Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: amdcompare.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to amdcompare.com.

Comments · 20

  1. Re:less power - 35 Watt 90nm SOI AM2 F2 Stepping by SailorBob · · Score: 1 · on Inside AMD's Phenom Architecture

    AMD's lowest power usage CPU's are currently 35W and made on 90nm SOI for AM2 socket with F2 Stepping. They range from a 1.6 Ghz Sempron on the low end up to a 2.0 Ghz Athlon X2

    You can get info on all available models at these urls:

    Compare Desktop Processor Specifications

    Compare Server/Workstation Processor Specifications

    AMD Processor Pricing

    The question is of course can you buy one retail?

  2. Re:less power - 35 Watt 90nm SOI AM2 F2 Stepping by SailorBob · · Score: 1 · on Inside AMD's Phenom Architecture

    AMD's lowest power usage CPU's are currently 35W and made on 90nm SOI for AM2 socket with F2 Stepping. They range from a 1.6 Ghz Sempron on the low end up to a 2.0 Ghz Athlon X2

    You can get info on all available models at these urls:

    Compare Desktop Processor Specifications

    Compare Server/Workstation Processor Specifications

    AMD Processor Pricing

    The question is of course can you buy one retail?

  3. Re:less power - 35 Watt 90nm SOI AM2 F2 Stepping by SailorBob · · Score: 1 · on Inside AMD's Phenom Architecture

    AMD's lowest power usage CPU's are currently 35W and made on 90nm SOI for AM2 socket with F2 Stepping. They range from a 1.6 Ghz Sempron on the low end up to a 2.0 Ghz Athlon X2

    You can get info on all available models at these urls:

    Compare Desktop Processor Specifications

    Compare Server/Workstation Processor Specifications

    AMD Processor Pricing

    The question is of course can you buy one retail?

  4. Re:less power - 35 Watt 90nm SOI AM2 F2 Stepping by SailorBob · · Score: 1 · on Inside AMD's Phenom Architecture

    AMD's lowest power usage CPU's are currently 35W and made on 90nm SOI for AM2 socket with F2 Stepping. They range from a 1.6 Ghz Sempron on the low end up to a 2.0 Ghz Athlon X2

    You can get info on all available models at these urls:

    Compare Desktop Processor Specifications

    Compare Server/Workstation Processor Specifications

    AMD Processor Pricing

    The question is of course can you buy one retail?

  5. Re:Damnit... they're making it confusing again... by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1 · on AMD Athlon 64 6000+ Launched And Tested

    You're off by a couple months. The high end Athlon FX processors have been dual core for a while now.

    http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/details.as px?opn=ADAFX70GAA6DI
    http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/details.as px?opn=ADAFX62IAA6CS

    Note how it says "1MB x2" for L2 cache.

  6. Re:Damnit... they're making it confusing again... by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1 · on AMD Athlon 64 6000+ Launched And Tested

    You're off by a couple months. The high end Athlon FX processors have been dual core for a while now.

    http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/details.as px?opn=ADAFX70GAA6DI
    http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/details.as px?opn=ADAFX62IAA6CS

    Note how it says "1MB x2" for L2 cache.

  7. Re:35W Sempron by zerOnIne · · Score: 1 · on 65nm Athlons Debut With Lower Power Consumption

    A place called Dustin Home. Search for "sempron" and it'll come up, though I have no way of telling if it's in stock. The ones in question are marked "EE" for "Energy Efficient", with model numbers starting with "SDD" as opposed to "SDA". AMD has a nice chart on what the model numbers mean. I just wish that AMD would be a little more explicit in the names on the packaging.

  8. Recently Upgraded... by ewhac · · Score: 2, Interesting · on The 'Perfect' Gaming Setup
    Ooo! Is this where we get to compare the sizes of our dic^H^H^Hgaming rigs?

