Slashdot Mirror
AMD Launches Turion Mobile Processor
justforaday writes "Earlier today, AMD launched their Turion mobile processor, which is based on the AMD64 architecture. This is set to compete directly with Intel's Centrino (Pentium-M) line of processors. Chips will initially be clocked between 1.6 and 2.0 GHz. Looks like we should be seeing some nice low-powered 64-bit notebooks in the near future."
Are any of the major motherboard manufacturers going to put out a micro-ATX or smaller desktop motherboard for this to build a media PC upon?
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
They have this new thing called the internet. It sells you stuff and things.
If you tell someone about your computer processor, and you cough slightly while you say the processor name, you end up with a Turing machine. If only it were true...
I really wish we could complete that ratio.
No, I'm not saying that Intel is as bad as Microsoft (although those recent anti-trust actions might make one wonder). I'm just saying that look how well things have turned out for the consumer on the processor front because there's a viable alternative.
Wouldn't it be cool to have a competitor for Microsoft the way AMD competes with Intel?
No. How long have you been following CPU pricing? It's always high for the first offerings. By this time next year you'll see half that line discontinued and the remainder heavily discounted.
Rule #1 regarding technology: As soon as it hits store shelves, it's already obsolete.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This should be a very interesting product for the silent computing community (check SilentPCRReview) if some manufacturer decides to make desktop motherboards for it. People are already using Mobile Athlon XP's and Pentium-M's in desktop computers because of their relatively low heat output.
My own wish would be to some day have a passively air cooled computer. Running an Athlon64 passively with only one big slow (=nearly silent) case fan is already feasible with carefully managed airflow inside the computer case. Turion could be theoretically cool enough to cool with convection airflow if the potential is realized with wellmade motherboards.
There are other advantages, namely the additions to the x86 ISA that fix some of its shortcomings. There are 8 more general-purpose registers and 8 more SIMD registers.
I have a Digital AlphaBook, the first 64 bit notebook computer! 266 MHz Alpha Processor (EV4 I think) 128 Meg RAM, and runs OpenVMS! Best of all I got it back in 1998. Nobody was even thinking 64 bit desktops back then. And you know what, it still rocks. I've rebuilt the battery pack and still use it today. You should see poeples face when VMS is booting up and it goes into the DEC windows manager.
that's not too bad, compared to the 25w of intel's pentium-m.
also remember than intel understates their peak power while amd overstates theirs. dont recall who did the test, i think it was the german c't mag who found the discrepancies between claimed and actual power consumption.
Better get used to lugging a massive battery if you plan to really get the most out of that 64 bit CPU.
What? Peak use is 25W-35W. Pentium Ms use 22W, but then you also have a northbridge and a southbridge. Whereas most Athlon-64 based (and therefore Turion 64) have only one other chip (other than the CPU). At the least, they're about the same in terms of power usage.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
MegaPeople. I see these all the time, especially at all-you-can-eat restaraunts. I think there number is increasing rapidly in America.
Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
2 MB L2 cache doesn't do much by itself, give that Dothan core a 533 MHz FSB instead of the 400 MHz Banias was on and it starts to shine (and of course the power consumption goes up too). Speaking of which, AMD Turion 64 (and Athlon 64) have memory controller in the core not in north bridge like Intel processors, so that 25/35W CPU power envelope includes MC overhead too.
;)
BTW, most 512 kB L2 Athlon 64 CPUs run circles over P4 3.6+ GHz with 2 MB cache in gaming benches, so cache alone means squat
And it looks like it's going to be two years until Pentium M range gets 64-bit core. AMD Turion 64 already has 16/16 INT/XMM registers, SSE/SSE2/SSE3 support etc.
Incorrect. Please read the Intel docs, specifically the sections on PSE/PAE, which both have been avaiable since the Pentium Pro. The virtual addressable space will still be 4GB, however the 36-bit address bus will allow for a theoretical limit of 64GB.
Keep in mind these chips have integrated memory controllers and northbridges unlike Pentium-m's. Northbridges alone use about 5W of power so this could be subtracted from their consumption for a more accurate comparision of the two.
Things are not as they appear, nor are they otherwise
Yes.. you can take the advice of the parent poster... but let me explain a couple things which dictate that 7200RPM laptop drives are not always better....
1) Drive density: a laptop drive at 80GB is roughly twice as dense (bytes per square inch) than an 80GB desktop hard drive
2) Head travel time: In a 2.5in laptop drive, the hard drive head does not have to traverse more than ~1in (from center to outter track) of the drive to do any given seek. A desktop drive must traverse roughly 50% more distance (and time) on random seeks
3) Heat: 5400RPM drives produce significantly less heat than 7200RPM drives.. on top of this, a 5400RPM drive built with the same quality as a 7200RPM drive has significantly longer average lifetime.
4) Noise: Equivilently built drives one running at 5400RPM and one at 7200RPM. The 7200RPM is significantly louder and produces high pitched noise (nowadays, all laptop drives are hydro bearings so you can't cop out and say that a cheaper 5400RPM drive will use cheaper ball bearings... like you used to be able to say)
5) battery life: less heat == less watts == less power consumption. Remember that the hard drive is the second largest drain on your battery when talking about centrino/turion systems (LCD is the first). In a P4 laptop then the CPU uses more power than the drive. a 5400RPM or 4200RPM drive has faster spin up times. It has lower sustained power consumption, and will generally give you a longer battery life on the order of an half to full hour or so in a midsized notebook using default battery.
6) Data integrity/ruggedness: a slower spinning hard drive will not have as detremental of an affect on your data if the drive is bumped during reads/writes. Think of it as hitting a large speed bump going 54MPH vs going 72MPH.
Now some of this needs explanation: (1) tells about drive density. What this means is that a 7200RPM 3.5in drive is about as fast as a 5400RPM 2.5in drive in sustained reads/writes. (2) tells about seek time (latency). A laptop drive at 5400RPM has a faster seek than a desktop at 5400RPM. I will admit that a 7200RPM desktop drive has faster seeks, but not significantly so. A faster spinning drive can seek faster only when the head is in place and it must wait for the drive to rotate to the corect angle in order to read the requested data. It does NOT make the head travel faster. For this reason high RPM speeds are good and well for seek time... but using smaller platters is also a very good way to reduce seek time. Not to mention that loading programs and loading large video files or photoshop files, etc... are not highly seek dependant. They are sequential read dependant. Database accesses, or accessing a badly fragmented hard drive are cases where faster seek will help you out. But in a laptop system where you are loading programs and files and keep your disk defragmented it will do you very little good.
Now.. I'm not saying that 10K and 15K rpm drives are bad... they are great for seek time and they are great for high transaction/sec databases... What they are overkill for is desktop systems which the user would typically be loading programs or transferring files from one disk to another or loading large files... Because most 10K drives are around 36GB or 74GB... and they are actually marginally _SLOWER_ at sequential read/write than cheaper and larger 7200RPM drives on the desktop....
now.. Apply all of the above to a laptop 5400RPM drive vs the standard desktop drive of 7200RPM.. I hope you are able to see what I'm getting at. a 7200RPM drive in a laptop is significantly faster than an equivilently sized desktop drive at 7200RPMs... Anybody who says they feel a slowdown on 5400RPM laptop drives vs. a 7200RPM desktop drive is either using very low GB laptop drive, or very large GB desktop drive, or is just fooling themselves... In general, a 5400RPM laptop drive performs approximately the same as a 7200RPM desktop drive in most end user desktop applications...
Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.