Affordable Dual Core from AMD: Athlon 64 X2 3800+
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 1, 2005 9:36 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
For the past couple of months, we've asked, hoped and dreamed for it, and today, AMD is launching it - the $354 Athlon 64 X2 3800+; the first somewhat affordable dual core CPU from AMD.
If necessity is the mother of invention, then the birth of the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ should be no surprise to anyone. In one of their strongest CPU paper-launches ever, AMD put their best foot forward this past May and introduced the Athlon 64 X2 processor. While AMD was late to the desktop dual core game compared to Intel, the Athlon 64 X2 processor had absolutely no problem outperforming Intel's Pentium D. But at the end of the day, despite AMD's clear victory, our recommendations were quite complicated, thanks to one major flaw in AMD's execution: price.
The cheapest dual core Pentium D processor could be had for under $300, yet AMD's cheapest started at $537. Intel was effectively moving the market to dual core, while AMD was only catering to the wealthiest budgets.
The Pentium D 820, running at 2.8GHz and priced at $280, offered the most impressive value that we've seen in a processor in quite some time - if you could properly use the power. Multitaskers and users of multithreaded applications found themselves with the cheapest 2-way workstation processor that they had seen since the SMP Celerons and ABIT's BP6. While Intel satiated our demands for affordable dual core, we knew it wasn't the perfect option. AMD's Athlon 64 X2 was the better overall performer, just at the very wrong price point.
After much pressure from all sides and some very important manufacturing changes, AMD went ahead with the decision to release a cheaper Athlon 64 X2. The decision was made around the time of Computex 2005 and that's when we first heard of the $354 Athlon 64 X2 3800+.
The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is basically two Athlon 64 3200+ cores stuck together, each running at 2.0GHz and each with its own 512KB L2 cache. This is a full 200MHz lower clock per core than the 4200+, but with the same amount of cache.
The original Athlon 64 X2 (Toledo core) processors all had the same exact specifications:
Update: As many of you have correctly pointed out, the 4200+ and 4600+ were available as both Toledo and Manchester cores. More than half of the Athlon 64 X2's transistor count is spent on cache, which means that if there are going to be any manufacturing defects on the chip, they will more than likely occur in the processor's cache. Born out of that fact, the Toledo based Athlon 64 X2 4600+ and 4200+ were nothing more than 4800/4400+ X2s with too many manufacturing defects; instead of throwing the bad cores away, AMD simply rebranded them and sold them at lower price points. The problem with this approach is that an Athlon 64 X2 4200+ took the same amount of space on a wafer as an Athlon 64 X2 4800+, despite only having half the cache. Thus we have the Manchester core: a core designed from the ground up to only feature a 512KB L2 cache per core.
As manufacturing ramps up, yields improve and it is now possible to actually create a cost-reduced Athlon 64 X2, using the smaller Manchester die - and that's where the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ gets its cost savings.
The transistor count of the 3800+ goes down to 154 million, and the die gets shrunk down to 147 mm2 compared to the 233.2M and 199 mm^2 of its bigger brothers (4800/4400+). The thermal envelope of the new core also dropped from 110W down to 89W, both still lower than Intel's Pentium D or single-core Pentium 4 for that matter.
With a smaller die and lower transistor count, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is able to support its $354 price tag.
If necessity is the mother of invention, then the birth of the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ should be no surprise to anyone. In one of their strongest CPU paper-launches ever, AMD put their best foot forward this past May and introduced the Athlon 64 X2 processor. While AMD was late to the desktop dual core game compared to Intel, the Athlon 64 X2 processor had absolutely no problem outperforming Intel's Pentium D. But at the end of the day, despite AMD's clear victory, our recommendations were quite complicated, thanks to one major flaw in AMD's execution: price.
The cheapest dual core Pentium D processor could be had for under $300, yet AMD's cheapest started at $537. Intel was effectively moving the market to dual core, while AMD was only catering to the wealthiest budgets.
The Pentium D 820, running at 2.8GHz and priced at $280, offered the most impressive value that we've seen in a processor in quite some time - if you could properly use the power. Multitaskers and users of multithreaded applications found themselves with the cheapest 2-way workstation processor that they had seen since the SMP Celerons and ABIT's BP6. While Intel satiated our demands for affordable dual core, we knew it wasn't the perfect option. AMD's Athlon 64 X2 was the better overall performer, just at the very wrong price point.
