Slashdot Mirror
AMD Releases 12 New Chips at CeBIT
SuperDuG writes "AMD now offers three categories of processor for notebooks grouped under the Athlon XP-M brand. It labels them "desktop replacement," "standard," and the new "low-voltage". AMD plans to make a desktop replacement in the notebook computer market using the Barton Core, a technology designed to double the CPU Cache. Looks like yet another case of AMD being one-up on Intel."
"I thought they weren't going to concentrate on PC processors [slashdot.org] anymore?"
I'm not surprised you thought that, you didn't RTFA.
Actually HP and Compaq, one and the same ;-), both have models that are Athlon based. I even think these were AMD's mobile Athlons. Granted they are larger heavier laptops, but they do exist. They even actually had pretty good hardware specs. I am not sure what you were looking for in a laptop, but they do exist.
Who will make the laptops with these processors? Certainly not Dell, HP, IBM or the likes of any Tier 1 supplier
Actually HP will be offering these chips soon and already sells AMD based laptops and desktops. I don't forsee Dell or IBM offering AMD based laptops anytime soon.
pfffftttt. you obviously didn't know that 20 different tier 1 & 2 notebook retailers are supplied with their notebooks by just four MANUFACTURERS.
these 4 MANUFACTURERS (names you probably never heard of) make notebooks for EVERYONE.
the only thing you are getting from IBM over an ASUS notebook is "value added"
value added is in the eye of the beholder.
Twice the cache (Barton) or half the size (microPGA 'low voltage' chips) than previous Athlons.
The Pentium-M has 1MB cache (compared to Barton's 512k). And Pentiums have had micro-PGA packaging since the Pentium 4 Northwood was introduced.
They don't call it an Athlon 2100 mhz, or Athlong 2.1gz. They call it an Athlon 2100+. Nowhere do they say 2.1gz (they'd likely get in trouble for fraud if they did.) They simply slapped a label on it that lets joe consumer easily compare it to the competition. Why does it matter what the real ghz speed is as long as it is as fast as they believe it will be (ie Intel P4 2.1ghz).
Does anyone know what voltage the XP-M even runs on?
0 0&p=8
It says in the article than the 'low voltage' ones peak at 25 W. (For comparison, the higher-speed Pentium-M chips peak at 24.5W; the ultra-low-voltage Pentium-M chips peak at 7W. Plus they're likely way better at staying below the 'peak' values.)
http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=18
And they're both still behind VIA and IBM on both power consumption and heat.
.75 and you get it's pentium equivalent. And they run as cool as a 486 (thereabouts). So they max out at 933Mhz (equal to about a 700Mhz pentium-III), they run air cooled with just a heatsink. That's just great.
VIA chips have a lot less processing power, but wow can you do some wierd and neat things with them. Multiply the Mhz rating of a C3 by
We all know how great the powerpc chip is for laptops, anyone who owns a Mac laptop can fill you in far more than I can.
I always thought the "big boys" were more concerned with raw cpu ops/cycle or Mhz than power and heat, at least there's a shift of views in both camps. This can't be anything other than a good thing, otherwise, I predict by 2060 if processors keep getting as hot as they have been, running your PC without a coolermaster "absolute zero cryogenic cooling unit" will cause nucleur fussion to occur inside your case. Hello miniature sun. That would be AMD's model, intel's would just vaporize everything in a wide radius.
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
benchmarks comparing the XP-M to the P4-M.
if you don't feel better tomorrow, we'll just cut your legs off about here. - Theodoric of York
Why do Slashdot moderators keep rating posts as "informative" without even checking if they are correct...?
PowerPC is an architecture, not a processor (just as x86 is an architecture - there are lots of very different chips that all use the x86 architecture). And their power consumption isn't all that low. They just run at lower clock speeds than Athlons or Pentiums (everything else being equal, half the clock speed means half the power consumption).
they max out at 933Mhz (equal to about a 700Mhz pentium-III)
h tm l#applications_benchmarks
The 1GHz C3 is actualy slower than a 667MHz Celeron.
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020605/c3-08.
msi kt4v
the customer installed the tt volcano 7 backwards and left the 0.1mm plastic protector under the heatsink , the computer boot then shutdown reaching 85Celcius for a 100th of a second
the plastic protector didn't even heat at all no cpu core mark on it , nothing
the system works !
Yeah, but AMD CPUs, because they don't use quite as huge a pipeline, aren't affected by L2 cache size like the P4. The 512k P4s were cache starved, where the smaller-cache Athlons weren't being held back by the cache size. None of this matters though if nobody puts them in computers though.
As far as power efficiency, it's called PowerNow from AMD. My Sony Vaio w/XP2000+ seems to stay around 500mhz and drops to the high 300's during really idle times. The clock adjustment happens 30 times per second, so there is no noticeable lag when you need the performanc. For example, the second I hit "compile" I immediately get a full 1.67Ghz of speed.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Actually, in the Anandtech review, the 3000+ Barton didn't beat the 3.06 Intel in most test. It did in some, but in most it was slightly behind. In tests that make use of SSE2, the Athlon was spanked.
