Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Intel desktop chipset consumes 23 watts typical

INQ reported that the Conroe chipset, the P965 consumes 23.1 watt typical. The other day, Intel reported that they have an ultra low power CPU, the immediate question came to mind was "how much the chipset consumes?".

I bet that the Blackford chipset for the Bensley platform will consume close to 40 watts.

It's tough business for Intel for run these chipsets at 1GHZ on junk yard 130nm process.

14 Comments:

Blogger Mad Mod Mike said...

As I said before, people should look at overall system performance per watt than just CPU's. If you compare even Woodcrest TDP to Opteron 64, let's assume that Intel is a kind company and the 80w TDP for Woodcrest is actually max and not normal (yea right lol).

Woodcrest: 80w CPU + 15w Memory Controller = 95w TDP

Opteron64: 95w CPU+MC

The Opteron 64 is MAX TDP, and it can be reduced to 55w and 35w in HE and EE models, including the memory controller. AMD also has a 14w CPU at 2GHz WITH the Memory Controller, yet Intel somehow is leading in PPW? Right....

10:27 AM, June 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Woodcrest: 80w CPU + 15w Memory Controller = 95w TDP

Opteron64: 95w CPU+MC
"
How much power does AMD's IMC consume usually? 0 watts?

"
The Opteron 64 is MAX TDP, and it can be reduced to 55w and 35w in HE and EE models, including the memory controller. AMD also has a 14w CPU at 2GHz WITH the Memory Controller, yet Intel somehow is leading in PPW? Right...."

right, like AMD is the only one who provides low power models...

10:36 AM, June 06, 2006  
Blogger Mad Mod Mike said...

95w TDP for the Opteron includes the Memory Controller, which means the CPU itself consumes far less than their TDP. The TDP encompases the MC as well.

Intel has low voltage, lower power as well, but that is excluding the Memory Controller. AMD has reduces power consumption of the Memory Controller and HyperTransport links while also the CPU core as well, Intel only has the CPU core while maintaining 20-40w TDP's for Memory Controllers on their NB's.

11:37 AM, June 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Broadwater is a 90nm chipset.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32216

And the Nforce5 consumes quite a lot of power, too.

12:07 PM, June 06, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

The Broadwater is a 90nm chipset.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32216


Hmm. Coming out of the same production lines that made the Pentium 4.

Yes. Those Nvidia/ATI chips are getting too hot too. Who can blame them? They don't have FABs to try the leading edge stuff. I think AMD acquiring ATI is a good idea from at least one aspect: AMD can make those graphics card run at much higher clockspeed simply because of its advanced strained silicon on insulator process. Of course, AMD can also simply embedded the graphics into the CPU...

12:46 PM, June 06, 2006  
Blogger Ajay S. said...

Intel plans to introduce 0.75 watt processor this summer!

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/06/06/intel_p065_announced/

1:36 PM, June 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah nice what a market story again...

on a P965 chipset that consumes 23W

and we all know how good intel speedstep technology is working... they use it to clock down when there is too much heat... now where is your performance?

@mad mod mike you forgot to add additional 5W for each fb dimm

byebye intel in blades

3:20 PM, June 06, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Intel plans to introduce 0.75 watt processor this summer!


More Intel vaporware.

AMD had a 0.8 watt processor for 2 years already, and it has IMC and eveything. Samsung just kicked Intel out and decided to use AMD.

5:57 PM, June 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

quote

and we all know how good intel speedstep technology is working... they use it to clock down when there is too much heat... now where is your performance?

end quote

What, you mean like AMD cool and quiet? rofl

6:07 PM, June 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mad Mod Mike you fail to highlight the fact that the Opteron will still need a northbridge and a southbridge. Even though both bridges consume less power than their intel equivalents the total power consumption for all three chipsets will still be higher for the Opteron.

Sharikou there was nothing wrong with intel's production process the problem lied in the netburst architecture's inefficient design.
Also IF AMD buys ATI notice that AMD is strained for capacity and they can't afford to use their fabs to make ATI chips.

IMO embedding the graphics into the CPU is not a particularly good idea because the chip is going to consume massive amounts of die space that could be used to make the CPU much better all around. In addition the embedded GPU cannot be upgraded and it will almost certainly boast less graphic processing power than the highest end graphic processing solutions.

6:08 PM, June 06, 2006  
Blogger Mad Mod Mike said...

No worthy Socket 940 Opteron has a SB, it is integrated into 1 NB (sometimes 2 or more). Woodcrests TDP for MAX is about 100w for the 3.0GHz (adjusting for Intel lies) and the Opteron is 89w or 95w for a Dual-Core 2.8GHz with a Memory Controller. That Memory Controller easily consumes 20% of the TDP, now you're looking at 100w for Woodcrest vs. 77w for the Opteron comparing CPU to CPU. The Woodcrest is consuming 23% more CPU to CPU, even if you factor in the northbridge, the consumption is very minimal since there is only PCI-E and standard links coming off.

Woodcrest: 100w CPU + 40w MC = 140w System

Opteron: 95w CPU+MC + ~15w NB/SB = 110w System

Opteron is still winning.

7:39 PM, June 06, 2006  
Anonymous Damascus said...

About enbedding Vid card onto cpu, it might sound a bad idea, but they could just toss a SINGLE HYPERTRANSPORT link (direct connect) to a GPU on board, using a socket similar to Torrenza's technology.

the GPU would be slower in memory access and higher latency (unless it uses an ondie memory controller too )
and dedicated memory modules too.

10:26 PM, June 06, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

"... the Opteron will still need a northbridge and a southbridge."

Oh come on! Have you been sleeping since 2003? Opteron does not need North Bridge.

"IMO embedding the graphics into the CPU is not a particularly good idea because the chip is going to consume massive amounts of die space that could be used to make the CPU much better all around."

1) You fail to realize that K8 has those HT links which can easily hook up to a GPU on a separate socket. If AMD would integrate GPU with CPU, this would be the first step, way before combining them onto one die.

2) Because the functionalities of GPU and CPU are logically clear-cut, it'll be much simpler to put them onto the same die than to say make the CPU pipeline twice wider. If you've ever tried to layout a complex circuit, you'd know what I'm talking about.

10:31 PM, June 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

edward are you STUPID or something? please don't answer that because YOU ARE. the opteron/athlon64 STILL NEEDS THE NORTHBRIDGE/SOUTHBRIDGE aka a CHIPSET. wake me up when they have integrated: pci-e (just rumors no proof any where), usb, sata, sas, etc.. as far as i understand, today's cpus are so complex and big that hand routing is impractical (i'm not saying oversight or just forcing the router to place certain groups of logic in certain places) if not impossible. i'm calling FUD on you, lmm (mmm), and shitirou

7:20 PM, June 08, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home