Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

amd challenges intel with low power processors

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 16, 2006 7:32:06 AM

Nothing new, move along people.
May 16, 2006 7:34:33 AM

well it was on todays date. So it pritty new info. Plus you cant really bash it or you be bashing Tomshardware.
Related resources
May 16, 2006 7:41:42 AM

Its a recap article.

Quote:
Plus you cant really bash it or you be bashing Tomshardware.


I'm not bashing it or tomshardware. Its also possible to bash the article without bashing the site.

And even if AMD's are lower in power consumption at any point, they'll still be slower.
May 16, 2006 7:54:11 AM

Funny still Intel chip not even out yet and your already saying Intel faster. Thing is Untel it comes out. Intel not faster. We live in this Month which is May. Not in August.
May 16, 2006 7:59:55 AM

Quote:
Funny still Intel chip not even out yet and your already saying Intel faster.


It has been benchmarked. :wink:

Quote:
Thing is Untel it comes out. Intel not faster.


Master of the obvious!

Quote:
We live in this Month which is May. Not in August.


June for woodcrest, july for conroe and august for merom. :wink:

Hows it going atolsammek?
May 16, 2006 8:20:35 AM

Thanks vamp. I missed my usual news break today, so the heads up came in handy.
Funny though, I though the conroes were supposed to be soooo ccol. I guess AMD is still cooler than Intel.
May 16, 2006 8:20:44 AM

Ok If it been benchmark. What was Power of the chips? For this thread is about Amd challange intel with low power processors? It not about speed of a cpu.

The thing is about chips is when they come out. We see the true facts. It like Ford going Ya we have a hybred car that will run 80 Miles per gal. But it not out yet. So what do you do. Well Like any other person trying to save gas. They would like to see when it comes out.

Everyone like this.
May 16, 2006 8:32:53 AM

Well in that subject it mostly apply to mobile chips, but I don't really care for desktop cpu's. Hell, they can make a 300watt desktop cpu and would still buy it, as long as it has good performance.
May 16, 2006 8:33:04 AM

Quote:
Ok If it been benchmark. What was Power of the chips?


< 65 watts.

Quote:
For this thread is about Amd challange intel with low power processors? It not about speed of a cpu.


Of course not.

Quote:
It like Ford going Ya we have a hybred car that will run 80 Miles per gal. But it not out yet. So what do you do.


But have they presented concepts? Have they sampled them? :wink:

Quote:
Funny though, I though the conroes were supposed to be soooo ccol. I guess AMD is still cooler than Intel.


Huh? Their single cores use power then higher clocked dual core conroes and their dual cores are the same but still slower, impressive stuff!
May 16, 2006 8:34:31 AM

Quote:
Funny still Intel chip not even out yet and your already saying Intel faster. Thing is Untel it comes out. Intel not faster. We live in this Month which is May. Not in August.


Ok....New low power AMD chip isn't "out" yet either, so don't talk about it.

Maybe B.S., like everybody thought Intels claims about Conroe were. You

guys kill me. Everyone is soooo quick to say"wait til it's out". Ok, maybe

AMD is shooting for 35 watts, but by the time it's out, it'll be 350 8O . Really,

lets see some intelligence in the forums....Please!!!
May 16, 2006 8:38:12 AM

It good for Familys who trying to save every dime due to there childrens and such. Higher power equals Higher eletric bills. For Lower and middle Mid range class People Saving Money is part of there way of life. But there some people who Have tons of money they can buy nice cars and dont care about prices.
May 16, 2006 8:43:01 AM

Quote:
Ok....New low power AMD chip isn't "out" yet either, so don't talk about it.