    I just bought myself a completely new gaming rig -- my first such rig in about seven years. Prior to that I'd been upgrading various components in my old box. But the newest games were starting to far outstrip my machine's ability to play them (Doom 3/Quake 4 were the earliest offenders). Thanks to a pleasant year-end bonus from my employer (and rather serious prodding from my partner), I got a completely new box:

    Sadly, the graphics card has turned out to be the biggest problem in the new rig. It seems that everyone is having trouble with the new NVidia 7900-based boards. My first card would display "exploding" geometry once it warmed up a bit. Happily, eVGA have been very good to deal with, and performed a free cross-ship RMA. The new card still exhibits a few glitches, but only when I expressly go looking for them. When actually playing games, it's been very well behaved. It's only done the exploding geometry thing once since then, during a game of Oblivion. I'll keep leaning on eVGA to perfect this card.

    I have very mixed feelings about the Creative sound card. Creative has a very spotty reputation for drivers, especially when multiple CPUs are involved. However, virtually all the competing sound card vendors have gone away, or have chosen instead to go for a race to the bottom in terms of price (and, sadly, quality). So I got the Creative X-Fi. It makes the games sound pretty good (it's breathed new life into QuakeWorld), but I would have much preferred something that works with Linux. I have my eye on the upcoming Razer Barracuda sound card, though...

    I'd have to say that I'm probably happiest with the case. I was very paranoid that I wouldn't have enough space for all the cruft I planned on putting in it, or that it would be very difficult to work with, but it's turned out to be just lovely. It weighs a ton, but no more than the old Antec tower it's replacing. It's very accessible, has a large interior, very well ventilated, very sturdy, has a clean appearance, and the blue LEDs don't hurt, either.

    As I said, this is the first new rig I've put together in seven years (the last machine I built was a dual-Pentium III on a PC-100 motherboard). I'd appreciate commentary from a more experienced eye. Could I have selected better RAM? Better drives?

    Schwab

  9. Re:Unbiased review, isn't it? by JorDan+Clock · · Score: 1 · on Intel's Conroe Resurfaces, Benchmarks Strong

    The FX-62 is a dual-core processor. In fact, here is the details from AMD themselves.

  10. Re:Right/Practical by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 2, Informative · on OpenSPARC and Power.org, Who has it Right?
    I'm a bit out of it on the latest design requirements for CPUs - is the technology of these folks actually good enough to make a reasonably modern CPU?
    Yes. I believe that the best MOSIS process is the IBM 90 nm process, which is 7 metal layer, pretty flexible. The T-1 SPARC we're talking about (Niagra) is a 90 nm, 9 metal layer Copper wire fab design (see Sun's Specs). You can't quite fab a T-1 as Sun laid it out with IBM's process, but it's pretty close. You could produce a roughly the same size, slightly larger and/or slower version of the same chip with a new detail layout, using the same chip level "circuit diagram" but a different physical design with fewer layers of metal used etc. AMD uses 0.13 and 0.09 u (90 nm) processes for their current Opteron line, though theirs are Silicon on Insulator fab processes. Again, different design details, but the same general scale and capabilities. The newest Intel Zeon MP processors are at 65 nm processes, one step past the IBM 90 nm process (components on the average taking roughly half the surface area per step). But Intel still produces a lot of slightly older 90 nm and larger CPUs, and industry consensus is that the 90 nm AMD and 65 nm Intel chips are still roughly at equal performance.
  11. Re:Some wrong choices made for a silent gaming rig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Build a Quiet Gaming System

    How about even a slower processor? AMD 3000 socket 754 Venice core (Newegg has then for $120). Yes, outdated socket 754 but the CPU is relatively new and runs cool and lower power (51W) compared to other Intels and AMD models. Mine runs at about 35C with the AMD retail supplied fan/heatsink/thermal pad under full load. I bought one last month and play BF2, NFSMW etc at respectable frame rates. The video card is far more important for those games then the CPU anyway. Look at Toms for CPU benchmarks with games, there is like a 15% variation in frame rates with the top 20 or so CPU's, the top 20 video cards have like a 100% difference between them. Basically, take the cheaper CPU, invest the difference in a better video card and you will be much better off if you on a budget. Of course you will lose in the bragging rights battle and this choice if far from a gaming CPU but it works fine. The difference between 4x AA and 8X AA is not worth the extra $800 to me.

