AMD six-core Opterons get new 'Highly Efficient' and 'Special Edition' siblings

We can beat about the bush or we can just admit that Intel has AMD beat on pretty much all fronts right now. Cognizant of this, AMD sprung the Istanbul server chips months ahead of schedule, and is now seeking to maintain momentum by adding meat to the bone. Three new chips are being added to the server-focused HE (Highly Efficient) Opteron line -- all clocked between 2GHz and 2.1GHz and dissipating 55 watts of heat -- while pure performance considerations are addressed with the SE 2439 and SE 8439, both running at 2.8GHz with 6MB of L3 cache. If we were paranoid, we might think today's leak of Intel's mobile CPU schedule was a coordinated attempt by the market leader to steal some of the limelight from this announcement by Advanced Micro Devices. Those of you who actually need to buy processors in batches of 1,000 or more should hit the read link for a full price breakdown.

[Via Daily Tech]

[brr404 @ Jul 13th 2009 4:19PM]

Intel FTW? =P
but i will give it a try

[NoobSlayer @ Jul 13th 2009 4:23PM]

Yes, something we all need -- buggy chips rushed out prematurely. I think i'll wait for Intel - 6 core done right. That and the little fact Intel chips and systems with Intel chips have way higher resale value on fleebay and friends.

[risk @ Jul 13th 2009 4:44PM]

yes, because businesses eBay their server racks right?

[slamEVIL @ Jul 13th 2009 4:56PM]

@Samboini
i think he meant that businesses BUY their servers from ebay right?

[redcard @ Jul 13th 2009 4:58PM]

Biggy chips rushed out prematurely? It sounds like you have inside knowledge or something.

Oh, you don't? You're just talking out your ass?

[David @ Jul 13th 2009 4:25PM]

If AMD ends up completely out of the processor game wouldn't Intel be all kinds of screwed. The whole monopoly thing? It'd be interesting to see what would happen..

[Matt @ Jul 13th 2009 6:34PM]

They would find a way to keep them in business... albeit selling a chip a year if they're lucky.

[kojo87 @ Jul 13th 2009 9:21PM]

why does every post about AMD somehow create the discussion of them going bankrupt? after reading this article six time im pretty sure it doesn't mention bankruptcy...

[Jorvay @ Jul 13th 2009 4:34PM]

Whenever I need to build a simple, effective PC, I still end up going with AMD chips. Intel may to it better if you need insane performance or money is no object, but for me and my Linux box, AMD tends to give me more performance per dollar in the price range I'm considering.

[CtrlBurn @ Jul 13th 2009 4:44PM]

Yes, AMD has a very good bang-for-the-buck factor. I've found that the processor prices are different, but Intel-based MoBos are more expensive as well, so you get hurt there too. I have Intel in my desktop, where I need big performance, but AMD in my media center.

[hamerhead_12 @ Jul 13th 2009 4:43PM]

AMD is competitive with Intel with the Phenom II line.

Phenom II 940 rivals Q9400

Phenom II 720 rivals E8400

However, outside the the Phenom II line, Intel OWNS.

[10minutehobo @ Jul 13th 2009 4:51PM]

You forgot the 955. Rivals the i7 920.

[10minutehobo @ Jul 13th 2009 4:51PM]

kinda

[jon @ Jul 13th 2009 4:55PM]

sorta

[mechachu @ Jul 13th 2009 6:02PM]

Not really (had to finish it)

[sk @ Jul 14th 2009 8:30AM]

Don't forget the new Phenom II X4 965 BE 3.4GHz available in Europe now:
It pulls even with Intel's best for a much lower price:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1433419/etailers-taking-phenom-ii-x4-965be

[10minutehobo @ Jul 14th 2009 9:12AM]

Yes, the 965 too.

[slamEVIL @ Jul 13th 2009 4:53PM]

that is supposed to be 3.1 right???

[jon @ Jul 13th 2009 4:56PM]

Nope, 2.1 is correct.

[slamEVIL @ Jul 13th 2009 4:58PM]

oh yeah thanks, i read that wrong. i mistook the SE for HE.

[dragonslayer0080 @ Jul 13th 2009 4:54PM]

AMD gives awesome performance for an affordable price. AMD for over 8 years!!

[fieldcar @ Jul 13th 2009 4:56PM]

buggy? this exclaims all sorts of ignorant fanboy rhetoric.

I can only think of 1 BSOD with my 9855 X4 since its release, and it was thanks to a beta nvidia driver. Go away troll.