Oh the ownage.
May 16, 2006 8:46:18 AM

AMD might be releasing new low power CPUs but still they will not be as good in performanc per watt as the conroe and certainly not merom, merom will use 25-30 watts have have better performance than currrent AMDs. that is power efficency. there is no point saying wait until it comes out, we have seen these CPUs benchmark we know what they are going to be like, so while AMD have impressivly kept up on power consumption i still think conroe and merom will be the better CPUs even for energy consous people
May 16, 2006 8:52:01 AM

I can tell already lack intelligence 1Tanker intel Fanboy.

Really I dont care when it comes out. Amd has not seid when it will be out. What My guess will be is When Am2 0.065 µm comes out. Or it could be when Am2 comes out. Both companys have there own goals. Waiting and seeing that goal is the best part about learning about computers.
May 16, 2006 8:54:56 AM

Quote:
Waiting and seeing that goal is the best part about learning about computers.


But this only applies to Intel and not AMD, right?
May 16, 2006 8:57:04 AM

BTW talking of learning... well... AM2 is NOT 0.065nm, its 65nm
May 16, 2006 8:58:07 AM

65nm not 0.065nm now that would be impressive thats quantum computing and spinning atom sizes!!!
May 16, 2006 8:59:35 AM

forgot the 0. I fix that right now.
May 16, 2006 9:02:04 AM

It's okay vamp. Inteligence and fanboy are not mutually exclusive. I suspect that the tank has a fairly keen mind. It's just closed as far as AMD goes. Same thing with action man.
I think they are good souls. They just value brand loyalty.
Maybe our concept of buying what is best for ourselves is wrong. Maybe we are being selfish, and maybe they are looking at the big picture. Then again, maybe the moon is made of green cheese.
May 16, 2006 9:08:06 AM

I thought the pun was obvious.
I suppose I should learn to use those funny faces, but they just dont do it for me.
May 16, 2006 9:09:38 AM

Ah, fair enough.
May 16, 2006 9:13:22 AM

I think John Glen found the Moon was not made out of cheese haha.
May 16, 2006 9:17:01 AM

Quote:
It's just closed as far as AMD goes. man.
I think they are good souls. They just value brand loyalty.


To be very honest, i might sound like an Intel Fanboy, but i'm not. I have,

and do recommend AMD's in here. I had my eyes on an A64 3200+, or

a 3700+ SD. up until the Conroe announcement. What i do find annoying, is

that alot of AMDers seem to have a double-standard. I don't like that,

whether it's about AMD, or Intel. Also i'll admit, sometimes it's fun to stir the

pot. :p 
May 16, 2006 9:24:20 AM

I look at Amd and Intel like a clock and a pendulum sways back an forth. But you can also look at the Pendulum as in prices. When Intel chips are faster Amd chips will drop in price and Intel chips will rise in price. When Amd chips are faster Amd will rase prices. But there will be times where the clock has stop and the pendulum will sit in the center.
May 16, 2006 9:31:33 AM

Quote:
Ok....New low power AMD chip isn't "out" yet either, so don't talk about it.
AMD is shooting for 35 watts, but by the time it's out, it'll be 350 8O . Really


The 65's are already in the pipeline and will be available in retail stores yet this month. The 35's will follow shortly, putting a little hurt on Intel's Core 2 Duo and Conroe, with only the mobile Merom core keeping up. Yet another interesting season coming. :wink:
May 16, 2006 9:35:18 AM

If you can kflex Post info on this. If you have a url or anything it would be a good spot to post it.
May 16, 2006 9:41:23 AM

Quote:
The 35's will follow shortly, putting a little hurt on Intel's Core 2 Duo and Conroe, with only the mobile Merom core keeping up.


The 35w ones are single core and have low clocks, not mentioned they're much slower.
May 16, 2006 9:51:58 AM

I'm sure that all the conroes will outperform the X2 3800, but one at 35 watts may have some use in a multimedia center. So no, they are not all single core, or too slow.
May 16, 2006 10:01:08 AM

Quote:
If you can kflex Post info on this. If you have a url or anything it would be a good spot to post it.