After much pressure from all sides and some very important manufacturing changes, AMD went ahead with the decision to release a cheaper Athlon 64 X2. The decision was made around the time of Computex 2005 and that's when we first heard of the $354 Athlon 64 X2 3800+.
The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is basically two Athlon 64 3200+ cores stuck together, each running at 2.0GHz and each with its own 512KB L2 cache. This is a full 200MHz lower clock per core than the 4200+, but with the same amount of cache.
Note: The 512KB X2s are available in both 154M and 233M transistor versions.
A New Core
AMD didn't sit on the X2 3800+ just because they were greedy and expected everyone to gobble up the $500+ parts. Instead, today's release is the result of a slightly revised core, codenamed Manchester, specifically designed to cut costs.The original Athlon 64 X2 (Toledo core) processors all had the same exact specifications:
- 233.2M transistorsFor the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ and the 4400+, the shared transistor count and die size made sense. They both were identical from a transistor standpoint, one chip just ran 200MHz faster than the other. But the 4200+ and the 4600+ weren't identical; unlike the 4800/4400+ X2s, the 4200+ and 4600+ only had a 512KB L2 cache per core, not a 1MB L2.
- 199 mm2 die size
- 110W max power
Update: As many of you have correctly pointed out, the 4200+ and 4600+ were available as both Toledo and Manchester cores. More than half of the Athlon 64 X2's transistor count is spent on cache, which means that if there are going to be any manufacturing defects on the chip, they will more than likely occur in the processor's cache. Born out of that fact, the Toledo based Athlon 64 X2 4600+ and 4200+ were nothing more than 4800/4400+ X2s with too many manufacturing defects; instead of throwing the bad cores away, AMD simply rebranded them and sold them at lower price points. The problem with this approach is that an Athlon 64 X2 4200+ took the same amount of space on a wafer as an Athlon 64 X2 4800+, despite only having half the cache. Thus we have the Manchester core: a core designed from the ground up to only feature a 512KB L2 cache per core.
As manufacturing ramps up, yields improve and it is now possible to actually create a cost-reduced Athlon 64 X2, using the smaller Manchester die - and that's where the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ gets its cost savings.
The transistor count of the 3800+ goes down to 154 million, and the die gets shrunk down to 147 mm2 compared to the 233.2M and 199 mm^2 of its bigger brothers (4800/4400+). The thermal envelope of the new core also dropped from 110W down to 89W, both still lower than Intel's Pentium D or single-core Pentium 4 for that matter.
With a smaller die and lower transistor count, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is able to support its $354 price tag.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
109 Comments
View All Comments
Houdani - Monday, August 1, 2005 - link
By that same logic, should Intel cut prices on the Pentium D 830, 840, and EE down to the same price as the Pentium D 820? Of course not, because with higher performance comes higher prices.Sure, AMD could release a 1.8GHz X2 3400+ at a $250 price point to cross with the Pentium D 820, but before that happens they'll continue to make a profit with what they've got before introducing a new chip which has been artificially gimped in order to meet the needs of the low end/entry market.
still - Monday, August 1, 2005 - link
Except that by the time you get a new motherboard that supports that cheaper Intel chip and the pricier DDR2 memory, any price advantage Intel had is already gone. And the AMD system still outperforms the Intel one 15% in for the 830D and 20% in the 820D. So choose wisely...SDA - Monday, August 1, 2005 - link
You know what's funny? Most of the customers I've had were more than happy to pay extra to have a PC that ran very quiet and cool. All of them said they'd like that, actually, but most of them added that they wouldn't mind a hefty premium. So do you think these customers would bite if I told them that $100 would buy them a faster, more capable, and cooler-running processor?Oh, it's expensive, to be sure. But saying that no one will ever want it just because you don't is, well, stupid.
fishbits - Monday, August 1, 2005 - link
"one major flaw in AMD's execution: price""AMD's Athlon 64 X2 was the better overall performer, just at the very wrong price point."
Anand, I wish you and the rest would seriously sit down and think about all the sniping and whining you've done lately about the prices of high(er)-end products. How, exactly, was AMD's price execution flawed? They can only make so many of the X2 chips, and they have been flying off the shelves at and above their suggested price. It's not like AMD's "flaw" was pricing them so high no one was buying them and they were gathering cobwebs in warehouses. What's "wrong" about this price point?
