AMD's 45nm Phenom CPU naming scheme changed..This can't be right? Can it?

Discussion in 'AMD x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by DiGiTaL MoNkEY, Sep 22, 2008.

Tags:
  1. DiGiTaL MoNkEY

    DiGiTaL MoNkEY Inverted Monkey

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    26,896
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria
    Not sure if marketing were smoking something when someone came up with this...or its fud, but considering the naming scheme of their 45nm Opterons which go into the 8XXX's this could be legit...

    [​IMG]

    http://en.expreview.com/2008/09/22/amd-45nm-cpu-naming-scheme-changed/#more-933

    A better table to explain the details:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2008
  2. FireTech

    FireTech Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,651
    Location:
    Sunny Sydney
    and it's not even April yet...
     
  3. Hooblah

    Hooblah Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    152
    Location:
    Rockhampton
    that's gotta be the worst naming Scheme ive ever seen....is it Multiplier - fsb?
     
  4. prezident doom

    prezident doom Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,251
    Location:
    Brisbane
    It would be ok if they cut the last digit off of the names. At the moment they are a bit big.

    Off hand I like the speeds they will come out at :thumbup:

    I dare say the X is in place of a number that has yet to be decided
     
  5. Tony

    Tony New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Messages:
    9,988
    Location:
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    too many fucking numbers

    i think intel is fine with the e7200 or q6600 but when it gets to T5850 i'm going wtf???
     
  6. AEKaBeer

    AEKaBeer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    4,137
    Location:
    North Melbourne
    Ummm 7.5mb cache? Has to be a typo.

    Either way, I don't think AMD want to confuse people any further with their products, they're not making as many sales as it is.
     
  7. dirtyd

    dirtyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Messages:
    3,924
    Location:
    Melbs
    3x512kb L2 per core + 6mb L3. Have to agree though, looks pretty confusing
     
  8. george!

    george! Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    683
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I miss the naming system of the Athlon X2's.. :( Most of them you could just divide by 2 to get the speed of them.
     
  9. OP
    OP
    DiGiTaL MoNkEY

    DiGiTaL MoNkEY Inverted Monkey

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    26,896
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria
    A better table to explain the details:

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Marlborosmoker

    Marlborosmoker Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    927
    Location:
    Sydney
    err no more 65w? Though it is a big ask of quads. I mean I'm probably in the minority but I thought the 65w quads AMD recently pushed out were a sign of things to come.
     
  11. prezident doom

    prezident doom Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,251
    Location:
    Brisbane
    These run much faster that the quads you are referring to. Getting 65w at these speeds is unlikely without further refinement of the production process.
     
  12. MadOnion87

    MadOnion87 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    3,232
    Location:
    Old Trafford, Manchester
    looks like its safe to say that AMD's market department consist of retards
     
  13. fabricator

    fabricator Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    853
    Location:
    adelaide
    The numbers for the AM2+ and AM3 quads is just nuts, should have been something like:
    20xxx for AM2+
    21xxx for AM3

    instead of what they have which is
    20x50 for AM2+
    20x00 for AM3
    which makes it look like the AM3 chips have the TLD bug, and the AM2+ are newer parts lol.
     
  14. Shin

    Shin New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Messages:
    98
    Location:
    Toowoomba
    Which may just be a marketing ploy to get rid of AM2+ chips.
     
  15. The Bad Egg

    The Bad Egg Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,041
    Location:
    Brisneyland
    You are not alone. :( I spose theres always underclocking....
     
  16. AEKaBeer

    AEKaBeer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    4,137
    Location:
    North Melbourne
    The review I read about the 65w quads, is that it is cheaper to get a 9500 or 9550 and undervolt + underclock the cpu. It will idle about the same, at load it uses slightly more power.
     

Share This Page