It's all part of the same article posted at the beginning of this thread.
An excerpt: the processors will provide exact the performance of their 110W/89W counterparts and will be available in retail stores in May
Also, as a dealer, we tend to get notification a little before actual release.:) 


Quote:
The 35w ones are single core and have low clocks, not mentioned they're much slower.


Also from the same article: A version of the dual-core Athlon 64 X2 3800+ as well as a single-core Athlon 64 3500+ and Sempron 3400+, 3200+ and 3000+ are rated at a TDP of just 35W

Amd will be offering both dual and single core processors at 35W.
May 16, 2006 10:11:58 AM

Quote:
Amd will be offering both dual and single core processors at 35W.


Correction they'll be offering one dual core processor @ 35w. Merom clocks higher and will carve it up for the same amount of power. What's funny (ironic?) is that Intel's chips are cheaper as well.
May 16, 2006 10:14:20 AM

Power saving on desktop is pointless and stupid marketing trick. Well, maybe it is worth for overclockers, but it is not worth beouse a month latter there would be much more faster and cheaper CPU that promises more overclockability(thanks to the better production process). About performance/watt(same about the price/performance), when Conroe comes, AMD K8 chips will only challenge themselves.
Anyway, this article is old more than half year, when the name of the new socket (supposed to be M2) was revealed with the near-future sAM2 chips roadmap.
May 16, 2006 10:32:35 AM

Quote:
BTW talking of learning... well... AM2 is NOT 0.065nm, its 65nm


What Lestat wrote was 0.065 µm not 0.065nm. If you are going to make fun of poeple you better read what they have written, or don't you know the difference between µm and nm. 8)
May 16, 2006 10:53:39 AM

Quote:
Correction they'll be offering one dual core processor @ 35w. Merom clocks higher and will carve it up for the same amount of power. What's funny (ironic?) is that Intel's chips are cheaper as well.


I'm confused. :roll: Please explain your Correction. If I have one apple and ten oranges for sale, I'm still offering both for sale, whether I have one or one hundred of either.
And what's even funnier (more ironic?) is that Intel's Merom chips at this time are smoke. As with AMD or anyone else, I don't believe any PR till I have one of the chips in my dirty little paws and can see for myself.
May 16, 2006 11:03:46 AM

Quote:
I'm confused. Rolling Eyes Please explain your Correction. If I have one apple and ten oranges for sale, I'm still offering both for sale, whether I have one or one hundred of either.


The way you wrote it implied there was more then one X2 at 35w.

Quote:
And what's even funnier (more ironic?) is that Intel's Merom chips at this time are smoke.


So is AM2. How is it funny or ironic?
May 16, 2006 11:08:49 AM

Quote:
And what's even funnier (more ironic?) is that Intel's Merom chips at this time are smoke

Quote:
So is AM2. How is it funny or ironic?

I sence an old HORDE member with a new account....what do you think?
May 16, 2006 11:37:26 AM

Quote:
BTW talking of learning... well... AM2 is NOT 0.065nm, its 65nm


What Lestat wrote was 0.065 µm not 0.065nm. If you are going to make fun of poeple you better read what they have written, or don't you know the difference between µm and nm. 8)

well i think your reading skills are really poor!, read his post again at the end "Edited 1 time...", also read his 2nd post from mine.

davidflet9 wrote:
Quote:
65nm not 0.065nm now that would be impressive thats quantum computing and spinning atom sizes!!!


And.

Vampire_Lestat wrote:
Quote:
forgot the 0. I fix that right now.


now you better stop posting your stupid comments instead of contributing to the discussion on the current topic.
May 16, 2006 11:41:46 AM

and one more thing... if u can't contribute to the topic, then simply, well STFU!!! :evil:  now your DFA is complete play with it!
May 16, 2006 12:15:16 PM

AMD low consume CPU's are old news... for a long time , AMD CPU 110 W TDP is a false number... if someone got the trouble to measure the consume, the average numbers of TDP is about 60W (that's why we can do safely amazing OC with stock air cooler (which is really designed for a 110W TDP) . So the so called new numbers of TDP is a secret that AMD never claimed for itself as this secret should be unveiled as AMD incredible OC capacity...
May 16, 2006 12:31:25 PM

Good for AMD, however, this is still just theory, and while I believe AMD will come out with what they say they will there are a few differences between the new 65 watt and 35 watt AMD CPU's and the Conroe.

