AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ out - Still can't beat Intel's E6700
Summary: AMDs latest processor, the Athlon 64 X2 6000+, is out - but it still can't beat Intel's E6700
Today sees AMD release the Athlon 64 X2 6000+. This is a dual core processor that runs at 3.0GHz and has 1MB of L2 cache per core (2MB in all).
Hot Hardware have a review and it's performance is lackluster to say the least. Compared to other AMD CPUs, yes, it's impressive, but compared to Intel's Core 2 Duo, well, here's what Hot Hardware have to say:
In comparison to all previous socket AM2 processor offerings, the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is a solid product. Its higher clock speeds make it the fastest AM2 processor ever released, which also make it the fastest desktop CPU ever to come out of AMD's fabs. In the shadow of Intel's Core 2 Duo E6700 and Core 2 Extreme X6800 processors though, the new X2 6000+ isn't quite as impressive. The Core 2 Duos consumed less power overall and performed better in just about every benchmark. AMD has priced the 6000+ aggressively, which somewhat compensates for the Core 2's higher performance. The 6000+ is almost $500 cheaper than the Athlon 64 FX-62 was when it was launched, which markedly enhances its value proposition. And it's about $60 less expensive than the Core 2 Duo E6700.
What I don't understand is why AMD are still releasing updated Athlon 64 X2's that aren't faster that Intel's processors. Seems to me that it could be spending R&D money better on establishing a line that seriously beat Intel either on price or performance (or both). A shift to a 65nm process would help - the 90nm process has been squeezed dry.
Still, that's a lot of pins on the business side of that processor!
How should AMD move forward?
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
AMD needs..
There was a time where AMD was winning (somewhat) the processor battle. That is
until Intel decided to kick it in gear.
It's hard to compete with Intel. But AMD needs to release some revolutionary chip to
really compete. I feel that if they don't they will forever be stuck as the cheap
alternative brand.
We can agree on that
Hmmm??
I was under the impression AMD *had* moved to 65nm. At least everything coming outta the new fab. What the heck is going on here??
The 6000+ is based on 90nm process
Um, yes...I read that already...
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543_544~116039,00.html
Perhaps some coverage of the new 65 nm CPUs? Even though they are not the fastest AMD offers, they offer a much-improved price/performance/watt over their 90 nm predecessors.
Additionally, perhaps you could prod AMD for the lowdown on their roadmap...a) when will their leading X2s be on 65 nm? b) why are they not already? c) what else is in the pipeline...we're looking for something big, capable of leapfrogging Core Duo...does it exist? (even on paper?) Get us a real scoop on this, please. Thanks.
You probably don't realize this ...
Maybe it's just me...
Good question...
Probably for the same reason that XP SP2 is like still the most popularly available flavor of Windows out there and they wanted to test in a more or less real world scenario.
Secondly, XP 64 still suffers from driver issue - namely the lack of them.
I guess
They don't know how to install Linux...
Not "compatibility mode"
And Windows (or would you call it "M$ W1nd0Wzzzz") has been running 64-bit natively since Windows 2000, running AMD64 (now x64) natively since 2003.
Actually I run Vista x64 on numerous systems ...
True ...
The scary part is that consumers ...
They probably chose 32-bit XP ...
AMD Counter Attack:
:)
4x4?
When AMD gets the Barcelona wave out the door, only then will Intel take a beating.
When Barcelona launches ....
Really?
However, I maintain my doubt that comaprably-priced Intel chips will be able to keep up in any of the K10 segments.
The whole time AMD was beating Intel ...