  12. Re:Uh? by symbolset · · Score: 2, Informative · on Supermicro Announces Quad-Opteron 1U Motherboard
    Recommended 1KW power supply is not the same thing as consumes 1KW of power. The motherboard itself almost certainly consumes less than 100. It's the other stuff you might choose to plug into it that starts burning the watts. Four of this http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/details.as px?opn=OSA850AVWOF, for example, would max out at 356W TDP. By the time you add VR efficiency and PSU efficiency into that equation you're pegging >550W of wall power just for the processors.

    If you actually built a rack full of 22-24 1KW 1U servers you should probably apply some forethought to how you're going to get rid of more heat than is generated by four of these:http://www.paragonweb.com/TNF1613.cfm. Also, you should probably have the power company increase the multiplier on your meter, lest it spin like an AOL CD on an angle grinder: http://homepages.newnet.co.uk/martynarnold/aol.htm

  13. Re:and loaded to the eyeballs with by SpinJaunt · · Score: 1 · on Intel Looks Beyond the Microchip

    shame, AMD do have plans to included TCP/DRM in there chips sometime this year: http://www.amdcompare.com/techoutlook/

  14. Re:Actually one IMPORTANT thing is missing ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1 · on Intel Launches Centrino Duo Notebooks

    "As a result I would really want to see how things will be compared to a 65nm (dual-core or not) AMD Turion"

    Unfortunately, AMD won't have 65nm CPUs available until 2007: http://www.amdcompare.com/prodoutlook/

    AMD will release a dual core 90nm Turion in a few months. Although I would guess that it needs to be clocked very low to have a low power consumption.

  15. again.. by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Sued Over Alleged Xbox 360 Defects

    Look, your view of an improved console is not the same as MS' or Sony's. I totally respect that. But that doesn't mean that MS made a bad or faulty design. And it doesn't mean other people agree with you. I highly recommend you not buy a 360, it doesn't seem appropriate for you. But your arguments on this are good for those in your position only. Since HDTV resolution is 3-4X times that of regular TV, I personally am looking for more than "several times" faster equipment. It would take that just to tread water, graphics-wise at HDTV resolutions, and I (and MS) think improved graphics are a better idea than that.

    As to you not being clear about cooling, you again, for the 3rd time just don't know what you are talking about in this area. If you put the unit in a box it will heat up far above normal temperatures. You can't ensure you have headroom if you can't control the cooling solution, and if the user puts the unit in a box, you can't control the cooling solution. Okay. Do you get it now? I also explained why you cannot always warn the user. I explained a few practical reasons why not and a legal/liability one. I finally took the time to explain that you have NO IDEA what the incidence of the problem is. If it happens 5 times out of a million, then MS shouldn't spend a single dime fixing it. If it happens 5,000, it's quite important. Until you know which it is, you should refrain from explaining how MS did a crappy job and you'd do better.

    At room temperatures, heat doesn't produce significant changes in electrical resistance in copper, tin, etc. We're not talking about superconductors here. Also note that there is no evidence that more heat makes chips wear out quicker, at least not until you get to the catastrophic failure mode. Additionally, as a 360 owner, I can say that your comments about "robust operation" are pretty presumptive. You just have no idea if they are unreliable. Mine is reliable at at least 116F-140F. Frankly, that seems pretty good to me. So step off about your comments as to Xbox 360 would be more reliable if it ran cooler.

    Finally, all those comments are AGAIN tangential. MS felt they needed a certain level of performance. That level of performance generates a certain amount of heat. Putting that much heat in a stereo cabinet doesn't work. So no matter how much you complain, you're not going to change the situation. It seems likely to me MS did about as well as reasonably could be done given the cost and design constraints.

    And making it "a few percent" slower would only reduce the power consumption by a few percent. For example, look at an AMD A64. http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/ Select 90nm from CMOS and A64 (regular) from processor. Also look at http://techreport.com/cpu/ for the voltage ratings.

    A 90nm 4000+ runs at 2.4GHz and 1.4V and has a design power of 89W. A 3700+ runs at 2.2GHz and runs at 1.4V and has a design power of 89W. A 3200+ runs at 2.0GHz and 1.4V and has a design power of 67W (make sure to use socket 754 version, other suffers from reduced performance due to bad FSB).

    Power is proportional to frequency and with the square of voltage. So, let's calculate. Performance is proportional to frequency.