1)New AMD cpu's are still just paper CPU's, when tests start coming out it is different. The Conroe, while not officially releasing product samples, has been tested. And despite some people spouting inane gibberish about it being an engineering sample that is supposedly faster then stock retail processors, seriously that makes not sense and is backwards thinking, the Conroe has been well documented as being a processor that we should all be holding our breath about.

2) While AMD might release processors that operate at a lower thermal limit, two things must be realized. One is that anything under 65 W is going to be fine for most everyone, hell we have seen how high the Conroe can overclock allready. If a comparable priced AMD processor is 45 W compared to a Conroe that is say 55 W, I really wont give a flying fig. For, reason number two, just because a processor is more efficient energy wise does not necessarily say that the processor will be faster. Others have mentioned it allready, but the performance per watt will go to the Conroe for the rest of 2006 and perhapes most of 2007.

Good job AMD, you have made an achievement, and I am sure 9-inch will be pounding this like a dirty old whore before AMD actually releases this.
May 16, 2006 1:02:12 PM

I wonder what this thread is all about...

Next AMD lines will have the same chip design, but lower power requirements due to shrunk die sizes? It can also mean: overclock... This 35W X2 3800+ may just get a 70% frequency increase and reach a 100W dissipation rating (something that can be cooled on air) without too much fuss - so yes, it is relevant. Conroe could do the same, but on the other hand its architecture may not allow its clock speed to be increased too much, or no motherboard will allow easy overclocking.

For those looking for a noiseless system, the same CPU with a heatpipe cooler would make a silent, powerful dual core system possible - nice for a living room PC.

Yes Action_man, Conroe can do that too. However all-in-one, micro-ATX boards for AMD systems are usually more readily available (and less expensive) than their Intel counterpart. This could be explained by the wide range of chipsets available for AMD chips, and the easier PCB design that an integrated memory controler and the use of HT bring.

The K8 core having been tested extensively, it may make more sense to build a slightly less powerful, but proven and true set-top box that you don't want to tinker with all the time. And while less powerful clock for clock than Conroe, a K8 dual-core chip still packs some punch and then some.

Do remember that most of the time when Intel come up with a radically new design, there is a big 'but' appearing in the next few weeks - that could be seen with the 286, the Pentium, the P.Pro, the P4, and more recently with Core (although that one wasn't hardware-related, to be truthful).

It is however quite ironic that AMD would be considered a safe, stable choice while Intel would be considered experimental... And let's not omit the fact that AMD just want to test their new 0.65µm fabs with a design they know to be working, giving them a nice point of reference.
May 16, 2006 1:25:23 PM

Quote:
I wonder what this thread is all about...

Next AMD lines will have the same chip design, but lower power requirements due to shrunk die sizes? It can also mean: overclock...

The same is for Intel.

Quote:
This 35W X2 3800+ may just get a 70% frequency increase and reach a 100W dissipation rating (something that can be cooled on air) without too much fuss - so yes, it is relevant.

No, the thermal dissipation is not the factor that is limiting the K8 chip overclocking. It is the transistor switching speed.

Quote:
Conroe could do the same, but on the other hand its architecture may not allow its clock speed to be increased too much, or no motherboard will allow easy overclocking.

No, its architecture is designed to achive performance at lower clock like the K8 and unlike the Netburst. Conroe will be made on better producing process than the 90nm K8. So it have better overclocking abilities, as it was proved by the pre-release engineering samples and the older chips(Core Solo, Duo, Pentium4/D) made on the same producing process.