The first 9_50 x4's did have the TLB bug, but intel followed with the same damn thing in the nehalem cores months later(see link). AMD lacks only performance in this game, and big whoop, intel is destroying the only thing thats keeping your precious intel from charging a friggin mint for an average processor.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10707&Itemid=1

Fieldcar, AMD supporter (not fanboy) keeping prices low for intel fan-pricks since 1998 (K5-133).

Also, do not confuse my words with fanboyish insults towards intel, I use them daily at work, and see no reason to bash them, both companies make great stuff.

[fieldcar @ Jul 13th 2009 4:58PM]

^^^ @ noobslayer

[TomServo @ Jul 13th 2009 5:45PM]

Good call.

[kojo87 @ Jul 13th 2009 9:28PM]

don't they already charge a mint for average processors? when i was building my first computer and knew nearly nothing of either company, i looked at an AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and the Intel equivalent. i don't remember what the Intel model was because i only looked at if for about 30 seconds before realizing it cost twice as much for an extremely minor boost in performance. now i have a Phenom II X4 940 that i got for $185 and it runs at 3.5GHz beautifully. i'd like to see an Intel that gives that kind of performance for under $200. its all about bang for the buck

[kojo87 @ Jul 13th 2009 9:34PM]

$230 for an Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 or $190 for a AMD Phenom II X4 940. and the AMD is faster. i rest my case

[goinskiing @ Jul 13th 2009 4:57PM]

AMD may not have the highest performing processors out there, but if you compare dollar for dollar on performance vs Intel, AMD will usually standout.

[Magallanes @ Jul 13th 2009 6:09PM]

the "minor" problem with Intel is the motherboard, so a comparison dollar for dollar put AMD on top of the list (with the exception of some weird and expensive configuration).

[kal326 @ Jul 13th 2009 5:44PM]

Competition is competition, it doesn't matter how far back everybody thinks AMD is as long as everybody still knows they are there.

[John @ Jul 13th 2009 7:04PM]

If these will push past Intel's latest then it will have to come down to architecture decisions; 6 physical cores versus 4 with SMT - the TDP advantage comes down to 5 watts in favor of AMD compared to the L series, so it's not even that cut and dried based on power consumption. If these still use DDR2 though, the cost of RAM might weigh heavily in their favor as ECC buffered DDR3 modules are ridiculously expensive right now.

[Ordeith @ Jul 13th 2009 7:40PM]

that logo...

Optimized for ChromeOS?

[NoAndThen @ Jul 13th 2009 8:33PM]

@Vladislav: The processor consumes 55w. If it can function as a processor and still output 55w of heat, I think AMD just invented perpetual processing. And I don't mean BSOD.

Please get your facts straight and actually report reasonable information. Not everything is a joke. AMD is in tough shape as is. Please read up on ACP:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_15251_15260,00.html#119738

ACP is a relevant estimation for users to understand the power consumption of AMD processors because it reflects power consumption within each power band — including the power for the cores, integrated memory controllers and HyperTransport™ technology links — under real-world workloads.


Took me THREE minutes. On my phone. And I'm not supposed to be someone writing for an international tech blog.

[scape @ Jul 13th 2009 9:32PM]

55 watts total?
straight to my laptop it needs to go!! ;p

[janganguna @ Jul 14th 2009 10:55AM]

That's what I was thinking too...imagine that, 6 core in my laptop....or dual 6-core since laptops like Clevo's D900F has max 130TDP. Wow.

[Joebnsd @ Jul 14th 2009 2:42AM]

"all clocked between 2GHz and 2.1GHz and dissipating 55 watts of heat"

Umm Yea... I would take that statement with a grain of salt as my current HP Dv7 Laptop with an AMD Turion X2 RM-70 Lion is hitting temps up to 220 degrees before shutting down. I even have a USB powered chill pad and it still runs hot! I sent my stove top, ohh I mean laptop in to HP to be serviced and was told that the fan and heat sink were repaired.

When I got it back it hovered around 130 degrees and I was pleased with that, however as of this post and only having it back a week I am running at 166 degrees with spikes to 190 from time to time. Now I could say that it might be a shitty design on HP's part, but I just got my wife a new HP Dv6 with the same specs as mine 2.0 Ghz, 4gb of ram, Vista 64 plus all the bells and whistles with only a couple of differences... She has a Core 2 Duo T 6400 and it runs a chilly 80-110 degrees!! Her case also has 8 vents compared to my 4 =(

I bought this model with the AMD processor because I have always had Intel and figured I would give the bargain basement brand a try. This will be the first and last time. Guess you get what you pay for. I plan on calling HP back and bitching with the hope they will swap out the cpu or give me a different model altogether.

"Fingers Crossed"