AMD's new quad-core Opteron processors for one-socket workstations and gaming gods

Okay gamers, power-modders, and IT dudes (and dudettes), pay attention: AMD has set sail to three new quad-core Opteron processors for one-socket servers and workstations. The new 1352, 1354, and 1356 clock in at 2.1GHz, 2.2GHz, and 2.3GHz, respectively, and meet the same socket and thermal requirements as previous AMD Opteron 1000 Series processors. They also utilize AMD's Enhanced PowerNow! tech and Rapid Virtualization Indexing. Pricing is currently set at $209, $255, and $377.

[ijyt @ Jun 3rd 2008 12:28PM]

Ooh what a slap to intel....

...

[Suresh @ Jun 3rd 2008 12:33PM]

Slap, Dont you know that it holds a major share of the Market and is still the market leader? Its just a matter of time before intel comes up with something new and more interesting.

[bdsams @ Jun 3rd 2008 12:39PM]

fanyboy 1 meet fanboy 2

[Mike10010100 @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:31PM]

Hey Engadget.

This is a call to all readers and or editors. I was wondering, what with all the theoretical talk of new chips, if there was a good benchmark graphic we could see. Or numbers more than Gh.

If anyone could refer me to such a thing, i would be immensely grateful.

[System48 @ Jun 3rd 2008 2:32PM]

Oh yeah they're really sticking it to Intel, $377 for a 2.3Ghz

/sarcasm

Why wouldn't I pickup a Xeon x3350 2.66Ghz for around the same price?

[Flashpoint @ Jun 3rd 2008 12:43PM]

It isn't fanboyism to recognize Intel is #1 in CPU's...that's just COMMON SENSE.

Or else, you could be one of the dum ass Cramericans who ends up losing money in stocks betting the wrong way.

AMD has always been behind Intel and so long as Intel keeps up their marketing strategies of releasing dubious named processors with bright and pretty stickers on them - they always will be.

[soulja222 @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:08PM]

AMD always behind?

I'm not doubting intel's lead over AMD with the last 2 generations of processors. But to deny A64's supremacy over P4 is pure fanboy BS. They were close, but AMD won the single core war in the end.

check anandtech for this article if your so ignorant:
Intel's Pentium Extreme Edition 965: The Last of a Dying Breed
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=2725&p=9&cp=1

[Flashpoint @ Jun 3rd 2008 12:43PM]

It isn't fanboyism to recognize Intel is #1 in CPU's...that's just COMMON SENSE.

Or else, you could be one of the dum ass Cramericans who ends up losing money in stocks betting the wrong way.

AMD has always been behind Intel and so long as Intel keeps up their marketing strategies of releasing dubious named processors with bright and pretty stickers on them - they always will be.

[Flashpoint @ Jun 3rd 2008 12:44PM]

Apologies for the double post but WiFi can be tricky to send info over and Engadget doesn't seem to think we need an Edit button.

[Passarinhuu @ Jun 3rd 2008 12:48PM]

Damn! I was like, ready to push that little red button :(

[Clinton @ Jun 3rd 2008 5:54PM]

the party button?

[Eyei @ Jun 3rd 2008 12:48PM]

Oh yeah? Well, I'll bet you a new multi Touch Macbook Pro that this chip can't be installed in the Iphone 3g, get ready everyone, for the touch experience. Oh yeah, almost time, feel it...feel it... Feeeeeel it.



iEye Intelligence:
"These berries taste like burning..."

[maty @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:12PM]

Huh? What?

Macboy should stay out of this. Macboy doesn't belong here.

[peshue @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:45PM]

But this is a desktop processor....

[System48 @ Jun 3rd 2008 2:25PM]

The last part has me concerned, what exactly is he feeling?

[Abuzar @ Jun 3rd 2008 2:52PM]

STOP replying to iEye. He just spouts off bullcrap to start flame wars.

Oh crap, I just replied to him...

[Onetruebill @ Jun 3rd 2008 2:52PM]

Leave the Macboy alone...
Poor thing wants to "touch" his computer.
He quotes Ralph Wiggum.
What do YOU think he is feeling??

[srsly u guys @ Jun 3rd 2008 3:19PM]

This guy is making fun of iEye, he is not iEye. Hence the backwards name, and comparing iEye to ralph wiggum. It is a satirical post.

[Abuzar @ Jun 3rd 2008 11:48PM]

Wow I didn't even notice that. Now I feel dumb...

[bolezhinkov @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:01PM]

as an IT'ed gaming music producer: Pee Eye Member of Parliament

[ADP @ Jun 3rd 2008 3:07PM]

what kind of socket will this fit'

[Mark Anderson @ Jun 3rd 2008 3:16PM]

2.3GHz?

That's not very good, is it?

[jordn @ Jun 3rd 2008 6:40PM]

Clockspeed !=Performance... jeez.

Which offers the best performance per watt/$?

A) Intel Pentium D 920 Northwood clocked at 2.8Ghz

B) Intel Core 2 Duo clocked at 2 Ghz

[John @ Jun 3rd 2008 6:53PM]

clockspeed affects the performance relative to the individual processor. Architecture is really the determining factor but there isnt a singular number beyond Ghz except for benchmark tests to compare them, so it gets (mis)used.

[Mark Anderson @ Jun 6th 2008 9:18AM]

@jordn

Well, duh.

The point was that the top whack set of cores is 2.3Ghz which is why it's not very good. No-one compares single speed GHz any more because this isn't 2004.

So a 3.0Ghz Quad Core is significantly faster than a 2.4GHz Quad Core when running on the same Mobo.

No, really, it is.

[Bill @ Jun 3rd 2008 4:05PM]

Ah, so what? I can still a Core 2 Quad, that's faster, for less money!

[PEZ @ Jun 3rd 2008 4:36PM]

HOLY PETUNIA BALLS!

[Doctorwho @ Jun 3rd 2008 5:06PM]

What AMD lacks in clock per clock performance it makes up for in power efficiency and thy tend to run cooler than intel branded processors and in most server applications a cooler running chip is better than a warmer one.
Servers also don't require as much processing power as a standard computer.

[GreenMachine @ Jun 3rd 2008 5:49PM]

Don't you SEE!? Look how much green is on that processor! That thing is practically sprouting roots!

[john @ Jun 4th 2008 1:24AM]

hooray!

[iPhoneAlmightyFTW @ Jun 4th 2008 10:37AM]

Intel FTW.

[Mark Anderson @ Jun 6th 2008 9:20AM]

The G0 stepping Q6600 disagrees with you.