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."

Comments

The real question is "who will make them?"

[gato_mato]

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

Re:"AMD one up..."

[SuperDuG]

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

Re:When are they going to make 2 cpu MBs?

[Anonvmous Coward]

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.

Re:Yet another case? of what?

[Pharmboy]

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.