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."

17 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. Yet another case? of what? by visionsofmcskill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    half a year ago and prior to that id give AMD the advantage over Intel for their chips (except for the deceptivity of 2100+ chips being 1.73 Ghz).... even accepting their tendancy to overheat.

    but lately Intel has been steadily ahead with clock cycles that even AMD's "2800+" marketing cant compete with.

    luckily Intel has had a Looooooooonnnnnnnggggg track record of power hungry chips which i suppose allows AMD to give more muscle for less juice in laptops....

    but to say this is "yet another case of AMD one upping intel" is a bit too much.

    -- enter the sig --

    --
    --Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
    1. Re:Yet another case? of what? by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      half a year ago and prior to that id give AMD the advantage over Intel for their chips (except for the deceptivity of 2100+ chips being 1.73 Ghz).... even accepting their tendancy to overheat.

      Overheat? with all due respect, I dont understand the modding here. AMD chips run HOT. Very hot. But if you DONT crack the damn ceramic and run a properly rated fan, they do NOT overheat. They run within the tolorances that the specifications call for.

      Just because the spec for AMD is a higher temperature than Intel does NOT imply 'overheating'. I get tired of this FUD. I don't talk AMD down even tho I prefer Intel. Doesn't change the fact that this is FUD.

      Hotter != Overheating

      Ok, I'm done.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  2. The real question is "who will make them?" by gato_mato · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not to be too much of a pessimist but lets face it. The mobile market is dominated by Intel. I would love to buy an AMD based laptop when it comes time to replace my current trusty Dell 8100 but Who will make the laptops with these processors? Certainly not Dell, HP, IBM or the likes of any Tier 1 supplier that wants to keep on receiving their share of the Intel Processor Yields.
    When I went looking to replace my old laptop a year & a half ago there was not a single tier 1 hardware maker that would dare put out an AMD based laptop in the market in fears that they might make mad the bear that Intel is.
    Until the industry stands up to Intel in the same way that they need to stand up against M$ this will continue to be the case.
    Simple enough to ask (This is a serious question) What if any current Tier 1 hardware manufacturer sells any Athlon based system for "Office" use? What about "Home" use. I dare say that the Home is the only one likely to have an answer. Are laptops devices mainly used in an "Office" or a "Home" environment? (Meaning you don't buy your kids a laptop to do their homework on, but you do have a laptop to "extend" your office to outside your place of work.).

    Gato

    1. Re:The real question is "who will make them?" by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Someone else already pointed out that HP/Compaq sell Athlon based notebooks. I have a Sony VAIO PCG-NVR23 that has a Mobile Athlon XP 1800+ or something like that. I know Sony has at least one other model with a Mobile Athlon chip.

      Just adding to your comment, they even use Transmeta CPUs in some models, risking the wrath of Intel.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  3. Thanks by NotAnotherReboot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First of all, thanks for the helpful links to AMD's and Intel's websites.

    Second of all, Intel has been "one up" on AMD for quite some time now, being at least a couple of months ahead in terms of performance (3.06Ghz with HyperThreading is out now and available to buy). As always, it's great to see that AMD is hanging in there, but there's no need to toot their horn no matter how they're actually doing.

    1. Re:Thanks by Cyno · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, but Intel does not have as significant a lead as one might think. They may be releasing 3Ghz CPUs but they cost twice as much as an AMD CPU which is clocked at a lower speed but performs on par. And Intel's 64-bit chips are going to have the same problems cluster and supercomputer makers had in the last few years. There just isn't enough software available to justify the costs. I bet most consumers don't want expensive fast chips, they want a bunch of cheap fast chips that are backwards compatible with what they are running today.

      But there are so many new emerging markets in supercomputing that its hard to tell who's going to sell well.

  4. YOU HAVE BEEN PRE-APPROVED!!!! by Clockwurk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    AMD needs to cement some deals with some major OEMs and fast. They released a mobile processor before, but I can't name anyone that sells athlon laptops. Hopefully somebody big like gateway or hp, etc. will pick these new chips up post haste. AMD is still lagging in the desktop world (Hammer where are you?) and they are bleeding cash like a sieve, hopefully, they can gain some footing here and give intel a run for their money.