Plus, I don't think this is embarrasing for Intel. Their plan from the start was to make a worse performer/clock, but then to ramp up the clock speed. This possibly was an attempt get customers based just on clock speed, or it could be because they believed they could get more performance than a processor with a smaller pipeline.
Ooops, should have used preview.
If you measure quality with a thermometer, I suppose you're right.
The AMD Athlon XP lacks for any integrated overheating protection means, and the most of systems based on it do not have any correct thermocontrol mechanisms. At present Athlon XP based systems do have thermal problems and are not protected from serious failures of cooling systems.
Well, if you are talking about the MHz rating, we all know how useless that is as a comparison, especially since the P4 came about. If you are talking about actual perfarmance, I'd like to see how that was determined, because I've seen the exact opposite.
For instance, DVD to MPEG4 encoding using Mencoder runs nearly as fast on my 750MHz AMD as it does on my 1.2GHz P3 Celeron... They even have identical memory configurations. For example, I can expect to average about 15fps on my Intel 1.2GHz, and 12fps on my AMD 750MHz. (comments on other's experiences are welcome.)
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
What about the Centrino processors released last night? 1.6GHz performing equal to that of a 2.6GHz P4?
;)
Actually, the Centrino 1.6 was faster than the p4 1.6. This links to the comparisons, choose Compare Performance.
It uses Mobile Mark 2002, with the p3/1.2 getting a 134, the p4/2.4 getting a 164, and the centrino 1.6 getting 189. Now just using Redneck Math(r) that would have a theorical p3/1.6 getting about 179. (compared to 189 for Cent1.6) It shows only a 18% increase in speed of the p4/2.4 over the p3/1.2. This is one reason I have been so disappointed that my dual p3/1.0 beats my p4/2.5 hands down.
My theory is that there really is no Centrino, and its really just a P3 with a bigger cache. I mean, whose gonna look inside the chips and compare them anyway? Its not like you can SEE them circuits
Ok, conspiracy freaks, you take it from here, please...
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
The real killer is going to be the CPU: Intel (and Intel compatible) devices tend to consume anywhere from 10W-25W in full operation. Their standby modes may be much lower, but what do you care how much power the thing draws when you aren't doing anything? PowerPCs are much better (5W-12W) and ARMs are just astonishing (one of the ARM chips I'm looking at draws less than 1W at full speed)
For must purposes, you can consider that the CPU and LCD consume 80%-90% of the power in your laptop, pretty much evenly divded between the two. If we are talking about a handheld device, the LCD probably eats 60%-70% of the power all on its own.
SuperDug says "Looks like yet another case of AMD being one-up on Intel."(on cache size)
Really. Centrino has a 1MB L2 cache - since the Barton core just caught up to the P4 Northwood with 512k and the new AMD mobile cpus aer based on Barton, I'd say that makes the AMD chips HALF cache size of Centrino. Why don't you try reading the specs before you make comparisons?
Since your assertion that Tier 1 computer manufactueres don't use AMD at all is flawed(see earlier on in this thread -- it seems HP/Compaq is using AMD in some machines), your entire comments validity and accuracy falls into question. Since I don't feel like looking up financial reports for AMD right now, I'll assume you're just another half-informed doomsayer.
It's been a long time.
When AMD launches the 64-bit AMD Opteron(TM) processor for servers and workstations, AMD will introduce a new 3-digit model numbering strategy for these processors. The current model numbering plan for AMD Athlon(TM) processors is not changing.
AMD designed the AMD Opteron processor model numbers to communicate the scalability of each series and the relative performance within that series. The first digit in the model number communicates scalability, and represents the maximum number of processors supported by that model number:
* AMD Opteron processor 100 Series (Example: Model 1XX) = 1-way server
* AMD Opteron processor 200 Series (Model 2XX) = 2-way server
* AMD Opteron processor 800 Series (Model 8XX) = supports up to 8-way servers
The second and third digits communicate relative performance within each product line:
* Example: Model 244 will offer higher performance than Model 242.
* Model numbers are not directly related to frequency.
* AMD started numbering the last two digits at 40.
This gives AMD flexibility to describe AMD's server processor performance without potentially confusing end users by starting at 10, 20, or 30, because users might mistake "Model 224" with a 2.4 GHz processor. AMD developed its model numbering strategy in consultation with end users and customers. AMD found that most enterprise users of server technology understood the design of the 3-digit model number strategy and responded favorably to its clarity. They could also distinguish that the AMD Opteron processor model numbers do not directly refer to frequency, or clock speed, which have less relevance to advanced server applications.
The AMD Opteron processor model number strategy extends AMD's efforts to change end users' focus from frequency to application performance. With such architecture enhancements as a 64-bit processor core, an integrated high-bandwidth memory controller, and HyperTransport(TM) technology links for easy multiprocessor scaling, AMD expects the upcoming AMD Opteron processor will be among the highest performing server processors available. AMD will provide benchmark data at launch to demonstrate how the AMD Opteron processor compares to other server processors on both 32- and 64-bit applications.
In other words. Shit we can't get our hammers out in anywhere near a competitive frequency so we're gonna confuse the fuck out of people and hope they never find out what frequency we're releasing them at.
Quote from hardocp.
Liberty.