Monday, May 15, 2006

AMD introduces dual core desktop CPU at 14 watts

A whole set of low power desktop chips, consuming 14 watts while running SysMark 2004. AMD also published the pricing list.

13 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is the 14watts part available now or just in the road map??? hard to believe...

10:21 PM, May 15, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

The endnote on that page says this:

"Tests and results obtained using a specific computer system and components, and do not reflect approximate performance of any specific AMD part."

So like any semiconductor part, there will always be a few very good ones in a thousand.

The other two endnotes on that page says more about these energy-efficient processors: a class of 65-Watt TDP and a class of 35-Watt TDP parts.

For AMD, it is like selling previous DTR and ML notebook processors as desktop ones. It shows that 1) AMD has been able to increase its low-power circuits performance, and 2) AMD is able to get good yields on these chips.

I really admire what AMD's been doing. It is really listening to and following its customer's wishes; on the other hand, Intel just kept talking about new names of its future processors and how good they will be.

2:10 AM, May 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

thats one corner of the Power-Performance-Price triangle sorted out, Poor Intel, aiming for the current AMD specs, caught-out again. Only price and performance to come ?

2:47 AM, May 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

they will be available from AM2 start. it's not hard to believe. end of 2005 at Xtremesystems forum we saw an ES of a 4600+ with powerstepping "ADV". The cpu was 90nm but running on 1,15vcore . those will be de Energy ones... nice to Oc :)

3:58 AM, May 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Putting the pricing on the Webpage shows AMD's attitude to be fair and open. For some other chip vendors ..pricing information is certainly more secretive than some CIA secrets ..hi hi hi

8:30 AM, May 16, 2006  
Blogger zsm said...

Good for AMD... their desktop chips (already the most power-efficient) will continue to leave Intel in the dust (for now, at least).

Now, when will AMD apply the same magic to their notebook chips? The Turdion... oops, Turion 64 still sucks. After all this time, it's being crushed in virtually every independent test by the Core Duo in performance per watt and power usage, even though the Turion should have the edge due to its Opteron-derived 64-bit architecture.

And now, the independent benchmarkers are saying that the performance gap will narrow only slightly with Turion 64 X2, and that Core 2 Duo will only put AMD at a greater competitive disadvantage in notebooks.

This is truly sad, because I feel that AMD can and should produce a Core Duo-killer. Mr. Ruiz needs to wake up and find out why he's grabbing desktop and server chip market share at high double/triple-digit rates while their notebook chip share isn't growing much.

2:21 PM, May 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Notebook market is Intel's only stronghold and they got a head start on it. Why shouldn't AMD focus on what is best at, instead of spending all resources on notebook just to stop Intel from winning. As sharikou said, AMD is a server company.

4:05 PM, May 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since you seem to enjoy hitting the Turion, see the TechReport comparison of the Turion 64 vs. Pentium M, and you'll see the Turion 64 at IDLE consumes less wattage, and the MT version (higher wattage version) consumes 19w more at LOAD, imagine the ML version on 65nm....yea....oh BTW, it also out performs the P-M in nearly all benchmarks.

7:53 PM, May 16, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

he MT version (higher wattage version) consumes 19w more at LOAD, imagine the ML version on 65nm..

MT is the lower wattage (25W) chip. ML is the higher wattage (35W) one.

To zsm: I don't know where you got the idea that Turion sucks? From what I know Turion performs slightly better than Pentium-M on most real-program benchmarks. Would you give some links to the "independent tests" you mentioned?

9:15 PM, May 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since you seem to enjoy hitting the Turion, see the TechReport comparison of the Turion 64 vs. Pentium M, and you'll see the Turion 64 at IDLE consumes less wattage,
That's system power while using desktop components.


and the MT version (higher wattage version) consumes 19w more at LOAD, imagine the ML version on 65nm....yea....oh BTW, it also out performs the P-M in nearly all benchmarks.

It's higher clocked too. Use a similar clock and benchmarks will be similar, the MT is the low-voltage Turion and still can't compete with normal voltage P-M. The Core Duo also uses less load power than the Turion MT. A 35W dual-core processor isn't special, not when Intel already produces a faster 20W dual-core.

And the ML, basically you get A64 vs Prescott all over again.

12:46 AM, May 17, 2006  
Blogger zsm said...

I don't know where you got the idea that Turion sucks? From what I know Turion performs slightly better than Pentium-M on most real-program benchmarks. Would you give some links to the "independent tests" you mentioned?

I wasn't referring to the old-tech Pentium M that's being phased out. I was referring to the Core Duo. Just search and you'll see.

9:34 AM, May 17, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

I wasn't referring to the old-tech Pentium M that's being phased out. I was referring to the Core Duo. Just search and you'll see.

(1) Do you mean to say that Pentium-M sucks, too?

(2) What's your rationale to compare the single-core Turion with Core Duo and claim that Turion sucks?

Besides, Core Duo (Yonah), aside from being dual-core and having a shared L2 cache, is mostly marketing slam, anyway - if Pentium-M is old tech, then Core Duo is not new at all, either. :-)

If you look at Core Duo vs X2, the latter (X2) actually wins in most cases. Core Duo doesn't even beat Pentium-M in some single-threaded tests. Yes X2 is desktop chip, but it's cheaper, too. ;-)

12:31 PM, May 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Edward,

Good work on that "having a brain and thinking with it" thing. As a staunch AMD supporter who wonders how Intel can command such obscene pricing for it's chips (in some cases, sadly underperforming chips), I tire easily of people who buy chips based on how well the Blue Man Group perform instead of buying hardware that will dictate how their computers will perform.

In a fairly recent Maximum PC they compared all the heavyweights of hardware, my focus being on the slugging match between AMD and Intel. A vast majority of the decisions went to AMD because if the performance was too close to call, the price made AMD the easy choice. In many cases, AMD was both better performing and cheaper, too.

Of course facts and reality are difficult for most people to absorb, I am nevertheless astounded to see people who appear to be otherwise well-educated make the decision to buy an Intel chip for a Build-Your-Own machine.

I tend to give people a bit more leeway on harsh judgement when buying a Dell or Gateway machine because they want easy more than they want the most performance for their dollar. But when folks like zsm who claim to be studied in proc hardware make claims that are contrary to much of the PC community's conclusions, I have to wonder about his/her motivation.

10:03 PM, July 22, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home