    1. Re:YOU HAVE BEEN PRE-APPROVED!!!! by futuresheep · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Consumer or business is not relevant in this case. The poster said that there are no major OEM's with AMD laptop, several posters have pointed out that there are.

  5. Laptop OS! by sporty · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Problem is, OS's are developed to desktop standards, not laptop ones. Granted, my 400mhz may run OSX nicely, It'd prolly crawl on an iBook of the equiv. Mind you, I understand the ramifications of a low power chip, but shouldn't the goal of a chip maker to make the coldest, fastest chip and the OS maker to make the fastest, smallest OS?

    C'mmon people.. get on the ball here!

    --

    -
    ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    1. Re:Laptop OS! by NotAnotherReboot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OSes are never developed to be run on only the latest and greatest. A somewhat new laptop can always run the newest OS from Apple or Microsoft extremely well. The only problem is that it doesn't have the type of upgrade life that desktops might have, so you're often lucky to get more than one OS upgrade.

      The goal of the OS maker is to put in more and more features that require better and better CPUs, thus making their product better (not because of bloat, I mean come on, Windows XP is DEFINITELY much better than Windows 95, and a lot of it is in the features).

      New OSes sell new computers.

  6. Re:"AMD one up..." by SuperDuG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Twice the cache and half the size. OBVIOUSLY someone might have wanted to pay a little more attention.

    --
    Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
  7. Re:AMD Being one up on Intel? by gilesjuk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe because it's a lot cheaper to make a P4 and the high clock is a marketing tool?

  8. So, wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    AMD is deceptive for telling people their 1.7ghz chips perform at Intel 2.1ghz speeds? Wouldn't it be more deceptive to let people believe a 2.0ghz Intel chip out-performs an AMD 1.7ghz chip?

  9. This is a troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    It's common courtesy for the proprietor not to piss in the fountain.

  10. Re:When are they going to make 2 cpu MBs? by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I remember reading that they did want to do that, but there was still the little problem of cost. The mobo gets more complex, etc etc.

    Then there's the little matter of OS and App support. Windows 2000 handles dual processors pretty well, but it doesn't appear (I'm talking about image here, not substance) to work twice as fast. You need multithreaded apps etc etc etc to make good use of it.

    Remember when I mentioned the rendering bit earlier? I could use a machine that's 16x faster than what I have now, but a 16 processor machine would be virtually worthless because of all the management that'd need to be done. I wouldn't get 16x performance out of it. I have 2 processors now and I'm barely getting 1.5x. The only real noticable benefit I'm getting from the extra processor is that my multithreaded apps are a bit faster and Windows (explorer etc) is much more responsive.

    Yeah, I'd like dual to be the rule too. But the market doesn't want that. I agree that it's not impossible to do. I agree that it could be done. But there's a lot more to it than just releasing the hardware. The software end of it too can be problematic.

  11. How much power do chips consume, exactly? by vga_init · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It seems like power consumption in notebook chips is a huge issue, but do they really consume that much power?

    Considering what I know about chips and power, they probably really do munch a lot of energy, but if you were to ask me which parts I thought most drained a notebook computer of its valuable energy resource, I would have been more quick to suggest something like a backlit LCD display or things with moving parts such has the hard dissk and other peripheral devices.

    Out of all laptop devices, is it the CPU that consumes the most? I would appreciate it if somebody could clear me up on this. :)

  12. Re:I've said it before by evilviper · · Score: 3, Insightful
    1800 mhz designed to battery at ~800 for 2 hours and manually told it to underclock to 200, imagine the improvement in battery time.

    Did you happen to have a hard drive in this theoretical notebook? How about chipsets? Maybe a display as well? Guess what, the CPU power consumption is the least of your worries. The CPU doesn't eat enough power that slowing it down will extend the battery a significant ammount. You'd probably see better results just by dimming the backlight on your display a little more.
    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant