45nm AMD CPUs To Get New Model Numbers?

Oh my poor head. Having to keep up with all the AMD and Intel numbers. What I wouldn't give for the good old days of simply going by MHz and GHz.
 
The 20550 seems to be coming out fairly soon. I'll be looking around for reviews on that processor. It'd be a nice replacement for my aging 5000+ processor.

I'd wait for the AM3 version but all my RAMs are DDR2-800. AM3 won't work with it, won't it?
 
Azhar said:
The 20550 seems to be coming out fairly soon. I'll be looking around for reviews on that processor.
Click to expand...

Ditto... been looking for a replacement for my x2 6000+ in the 3GHz range for a while and this will do nicely. Any gue$$es about price??
 
I don't even pay attention to model numbers it's easier to use a chart that tells me what the CPU is really all about. AMD can shove their X-men 20x69 scheme up their cow pie port. Intel too!
 
I can't wait to have a 20550, GTX1260, DDR3 2133, 790FX build.

Did I just pick lottery numbers?
 
Sweet, now I am going to have to learn Quantum Physics just to understand exactly what components I am buying when I go shopping.
 
Man, do they really have to change it again? No wonder why people are lost about AMD's offerings.
 
If I was going to rename my processor I would do something that would be a little bit more future proof, like SSS=Socket, CC=Cores, GG=GHz, NN=nm, X=Revision number (if any):
SSS CC0GGNN Rev. X

So those trimmed down would be:
AM3 403045
AM2+ 403045
AM3 402845
AM2+ 402845
AM3 402645
AM3 402845
AM3 402645
AM3 302645
AM3 302845
AM3 302645​

Why cant things be that simple.
 
It should be called: Phenom X4 3.0GHz HT-4 DDR3-1333 Cache-8 (45nm 125W), sure its longer but it makes sense to people significantly more then Phenom X4 20x00. You could even compare other Phenoms by using the name instead of a frackin chart! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
 
They really didn't leave themselves a whole lot of room to grow with the old scheme when they started out with 9850, did they? The world would be much better off if all the marketing and business majors just jumped off a cliff.
 
Wattage seems a little high for 45nm.

Intel Q9650 @ 3.0Ghz = 95W vs. AMD 20350 @ 2.8Ghz = 125W

I guess, better late with higher wattage than never. (hides under flame proof blanket)
 
AMD GOT 3 GHZ @ 125 WATTS WHILE INTEL @140!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


SHUT UP AND COMPLAIN ABOUT THE NAMES!

just how frustrated i am about the names, ONLY COMPANY IN THE WOOOOOORLD THAT MAKES REASONABLE NAMES..!!!!!!
ATI!!

AMD should have learned from themself LOL!
 
Intel Core™ 2 Quad Extreme QX9650 3GHz ,LGA775,1333MHz,45nm, 12MB, BOXED w/fan 140W
AMD Phenom X4 20550 3GHZ 6MB cache 4GHZ HT AM2+ 45 NM 4 MB l3 4x512KB l2 /W Fan 125 W

There you go..
the clock cycles shouuld make the amd sliiightly ahead in terms of performance vs wattage.


IF the numbers are right, that we take a go that the intel uses 140 W at all times chipset 100% amd cpu 100% chipset 100% (amd chipsets use WAY less power than intel!.)
Memory controller in cpu and all that crap... anywayz. gogo amd GIVE ME A CHIP that goes 3.6 ghz with EASE!
 
Call me when they make a CPU faster and cheaper than a Q6600. Until then I can't count the ways I don't give a shit.:rolleyes:
 
Gief edit function, whats the deal bout extreme being tons of watts higher... NVM, the QX9770 is @ 150 watts or so... wtf.... 200 mhz... 55 watts... WASTE.
amd phenom 9850 to 3.2 ghz, better not be payin power bill urself...

this cpu war sucks.. ibm , get the 22 nm done already! give amd 22 nm, maybe we'll talk cpu war then ;D
 
BallerX said:
Call me when they make a CPU faster and cheaper than a Q6600. Until then I can't count the ways I don't give a shit.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Or the E8400 with the same OC headroom.

Yeah, AMD's strong suit was they built a better, faster, chip that made less heat and cost less. When you fail on all your selling points... it's hard to sell chips.
 
Well they have to give the new CPUs new numbers, because they've run out of slots in the 9x50 "system" with the 9950.

However numbers in the 20k range are just too long, IMO:
-What CPU have you got?
-I just bougt the "Phenom X4 twenty-thousand-three-hundred-and-fifty"...

That's even worse than "GTX260 Core216". Just too darn long to speak, write down or remember compared to e.g. the 9950 or 9600.

If I was going to rename my processor I would do something that would be a little bit more future proof, like SSS=Socket, CC=Cores, GG=GHz, NN=nm, X=Revision number (if any):
SSS CC0GGNN Rev. X
Click to expand...

I agree. The numbers currently don't mean anything..Take the 9950 for example.. which part tells you that it has 4MB of cache or that it runs at 2.6 GHz or supports DDR2 memory? Sure, the second "9" tells you it's running at 2.6 GHz, while an 8 would have meant 2.5 GHz - but there's no way to know that intuitively - you must be familiar with the naming/numbering convention in order to determine that.

Allthough I wouldn't make the names that complex and long. The things that matter to the end user is clockspeed, # of cores, memory supported (DDR2 or DDR3) and amount of cache. Whether the CPU was made with the 65nm or 45nm process doesn't really matter and the socket type doesn't have to be part of the model number as long as it's written clearly on the box like on current Phenom and Athlon CPUs. AMD doesn't differentiate between 65nm and 90nm cores in their X2 lineup because unless you're overclocking, it doesn't really matter. You can always find out such details as manufacturing process, revision etc. in the detailed specifications when shopping for a CPU.
 
AtkinS said:
Intel Core™ 2 Quad Extreme QX9650 3GHz ,LGA775,1333MHz,45nm, 12MB, BOXED w/fan 140W
AMD Phenom X4 20550 3GHZ 6MB cache 4GHZ HT AM2+ 45 NM 4 MB l3 4x512KB l2 /W Fan 125 W
Click to expand...
Wrong!

At least get the facts straight, the QX9650 is 130W. http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sspec=slan3

However, the Q9650 @ 3Ghz is only 95W and it is the same exact chip as the QX9650 (except locked multiplier) . http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115130
I believe Intel just rated the Extreme Edition higher b/c its unlocked and people will be pushing it to that 140w.
 
I would think that the fact that AMD has their memory controller built into the CPU increases the wattage, I'm not thinking alot but maybe 10W. This can account for the higher wattage, not all of it but some. Also Intels next CPU with integrated memory controller is 130W @ 3Ghz, which I think validates my point that the integrated memory controller adds some heat.

So it would not be fair to compare Penyrn to Shanghai but Nehalam to Shanghai, as far as TDP, performance is yet to be determined.
 
Azhar said:
The 20550 seems to be coming out fairly soon. I'll be looking around for reviews on that processor. It'd be a nice replacement for my aging 5000+ processor.

I'd wait for the AM3 version but all my RAMs are DDR2-800. AM3 won't work with it, won't it?
Click to expand...

It's not too bad. 20-5-50 just say it. It's almost like 2550.
 
AM3 will work on AM2+ if rumours are true, they have ddr2 controller aswell as ddr3, and is pin comp.
 
Wait a sec, i seem to recall a company called AMD didnt they used to try competing with intel or something?

IMO they should restart thier naming scheme to compare with more modern processors.

At least that way they could name the new line with 3 digits instead of the ridiculous 5.
 
2822jxv.jpg


The 3ghz Quad Core might make me upgrade. I have a e6850 and I said to myself a 3ghz quad core would warrant an upgrade from me. Anyone have any guesstimates on the price?
 
Azhar said:
Oh my poor head. Having to keep up with all the AMD and Intel numbers. What I wouldn't give for the good old days of simply going by MHz and GHz.
Click to expand...

Yeah but then you'd have trouble convincing people that a Dual Core 2.66GHz is faster than a Pentium 4 3 GHz because of the dual core and parallel processing.
 
albert6719 said:
Yeah but then you'd have trouble convincing people that a Dual Core 2.66GHz is faster than a Pentium 4 3 GHz because of the dual core and parallel processing.
Click to expand...

Yes I know that. But even the Athlon names were considered GHz or MHz because they compared it with Intel's.. for a while anyways.

A 3000+ would compete against a 3.0GHz. a 1800+ would compete against 1.8GHz and so on, regardless of AMD's actual clock speed. After the numbers got too big it was apparent that AMD was no longer comparing.
 
I know my motherboard is compatible with AM3 processors, but will AM3 processors work with DDR2-800 RAM? Or must I replace all my RAM sticks with DDR3-1333 for my computer to POST with an AM3?
 
AtkinS said:
Intel Core™ 2 Quad Extreme QX9650 3GHz ,LGA775,1333MHz,45nm, 12MB, BOXED w/fan 140W
AMD Phenom X4 20550 3GHZ 6MB cache 4GHZ HT AM2+ 45 NM 4 MB l3 4x512KB l2 /W Fan 125 W

There you go..
the clock cycles shouuld make the amd sliiightly ahead in terms of performance vs wattage.
Click to expand...

lol

.
.
anyways... awesome... AMD are finally coming out with a 3GHz quad!! just in time for nehalem to blow them away in clock:clock performance ;)
 
vengence said:
Yeah, AMD's strong suit was they built a better, faster, chip that made less heat and cost less. When you fail on all your selling points... it's hard to sell chips.
Click to expand...

amd may have built faster/cooler chips.. but intels have always been more stable.. whether that be the chipset or the chip itself is debatable..
 
pfunkman said:
This is the stupidest thing i have ever heard.
Click to expand...

I was going to say that. I'm a lifelong AMD user and I run into my share of tech support with Intel and AMD computers alike.

My computer's quite stable, always has been, thank you very much.
 
BallerX said:
Call me when they make a CPU faster and cheaper than a Q6600. Until then I can't count the ways I don't give a shit.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's funny.

I had a 4800+ Athlon and wasn't to impressed with it. I think my issue was more because of hte motherboard though. AMD just needs to go back to a simple naming scheme and make decent chips again. 5 digit model numbers is stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top