Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD’s Response to Intel Conroe: Energy Efficient Athlon 64 X

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 3, 2006 5:46:13 AM

Link.

Just had a quick look over it, looked promising. I'll read all later on.
August 3, 2006 6:04:27 AM

Very interesting. Both 65W and 35W X2s consume less power than Conroe when idle. However, that isn't very impressive considering standard 89W X2s use less power than Conroe at idle also. However, under light load the power usage between the 65W X2 and Conroe is pretty similar with the X2 slightly lower. Under heavier load the E6300 uses less power than the 65W 4600+.

Overall, I'd say Conroe acquits itself quite well, especially against the 65W X2s. You have to take into account too that the Energy Efficient models are more expensive so the price/performance curves change. I guess Intel 65W TDP isn't too different from AMD's 65W afterall. When AMD goes 65nm things may change, but I think it'll mainly result in 65W being mainstream. Things will get interesting depending on how high AMD can clock the 35W models. Intel's 65nm process will continue to improve though if the progressively cooler and power efficient Presler revisions are any indication.
August 3, 2006 6:07:45 AM

Quote:
Link.

Just had a quick look over it, looked promising. I'll read all later on.
Nice numbers at idle, but at load the E6300 is still quiet competitive(power consumption-wise). At NCIX in Canada, they have them(ie: x2 3800+35W) posted for pre-order, and they are way more expensive than the regular chips. That throws the price/watt way out of contention, if you use the load numbers.
Related resources
August 3, 2006 6:12:46 AM

Quote:
However, under light load the power usage between the 65W X2 and Conroe is pretty similar with the X2 slightly lower. Under heavier load the E6300 uses less power than the 65W 4600+.
I can't see these CPU's being a great hit with the overclocking crowd, especially when you consider that Conroe is competitive energy efficiency-wise, but overclocks very nicely vs the AMD's lower overclockability.
a c 478 à CPUs
a c 117 å Intel
August 3, 2006 6:14:53 AM

I wouldn't call the energy efficient Athlon X2 a response to Intel's Conroe. AMD already had plans to produce them.
August 3, 2006 6:14:59 AM

I would have also liked to have seen a few performance numbers just to see if AMD used more aggressive Cool'n'Quiet settings in order to downclock and conserve power. However, I don't think that's actually the case since it appears they just binned tighter for stable operations at lower voltages. The 35W 3800+ are probably Turion64 X2 TL-60s in an AM2 package.
August 3, 2006 6:18:51 AM

Quote:
I wouldn't call the energy efficient Athlon X2 a response to Intel's Conroe. AMD already had plans to produce them.


I used the title from the article.
August 3, 2006 6:21:27 AM

Quote:
The article goes on to measure truly nice thermal preformance, but AMD did nothing extraordinary here. They simply cherry-picked high end parts, underclocked and undervolted and rebranded. Nothing special in the puddy so to speak. From this data set it does not appear an extraordinary process tweak was found to decrease power, rather it is just a well managed bin-split allotment.


Yep. It was obvious they were going to do that, well obvious to people who don't believe AMD is some sort of god.
August 3, 2006 7:02:20 AM

Quote:
With a more detailed set of experiments we could check to see if they did any processing tricks like thickening the gate (which is still on my suspect list). But for now, the preliminary conclusion, and not firm, is simply rebranding parts and pulling tighter bins.

Jack
Could thickening the gates have anything to due with the lack of better overclockability? I think most of us assumed that the LV parts might possibly overclock better than normal ones. You've stated before that you thought this was the reason that the Core2Duo's were overclocking so well, because they binned them lower to run at lower wattage/heat output.
August 3, 2006 7:19:22 AM

Well only fanboys act like there chips are god. One thing to note is Amd at 90nm while intel at 65nm. So the scores are not bad. It not like the Intel chips when they where 90nm and where very Hot and power Hungry and heated up the room. But Intel learn from that Mistake. I think when amd get 65nm both chips should be about even or close to even. In Power and speed. But untel we see it we dont know. I think Amd needs to get off there Butt and get a chip that running onpar with intel at least.

If I had the money Now I would be buying a conroe chip. But I spent $15,000 dollors for my company.

To understand what I do you have to see it. See the gun a real gun. But the artwork is what makes it worth more.

August 3, 2006 7:49:14 AM

Quote:
Well only fanboys act like there chips are god. One thing to note is Amd at 90nm while intel at 65nm. So the scores are not bad. It not like the Intel chips when they where 90nm and where very Hot and power Hungry and heated up the room. But Intel learn from that Mistake. I think when amd get 65nm both chips should be about even or close to even. In Power and speed. But untel we see it we dont know. I think Amd needs to get off there Butt and get a chip that running onpar with intel at least.

If I had the money Now I would be buying a conroe chip. But I spent $15,000 dollors for my company.

To understand what I do you have to see it. See the gun a real gun. But the artwork is what makes it worth more.

