AMD unveils "world's most advanced x86 CPU" -- the quad-core Opteron

We know you've probably grown numb to these "world's best" claims uttered by processor manufacturers, but shortly after introducing the Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Black Edition, AMD is now unveiling what it calls "the world's most advanced x86 CPU." The quad-core Opteron touts a slew of enhancements including a "50-percent increase in integer and floating-point performance" and a boost in "virtualization performance." Interestingly, AMD goes on to brag about the chip's power saving abilities, as it utilizes Dual Dynamic Power Management, CoolCore, and Independent Dynamic Core Technology in order to provide a more energy-efficient device. Systems relying on the newfangled CPU have reportedly begun shipping "from global OEM and system-builder partners," so newfound greatness should be just an order away.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

[ibsnowedin @ Sep 10th 2007 8:33AM]

Woot go amd go!!

[TeddyN @ Sep 10th 2007 8:47AM]

I still use my Opteron 165, and I love it. It's really overclockable (mine is @ 2.7 Ghz). Amazingly good value.
I wonder whether AMD will ever make a desktop compatible opteron, it's sad to see them trailing intel so soon after they were in first place :(

[spyboy @ Sep 10th 2007 9:11AM]

The bigger question is, why are we still on x86 architecture....

[DAZA @ Sep 10th 2007 9:49AM]

What's wrong with X86? Honestly, I thought about this the other day and I couldn't come up with an answer, but I guess there must be something.

[ekwmin @ Sep 10th 2007 11:25AM]

Good question, but I think we still haven't reached it's full potential. It's nice to see that they (AMD and Intel) has been focusing on efficiency as of late. Kind of reminds me of how the US Auto companies has been obsessed with bigger engines and more power while the Japanese has been emphasizing on efficiency. Detroit is finally learning and now they are putting out cars with smaller, more efficient engines but still bests their older cars in power and performance.

[Josh @ Sep 10th 2007 4:25PM]

X86 is bad because it is limited to 2GB of ram in windows XP x86 and vista. I'm not sure if this is microsoft's problem because they haven't developed a new core architecture for their OS in something like 6 years or because it is limited by the processor itself. Either way - 64 bit instructions in the new version of OSX should be nice on the new core 2's

I really hope this new architecture works for AMD and produces results as advertised. I can't help shake the feeling that it is too late to really impact much as intel is already moving towards a smaller (45nm i believe) architecture which is almost always cooler and more efficient. Who knows? Hopefully AMD has truly built the best.

[Osiris @ Sep 10th 2007 10:37PM]

Josh the 2gb limit is to do with 32 bit memory addressing and nothing to do with X86
64bit processor which can address terrabytes of memory are still X86

The reason they stick with X86 is for compatability all current apps would need to be emulated if you changed to something new (Think Intel versus power PC compatability)

[Iam9376 @ Sep 10th 2007 11:20PM]

@Josh & Osiris

The x86 does not have a 2GB memory limit, it has a 4GB logical limit with the ability to access as much as 64GB of memory.

There is nothing wrong with the x86 architecture. people bitch and moan because its popular to do so (you'll notice the highly rated next to the top most reply). Some people claim it's because its too complex (its CISC with an underlying RISC core) and too hard to program for. Which is absurd. Most of this drivel comes from PowerPC users (typically programmers) who often wrote for PPC and tried to write for x86 and finding it's too difficult (low level programming mind you).

x86 is a good solid architecture with many many years of maturity behind it. It's not going away people.

[Peter @ Sep 10th 2007 9:20AM]

Benchmarks at Anand and Tech report shows these claims to be highly inflated. When the dust settles it looks like Intel is still out front.

[melvz @ Sep 10th 2007 10:48AM]

yah... the early benchmarks don't look good... as I had expected

[CaliforniaKid @ Sep 10th 2007 9:49AM]

A semiconductor guy said by 2020 you'll be able to buy the computing power of the human mind for $1,000. By 2030, same power will cost $1. He didn't say if that was in 2007 dollars or not.

[Man @ Sep 10th 2007 12:43PM]

Moore's Law :)

[yoshi @ Sep 10th 2007 10:49AM]

Guess it depends on the mind, eh? From all the people I've met lately, I'd say you could buy the computing power of their mind for $.02 today.

[hal @ Sep 10th 2007 10:15AM]

More like 2050, trust me by 2020 we will NOT have anything that can compair to the human brain, now they are saying the the best AI they could create on a supercomputer would be a cat.

source: BBC click

[matt @ Sep 10th 2007 10:24AM]

Well shoot... even I can write a program that randomly selects times and durations for sleeping, with an occasional attempt to kill its owner...

[hal @ Sep 10th 2007 10:48AM]

You need to look up the definition of AI.

[stobrawa @ Sep 10th 2007 10:54AM]

The assertion wasn't that the processor would be artificially intelligent like the human mind is naturally intelligent, just that the $1,000 processors of 2020 will have the same operations per second potential as the human brain. What software you run on either is beside the point.

[hal @ Sep 10th 2007 11:05AM]

Im saying this on the basis that we give ones self a set of options to make a decision, the same as a cat. So to make AI you need to give a set of options for every move they make and calculate the most logical one in the same time a cat does.
The diffrint between a cat and human is we can give ourselfs unlimited options and can instantly find the best option with out considering the 'stupid' options.

The main limit as the moment isint power but timing, hard drives take time to find data, our brains can almost instantly retrive any memory with no index.

sorry for the grammer/spelling english is not my first launguage

[CosterMonger @ Sep 10th 2007 12:28PM]

I'm hungry! I want tasty food NOW!
My litter box smells, clean it!
PET ME NOW... OK STOP NOW or I'll scratch you!
I'm bored I'll think I'll go to sleep.

AI of a cat, I'm surprised humanity isn't oppressed by it yet?

[Slvrgun @ Sep 10th 2007 1:21PM]

But can it run Cortana?

[John @ Sep 10th 2007 5:46PM]

This had better not be the new Doom comment...

[wrs @ Sep 10th 2007 3:15PM]

On all these multi-core CPUs, I wonder whether their potential gets used for desktop environments.

Would it be possible to determine all possible user-initiated events, pre-compute them and provide the user with the result _immediately_? I mean, _without_ latency?

I mean, computers get faster and faster, however, we enjoy even faster computers more but slightly less fast ones. Isn't it about latency then? So, pre-compute any user-initiated events might solve this once and for all, won't it?

wrs

[Isaac Rabinovitch @ Sep 17th 2007 9:49PM]

"Interestingly, AMD goes on to brag about the chip's power saving abilities..." Most of these chips are going to end up in servers, and people who buy servers are *very* interested in cutting back on energy consumption, both for economics and for burnishing their "green" reputation.

[Richard @ Sep 20th 2007 6:30AM]

Too little, too expensive and too late.

[Tom @ Sep 26th 2007 2:09PM]

Do it core a apple?