Let's look at it this way, is AnandTech "flawed" and "wrong" in its advertising pricing? I mean you could sell front-page add space for $5 per month. Or do you charge a reasonable price that keeps ads to a reasonable (non-overwhelming) number of ads on a page, without pricing so high that there's huge droughts of no ad revenue?
I couldn't care less if you were to deem products "too high to recommend to most users for their budgets and needs" and the such. But it's pretty petty that you and the crew constantly take slaps at products and their manufacturers because they're priced higher than we'd WISH they'd be, but still selling quite well and making those who can afford them quite happy. A new Corvette costs more than a Neon. This isn't "flawed" or "wrong." It's just another factor to take into consideration when purchasing and recommending. Now if something is seriously overpriced for its ability, by all means point it out. But stop coming across like you have no clue that the prices for higher-end parts ramp up quite steeply, and deservedly and understandably so. Been this way for decades and will continue to be this way for decades to come.
masher - Monday, August 1, 2005 - link
From AMD's perspective, there may be nothing "wrong" with pricing X2 chips far higher than two equivalent single CPUS...but from the consumer's persective, such a price point is most certainly flawed.So are you a consumer or an AMD stockholder? It should be obvious that-- for the average consumer-- a second core priced far above the first is a poor purchasing decision, and that such pricing will never lead to significant market penetration.
fishbits - Monday, August 1, 2005 - link
But that's just it, AnandTech is taking the stance that it is wrong from AMD's perspective, not from the consumer's. That is where I think they've gone off track. As far as a second core being priced far above the first, color me unfazed. If somehow AMD or Intel were able to bump single-core clock speed by 50%, would any of us be suprised that the new chip would cost (gasp!) AT LEAST double the price? On a dollars-per-Mhz scale, of course it's a loser. On a "getting my hands on a high-end performer" scale, it's easily a winner at double the price. Look at how much more we pay for just a 20% bump in single-core clock speed, and yet it doesn't generate the kind of whining that adding a whole second core and cache does."...Such pricing will never lead to significant market penetration".
Funny, last I heard X2s were selling very well, especially when measured against AMD's ability to produce them. As always, when production ramps up the cost will go down.
The other thing I'd add is that it's my understanding that the 820, a very good performer for its price, is that it's a subsidized chip. I gather (though could be wrong) that Intel sells them for zero profit, or even loses money on them to bump up market share. If that's the case, then its pricing is somewhat an exception and that should be provided as appropriate context in any comparison as Intel has the size and cash to do this, where AMD doesn't.
masher - Monday, August 1, 2005 - link
> "But that's just it, AnandTech is taking the stance that it is wrong from AMD's perspective..."I think you're reading your own bias into his statements.
> "Funny, last I heard X2s were selling very well, especially when measured against AMD's ability to produce them..."
Actually, they are selling well ONLY when measured against AMD's ability to produce them. An ability which is nearly-nonexistent. A few thousand cpus a month may sound like a lot to you, but it doesn't even pay for lunches at the corporate HQ, much less fund a few new multibillion dollar fabs.
AMD's trickle of high-priced X@ sales was useful for bootstrapping future sales...but for gaining any significant market share-- or even paying off a portion of the X2 R&D costs-- it was a nonentity. As I said before.
dougSF30 - Monday, August 1, 2005 - link
<i>but from the consumer's persective, such a price point is most certainly flawed. </i>Not so, because the infrastructure cost for a dual-socket equivalent is significantly higher.
masher - Monday, August 1, 2005 - link
But the comparison isn't between an Athlon and a dual-socket Opteron setup...but between AMD and Intel dual-cores. The "flaw" is charging $300-400 for a second core, when Intel will give you one for $100.Let's face it...while AMD trounces Intel in gaming and other single-threaded apps, performance is neck-to-neck for highly scalable apps...just the ones you'd want a dual-core processor in the first place. AMD can't afford to charge far more than Intel for these cores...not if they want to sell more than a few thousand cpus to the fanboi brigade. They have to bring their prices more in line. A step they've taken with the launch of the X2 3800.
mlittl3 - Monday, August 1, 2005 - link
Your power comparison graphs list both the manchester and toledo cores as having 512K cache. Is this a typo?