Tuesday, May 16, 2006

AMD launches Turion 64 X2, Intel Core Duo fragged

AMD just launched its socket S1 Turion 64 X2 dual core 64 bit mobile processors, available immediately. The top model Turion 64 X2 TL60 (2GHZ) costs $354, the lowest model Turion 64 X2 TL50 is only $184. In comparison, Intel's 32 bit Core Duo T2600 costs $700. The outdated 32 bit Core Duo has a shelf life of a banana. Very soon, people will be mad to find out their Core Duo won't be able to run 64 bit applications.

Year over year, Intel's desktop and server CPUs suffered a massive $1 billion drop of revenue in 1Q06. Intel had $4.944 billion revenue from server and desktop CPUs back in 1Q05, in 1Q06, the number fell to $3.892, a 21.3% year/year decline in a growing PC market. The only thing that showed revenue growth was mobile, increasing from $1.917 billion to $2.347 billion, but was still too small to compensate the losses in server/desktop . Now, Intel's last profit engine will be cluster fragged. You got an AMD 64 bit future-proof dual core chip against an outdated IA32 chip. Merom won't be available until three months later. By then, AMD will have moved forward yet again. K8L has taped out.

20 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone got a link to review or is it too early yet ?

10:48 PM, May 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yawn. These max out at 2Ghz, vs 2.33Ghz for the Core Duo. They have half the L2 cache, and they consume more power!

What's more damning is that Merom will be launched in August and will offer even greater performance!

1:17 AM, May 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe it gives you at least a better price/performance ratio than the Core Duo.

10:06 AM, May 17, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

These max out at 2Ghz, vs 2.33Ghz for the Core Duo. They have half the L2 cache, and they consume more power!


AMD's TDP is max power usage. Typical usage for AMD CPUs is much lower. For instance, the recently announced AM2 X2 3800+ (dual core 2GHZ) consumes 14 watts while running SysMark 2004, even though the chip is marked with 35 watt TDP.

Intel's TDP is typical power usage, you also need to add the power consumption of the Northbridge in Intel systems. If using AMD's standards, Core Duo is a 55 watt chip.

10:16 AM, May 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the first test:
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/299/amd-turion-64-x2-socket-s1-et-ddr2/

11:01 AM, May 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The question is: Why so late? Capacity, production, transistor performance. It should be on the market from 2005!!!

11:33 AM, May 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

doesn't the am2 x2 3800+ run with full speed while the benchmark runs? when does the amd chip need the marked 35 watts?

11:39 AM, May 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you Sharikou for knowing the truth! So many people look at TDP's from AMD and Intel and don't know the 2 companies differentiate their TDP's.

For the past 4 years, Intel processor TDP's have always been "typical use", which is what TDP means, it's the power dissipation abilities of the CPU under a "real-load" (aka, typical).

AMD, on the other hand, has always said TDP's as MAX Power Usage, so compare a TDP of 95w for the Opteron 64 vs. 80w for Woodcrest, I wouldn't doubt a WC Max is over 100w, likewise with Conroe.

I would like to see some benchmarks, as a friend of mine is looking into getting one of these badboys and it's good to know they're released now.

11:50 AM, May 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just looked at the Benchmarks for the Turion X2, and I see "DDR2-667 5-5-5-15......wow....that's as good as PC2100...those latencies are absurd and should nullify all tha testing immediately.

11:53 AM, May 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For the past 4 years, Intel processor TDP's have always been "typical use", which is what TDP means, it's the power dissipation abilities of the CPU under a "real-load" (aka, typical).
That's not true for their mobile CPUs. Yonah max power is way under its TDP and uses less power than the lowest power single-core Turion MTs.

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article313-page5.html

12:05 PM, May 17, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

That's not true for their mobile CPUs. Yonah max power is way under its TDP and uses less power than the lowest power single-core Turion MTs.

Did you really read the slientpcreview page?

First, ML-40 is NOT a "lowest power single-core Turion".

Second, AMD specifies ML as 35W, while Intel specifies T2600 as 31W; yet both consume essentially the same power (26.4 vs 25.4).

The above at least proves that following Intel's TDP is misleading, and AMD's numbers are more conservative.

2:16 PM, May 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/notebook/

2:24 PM, May 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First, ML-40 is NOT a "lowest power single-core Turion".
It's not an ML-40, it's running at 1.22V which is clearly a MT, and is confirmed by checking their measurements from a previous review:

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article300-page6.html

And you also see how much more power the MLs (which are far more common than MTs) consumes.

2:45 PM, May 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Performance wise, what about Yonahs and Meroms setting world records in SuperPi, AM3 and 3dMarks? Considering these are MOBILE processors, they are "fragging" even desktop processors like the X2 and FX (not to mention the terrible EEs). Clock to clock wise they can come close, match and even surpass an FX. Now, do you think the MOBILE Turion can match Core Duos? As for the 4MB cache theory, one question came into mind.. how can you squeeze the operating system+drivers+services+dlls and benchmarks/games into 4MB? Turion advantage is it has 64-bit mode (until the Merom arrives).. TDP-wise its still early to speculate.. although AMD's Geode is a superb low power example. Points to ponder...

10:45 PM, May 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/05/17/turion/index.php

4:04 AM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Turion X2 fails to impress
The Turion 64 x2 is behind the Core Duo in most benchmarks even in gaming. The reasons explaining that range from the effect of DDR2 memory, the smallish cache and the fact that the Turion is not even an improved K8.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31796

5:56 AM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.techpowerup.com/?12114

hacking & slashing yonah - core duo prices as a response to Turion X2

8:50 AM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-duo-overclocking_16.html

Core Duo rapes FX-60 CPU when overclocked. Conroe will extend that lead even more. Let's admit it, K8 era is over. AMD needs new core to remain competitive with current Intel products. And it will take K11 to compete with Conroe LOL

12:05 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous muziqaz said...

U see my opteron 165 rapes athlon 64 fx-60 then overclocked [;
should it bother me, or AMD? or U?

P.S. It rapes everything what intel has to offer at the moment :P

6:28 AM, May 20, 2006  
Blogger Mohamed Rifay said...

Since from my school time onwards, I am using AMD K5 series processor without any difficulties. Recently, I bought Acer Aspire 4520 powered by AMD Turion 64X2 TL-58. AMD always ensures outstanding performance and better stability with affordable cost.

3:05 AM, April 03, 2008  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home