Quote:
For those looking for a noiseless system, the same CPU with a heatpipe cooler would make a silent, powerful dual core system possible - nice for a living room PC.

I don't agree. There are technology like CNQ and EIST&TM1/TM2 that are taking care about the useless power consuming and heat production. Conroe will be at almost at the same TDP like those low-power consuming K8s when 100% utilized, while providing much more performance, so it will spend less energy for the same job. Less spend energy means less produced heat.
Don't forget the noise produced for cooling the northbridge, gparhics card(s) and eventually the hard-disk(s).

Quote:
Yes Action_man, Conroe can do that too. However all-in-one, micro-ATX boards for AMD systems are usually more readily available (and less expensive) than their Intel counterpart. This could be explained by the wide range of chipsets available for AMD chips, and the easier PCB design that an integrated memory controler and the use of HT bring.

This will change with the new generation of Intel chips and current AMD prices that won't change much. FX-62 will cost more than 1250 eur, while the same-like performance Conroe 2.4GHz will cost 320 eur.

Quote:
The K8 core having been tested extensively, it may make more sense to build a slightly less powerful, but proven and true set-top box that you don't want to tinker with all the time. And while less powerful clock for clock than Conroe, a K8 dual-core chip still packs some punch and then some.

I agree, but that will not be the case for AM2 K8 chips. Don't forget the Core Duo(Yonah), it has been tested extensively and proven as better clock-for-clock than the K8. But I would like to have Conroe rather than Core Duo or an old K8.

Quote:
Do remember that most of the time when Intel come up with a radically new design, there is a big 'but' appearing in the next few weeks - that could be seen with the 286, the Pentium, the P.Pro, the P4, and more recently with Core (although that one wasn't hardware-related, to be truthful).

I am not sure what it is the "but" for the Core...Anyway there were a lot of "buts" for both Intel and AMD. Remember K5 & K6?

Quote:
It is however quite ironic that AMD would be considered a safe, stable choice while Intel would be considered experimental... And let's not omit the fact that AMD just want to test their new 0.65µm fabs with a design they know to be working, giving them a nice point of reference.

Sooner or latter, time will tell....
May 16, 2006 1:53:30 PM

Action man, your a true fanboy. I think you should stick to keyboard reviews, after all thats all you have ever been good for on this forum is posting keyboard and slinky pics right kiddo?
Your saying Amd is slower than something from Intel thats not even been released?? Isnt that quite ignorant?
Your speaking of benchmarks?? You mean from an "engineering sample" right?
I hope Conroe does kick ass, its about time Intel kicked ass with something. I mean AMD has wiped the floor with Intel for the last 2 years and Intel has still yet to release anything that can compete with a 2.8ghz FX60 right?
So if it does kick ass, that just means prices will come down for us.
AMD is not about to stop its raping Intels market, they will have a comeback, believe it keyboard kiddy.
May 16, 2006 1:54:03 PM

Transistor switching speed: yup. It gets better using 0.65µm, so Intel and AMD are on the same boat here.

35W: is the maximum heat waste the CPU can spread. Using CnQ or SS lowers it, for sure. For reference, a 0.9µm X2 3800+ is rated with a 89W envelope, but actually is cooler than that on max load - and closer to 30W when idle with CnQ (see latest THG mobile chip tests on that very same chip, considering a 26W power draw for the Disk+RAM+mobo subsystems).
In short, a passive cooler can work well on a CPU that maxes out at 35W, but will be useless on a chip that maxes out at 80+W -

The mobo prices: Conroe still uses FSB and an external RAM controller, and it is very consuming on mobo real estate - especially µATX, requiring more complex mobo design. There is also much less competition on the Intel side of the fence in the mobo arena, meaning... Higher prices. So I think those will remain higher and/or offer less choice than on AMD's side of the fence.

