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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?