken76 31st May 2011, 22:18 Quote
Actually, Bakes' explanation was clearer than your first one, which I found slightly ambiguous.
But do continue your point with the P4's and IBM PowerPC's, Action_Parsnip. I'm genuinely interested.
l3v1ck 1st June 2011, 11:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
A long pipeline does not affect CPU speed in a positive way.
+1 to that.
Remember the steaming turd that was the Pintium 4e with it's long pipeline?
Dwarfer 1st June 2011, 11:49 Quote
This sucks... :( Not sure what to do anymore in terms of a system upgrade.

Wait till Sept... or build a system with a 6 core & AM3+ compatible board?
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