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.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 5/15/2006 09:20:00 PM
Journal of Pervasive 64 bit Computing
Main Blog Page
Site Feed:
sharikou.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Blog Roll
Hot pages
sharikou.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Blog Roll
Hot pages
- Price War Strategic Analysis
- AMD and Intel Performance
- Intel's false performance claims
- AMD's Architecture Lead Persists
- AMD and Intel Performance
- AMD and Intel Architecture
- Bensley/Woodcrest and Athlon MP
- Bensley/Woodcrest is 2P only
- 64bit CORE Performance!
- Conroe Busted
- Capacity: AMD vs Intel
- Conroe's Impact
- AMD and Intel in China
- A Beautiful Picture!
- Temperature and System Reliability
- Google and AMD
- AMD's Grand Masters
- Intel's Predicament
- AMD and Dell
- NGMA Core and Colwell 6th Gen Arch
- AMD and Intel History
- The Tale of Intel and Anand
Analysis on IT trends and competitive strategies, with emphasis on micro processors, computer systems and networks. Based on latest news, backed up with real data, this site intends to provide a true and realtime picture of the fast changing IT landscape. This journal strives to be accurate on facts and sharp on criticisms. You may email your opinion to sharikou@yahoo.com or post comments here, be cool and intelligent.
About Me
- Name: Sharikou, Ph. D.
Freelance journalist on IT matters. Some of my writings have been published on online IT journals. Any original content on this journal is Copyrighted, but it's free for non-commercial use. Any Trademarks used on this site belong to their respective owners. Some of the pictures are links. If there is any issue with the content of this site, please email sharikou@yahoo.com .
Previous Posts
- Conroe Extreme gaming performance analysed
- OLPC will launch in the summer
- AMD next generation architecture will be super pow...
- Andy Bechtolsheim on HPC
- HP is fragging DELL big time
- Intel the chapter 11 candidate
- HP readies Turion 64 X2 notebooks
- With new architecture, Intel will be four generati...
- Intel bullying the judge
- AMD answers Intel's guerilla benchmarketing
11 Comments:
Is the 14watts part available now or just in the road map??? hard to believe...
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.
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 ?
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 :)
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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. ;-)
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.
Post a Comment
<< Home