    So, a 3700+ is 91% as fast as a 4000+, and uses 91% as much power.
    A 3200+ is 83% as fast and uses 83% as much power.

    If a 3200 could run at 1.3V (not impossible, it would than take (1.3/1.4)^2*(2.0/2.4) as much power. That'd be 71% as much power.

    In that case, I'd save as much as 20W (30%), but lose about 20% of my power. If you go by TDP ratings on AMD's site, it comes out to about the same (62W TDP versus 89W, for about 70% as much power, although these are rough numbers, AMD seems to class TDP ratings by what heatsink they use, not actual TDP). Anyway, how does this jive with your statement that it would use MUCH LESS than 80% of the power?

    It just happens to be that personally, you don't find the tradeoffs

  16. Should compare to Opteron 270 HE dualcore by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 1 · on Intel Yonah Performance Preview

    The Opteron 270 HE dualcore CPU would be a better choice to compare against Yonah. Dual 2GHz cores, each with 1MB L2 cache, 55W TDP. Same speed but twice the cache of the Athlon 64 X2 3800+. Mind you that's a 90nm chip, not 65nm like Yonah. Consider that to be the baseline for what a dualcore Turion will do. I suspect they'll cut the clockspeed back a bit in order to bring the wattage down even further.

    I'm looking forward to the dualcore Turions. Dualcore 32-bit CPUs seem... silly.

  17. Re:More on the 'ODD DUCK' AMD64 3700+ by spiralscratch · · Score: 1 · on Which CPU Is Tops in Price/Performance?

    The 3700+ runs at 2.2GHz, the 3800+ at 2.4GHz.

    http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/Default.as px

    More L2 cache will not hurt performance. It's just that some of their benchmarks see much greater benefit than others when the L2 cache is increased. In the Farcry example, it happened to be enough of a benefit to overshadow the 200MHz difference.

  18. Re:Nonsense by mauriceh · · Score: 1 · on New Xeon CPU Hot and Underpowered

    No, a PROPERLY designed dual core does NOT use twice the power, at the same clockspeeds.

    For example, look at the Opteron 248 REV E4 versus the dual core Opteron 275REV E6
    85W for single core 248
    http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/details.as px?opn=OSA248BLBOX

    95W for dual core 275
    http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/details.as px?opn=OSA275CBBOX

    Both share the same .09nmSOI technology.
    AND remember the Opterons contain the memory controller on-chip, so simple CPU power comparison to the Intels does not reflect that the Intel chips require a chipset on the motherboard with a memory controller that is also consuming power, and making heat.
    About another 25W in the case of the new Intel chipsets that support Paxville.

    The difference is dramatic.
    Total of 95W on the Opteron side, versus around 350W for the same setup on a Paxville, 2.8GHz, which is still a LOT slower than the 275 in most tests.

    The only fan boys I see spouting here are Intel fanboys.

  19. Re:Nonsense by mauriceh · · Score: 1 · on New Xeon CPU Hot and Underpowered

    No, a PROPERLY designed dual core does NOT use twice the power, at the same clockspeeds.

    For example, look at the Opteron 248 REV E4 versus the dual core Opteron 275REV E6
    85W for single core 248
    http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/details.as px?opn=OSA248BLBOX

    95W for dual core 275
    http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/details.as px?opn=OSA275CBBOX

    Both share the same .09nmSOI technology.
    AND remember the Opterons contain the memory controller on-chip, so simple CPU power comparison to the Intels does not reflect that the Intel chips require a chipset on the motherboard with a memory controller that is also consuming power, and making heat.
    About another 25W in the case of the new Intel chipsets that support Paxville.

    The difference is dramatic.
    Total of 95W on the Opteron side, versus around 350W for the same setup on a Paxville, 2.8GHz, which is still a LOT slower than the 275 in most tests.

    The only fan boys I see spouting here are Intel fanboys.

  20. Fsckin' Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Basics of Modern Intel CPUs

    Fantastic! I just bought a new system at lunch today and now Slashdot has an article about CPUs :(

    If anyone cares, here's what I picked up:

    The system will be running OpenBSD 3.7.

    Assuming I don't fry the mobo, bend pins on the CPU or squirt thermal compound all over the place, I should be good to go. Just to be sure, I'm going to pet my cats for luck :)