You stick decals on guns? :wink:
August 3, 2006 8:12:42 AM

I'm a engraver and a glass blower and computer repair I went from glass to metal and wood engraving. I work with the shops in my town and do wildlife on glass and wood. There a gun shop that I use shot guns and hand guns then Put wildlife on them or scroll art on them. Most of the stuff I do freehand.
August 3, 2006 8:38:10 AM

Quote:
Well only fanboys act like there chips are god. One thing to note is Amd at 90nm while intel at 65nm. So the scores are not bad. It not like the Intel chips when they where 90nm and where very Hot and power Hungry and heated up the room. But Intel learn from that Mistake. I think when amd get 65nm both chips should be about even or close to even. In Power and speed. But untel we see it we dont know. I think Amd needs to get off there Butt and get a chip that running onpar with intel at least.

If I had the money Now I would be buying a conroe chip. But I spent $15,000 dollors for my company.

To understand what I do you have to see it. See the gun a real gun. But the artwork is what makes it worth more.



it doesn't matter what process technology were used in a processor. it is the architechture not the process technology.. remember, both intel and amd were using 90nm, amd consume less power than intel prescott core.

why?

because prescott core are meant to run 5Ghz above. they were only fused to run at the rated DDR2- memory speed. intel expected the memory manufacturer to release DDR800 when prescott core was release. but unfortunately, no DDR800 was seen/made.. only DD400/500
August 3, 2006 8:49:35 AM

My Dear friend i dont think that power gimmic will pull people towards AMD (for people looking for performance ) the power statics of AMD are really not good enough to woo people from core 2 ,accept it it's the future and only price concious buyers will tilt to AMD .Plus they have to wait long for that powerful release by amd :) 
Remember i don't hate AMD at all .I Love PERFORMANCE .
:twisted: :lol: 
August 3, 2006 9:07:07 AM

Let see Why did Intel change to conroe.

1 computer speed
2 netburst was a major flaw.
3 Heat.

Prescott was one of the worse Chips out there.
August 3, 2006 9:16:32 AM

Quote:
Let see Why did Intel change to conroe.

1 computer speed
2 netburst was a major flaw.
3 Heat.

Prescott was one of the worse Chips out there.


yes, and why it so d*mn hot and too slow?


because it has 31-long stage pipeline. those pipeline would be better if prescott reaches 5Ghz above.. but due to its failure, take note, due to its architectural failure, it was fused below 4ghz.

it was the architechtural failure and not the process technology.. =)
August 3, 2006 10:26:27 AM

I beleave it was more heat related. temperature was at 171 degrees Fahrenheit, or 77 degrees Celsius.

http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1693/
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?page=2&arti...
I would add more but this last post have more info.
http://forums.rojakpot.com/archive/index.php?t-10012.ht...

I would like you to read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4

Quote:
Finally, the thermal problems were so severe, Intel decided to abandon the Prescott architecture altogether, and attempts to roll out a 4 GHz part were abandoned, as a waste of internal resources. Also of concern was the fact that reviews showed in extreme cases it took a 5.2 GHz Prescott core to match the performance of an Athlon FX-55 that clocked at 2.6 GHz [5]. Considering Intel boasted at launch the Pentium 4 architecture was designed for 10 GHz operation, this can be seen as one of the most significant, certainly most public, engineering shortfalls in Intel’s history. This also meant that while Northwood ultimately achieved clockspeeds 70% higher than Willamette did, Prescott only managed a 12% rise over Northwood.


Mybe you should do your research frist. That why Amd 64 for the last few years and Conroe which was released doing so good. Less heat and faster cpus. Means better preformance. Right now Intel has the speed and Lower Power cpu crown.
August 3, 2006 12:23:26 PM

Take this crap elsewhere. The horse has been beaten so much theres no horse left.
August 3, 2006 12:24:41 PM

Quote:
Take this crap elsewhere. The horse has been beaten so much theres no horse left.


word
August 3, 2006 3:31:31 PM

Quote:
Well only fanboys act like there chips are god. One thing to note is Amd at 90nm while intel at 65nm. So the scores are not bad. It not like the Intel chips when they where 90nm and where very Hot and power Hungry and heated up the room. But Intel learn from that Mistake. I think when amd get 65nm both chips should be about even or close to even. In Power and speed. But untel we see it we dont know. I think Amd needs to get off there Butt and get a chip that running onpar with intel at least.

If I had the money Now I would be buying a conroe chip. But I spent $15,000 dollors for my company.

To understand what I do you have to see it. See the gun a real gun. But the artwork is what makes it worth more.



Thats very nice, you are very good at your trade.
August 3, 2006 4:44:54 PM

Im new here and all, but did any of you guys notice how they said their max oc was 2.5 with the 3800, but their cpu-z screenshot shot showed the 3800 at 2.5 with a core voltage of 1.075?

Does that make any sense?
August 3, 2006 5:26:47 PM

Regardless, if you ask me, a 25% overclock is pretty good, especially considering that non-opterons have never really been monster OCing chips.
!