The CPU price: it's not really a nice comparison, and is not the point of the current thread: we're talking about low-power chip prices. The 'new' X2 will cost the same as the Conroe 2.4 GHz, with a lower heat envelope (essentially trading performance for lower power here).

I don't agree with you on Yonah: the Conroe architecture will be 64-bit, while Yonah was 32-bit only. There's a load of bugs that could be made apparent (same as with the 286 and its memory addressing bug, for example) once running real-world applications.

The Core problem: the USB driver troubles (still unsolved) disabling power savings on Core Duo notebooks. I remember K5 (a non-event if there ever was one) and the K6 (nice in 32-bit integer, lousy on FPU and 'slow' MMX compatibility - still, it kicked any P5-MMX at the time, and held its own against P-II).
May 16, 2006 2:17:04 PM

The EE processors actually are Turions with Athlon cores (yes, I know it sounds confusing).
Was on a technology website few weeks ago but I dont really remember how I got there, something like techtoday I think.

So now, producing Athlon X2s with Turions transistor performance and only taking the best chips (in the heart of the wafer) its easily possible to get a 35W Athlon while all faster parts are overclocked and therefore have a 65W TDP.

Considering that Conroe will run at full speed at a 65W TDP and Merom even at 31W (and both of them smoking Athlons with ease) I dont really know how AMD Fanpoys think those CPUs are worth thinking of :?: :?:
May 16, 2006 3:18:53 PM

I am not sure if I just missed it or not, can someone tell me if these new 35 & 65 watt chips from AMD are going to be made on the 90 nm or 65 nm process???
May 16, 2006 3:55:11 PM

...? Your post sounds confusing.

Turion is AMD's low-power version of the K7 core. They are low-frequency K7 desktop chips and saw the first version of powernow (the desktop chip didn't have it).

The coming low-power versions of the Athlon64 are exact copies of the first AM2 chips, but only the lower clocked ones - meaning they use less power. Since K8 already has a full powernow implementation, the cores are actually the same, just shrunk. They will cost more because they will be tested more extensively.

Again, they will be of use to those who want:
- processors with some oomph and very little heat dissipation (set-top boxes with passive cooling) and/or low noise,
- enthusiasts looking for parts that are more than likely able to reach very high overclocks (due to smaller die size, larger heat/voltage increase margins)

Since the core has had time to mature (it's still a K8 core with a different memory controller), the number of bugs will be very low - making for silent, cool, stable, versatile, not too costly systems.

Conroe will be silent, cool, versatile, possibly buggy, and platform prices will be higher.

Yes, Conroe will be a winner if it comes out without any big bug. But until now, Intel has always had trouble with initial launches of disruptive products (this is, after all, the first time they develop a 64-bit compatible x86 CPU that has been engineered towards maximum 64-bit efficiency), so you'll understand my being a bit skeptical.
May 16, 2006 4:09:46 PM

Now, you see why people have a high number on posts :lol: 
May 16, 2006 4:11:17 PM

Now, you see why people have a high number on posts :lol: 
May 16, 2006 4:47:45 PM

Quote:
AMD low consume CPU's are old news... for a long time , AMD CPU 110 W TDP is a false number... if someone got the trouble to measure the consume, the average numbers of TDP is about 60W (that's why we can do safely amazing OC with stock air cooler (which is really designed for a 110W TDP) . So the so called new numbers of TDP is a secret that AMD never claimed for itself as this secret should be unveiled as AMD incredible OC capacity...


This may be true, and explain how AMD will be making these cpus while still under the 90nm process, but what may also be the case is that AMD is lowering the voltage of these cpus. If that's the case, then it's just a factory undervolt, and anyone who buys these with an eye for overclocking would have to raise the vcore back up to normal A64s to get a good overclock. I could run my sempron64 2800 on just one volt at stock speed. I wonder its power consumption would have been?
!