Slashdot Mirror
AMD Announces 65-nm Chips, Touts Power Savings
Several readers wrote in about AMD's entry into the 65-nm manufacturing generation. The company introduced four chips to be manufactured with 65-nm process in the first quarter of 2007 to replace existing 90-nm chips in their lineup. AMD is playing up the power economy of its line, claiming that even its existing 90-nm parts consume less than 50% the power of Intel's Core 2 Duo, averaged over a typical day's usage, while the new 65-nm chips will be even stingier with power. Next stop, 45-nm. The article says that AMD has a goal of catching up within 18 months to Intel's lead on the way to 45-nm technology.
It will probably drive down the costs of the Core 2 so many of us can justify buying one.
Check out the cave on the east side of lake Hylia. Strange and wonderful things live in it.
I'm way ahead of the game, my transistors are -30nm. I had to do some funny things with space time, but they work. Until you observe them anyways. Next up, I'm going for inm chips.
I went from a pair of 2.8ghz xeons to a pair of Opteron 250HEs and its a world of diference.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Extremely nice. Most people dont account for the integrated memory controller reducing the power consumption of the northbridge either. As a whole Turion notebooks should be extremely power stingy.
So if AMD doesn't catch up with Intel by that timeframe, they'd be pretty much screwed, wouldn't they?
Hopefully we can see some Socket AM2 65nm stuff in the retail channel soon.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
You might change your behavior if your laptop's battery lasted longer. What if it could go 12 hours without plugging in?
I have the reverse problem; HP made a few laptops with full-power Pentium 4 CPUs a couple of years ago, and I got one. It's nice and fast, but its battery life is roughly 23 seconds.
Intel will be holding still for 18 months while AMD catches up.
That if you actually use it as a laptop, you won't have a problem with it burning your, er, "parts".
At 23 seconds I would call you lucky. With my Sony, the battery only lasted 16 seconds before it exploded! Now THAT is poor battery life.
Just stay away from (-30+i)nm chips. They're way too complex.
Keep in mind, though that 1 atom wide for Si is 111pm (that's 0.111nm for those who dont know their units), so we're talking about ~400 atoms wide at 45nm. We've still got a little breathing room. I'm still waiting for Carbon Nanotubes to replace the Si interconnects.
Is anyone as tired of software companies eating up the gain in hardware performance as me? And for what? How about someone writing better software, not just new software. I got sick of buying new hardware just to open the same document because the O/S or new Office suite was bloated/full of shit/required way more horsepower just to do the same task. No Vista for me. I'll stay will XP and Linux on my (older) machines. And if MS forces people to go Vista, I'll go Linux or BSD. If I get new hardware, it will be to make these systems faster, not make new software, doing the same job, run the same speed.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Quite frankly, on a level playing field I think we're going to find out that Intel's Cores are not quite as good as a lot of people have been raving. AMD's architectures are just a whole lot better.
You know, that's what a lot of people said before the Core Duo came out, and they were proven quite wrong. I was as surprised as anyone, but I learned the lesson: wait for the actual chips to be tested.
Once Intel puts the memory controller on-die like AMD has, it's going to *really* hurt AMD. HyperTransport doesn't seem to have any advantage at all on the desktop, so AMD's only real tech advantage right now is that on-die mem controller. Perhaps once we all have 8+ core chips on our desktops, you might see some HT advantages, but I believe I read somewhere that Intel has plans for on-die memory controllers and an answer to HT in the wings for 2008, though obviously that's just rumour at this point.
i can't wait till the hardware sites test a laptop version....
i disable sigs
So Intel is shipping 45nm? According to Bit-tech, these 65nm AMD chips are shipping today.
I agree, take things with a grain of salt until we see reviews. But you sound a little too skeptical of AMD to not be working for Intel.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
I'm way ahead of the game, my transistors are -30nm. I had to do some funny things with space time, but they work. Until you observe them anyways. Next up, I'm going for inm chips.
Great! This guy has Schroeder's Notebook!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Obviously you haven't read anything about Core2. Core2 is, on average, 20% faster at the same clockspeed as AMD's Athlon64. If you liked the fact that AMD's Athlon64 was comparable to the Pentium4 at 2/3 the clock speed, then you simply must like Core2's being faster at ~80% of the clock speed of the Athlon64... while still being on the obsolete, much maligned FSB architecture that AMD spends so much time and money poo-pooing over their obviously-so-much-better IMC+HT technology.
Well... when you can't lead in performance, you try to lead somewhere else. Yes, the launch of Core2 parts drove AMD to cut the prices of their processors by 50% or more in order to stay competitive. Had they not done that, they would be selling nothing right now because even a fanboi couldn't justify buying AMD at the complete destruction that equal priced CPUs from AMD would get compared to the Intel parts. So, AMD dropped back to attempt to remain king of the bargain market until they could release something that would put them back into the performance game, which Intel currently owns (not counting the obviously boutique, one-off 4x4 deadend attempt to save face that AMD marketing released).
I have three Athlon XP and four Athlon64 machines at home (and no Intel other than two laptops). This migration of socket requiring a new CPU and all has bitten me already. My S939 parts barely lived a year (two years given the entire lifetime) and already AMD is requiring me to buy a new motherboard *and* CPU if I wish to upgrade because they're already killing off S939. Many of the already existing S775 boards for Intel will upgrade the CPU to Core2 (perhaps with a BIOS flash). It makes me kind of wonder how long Socket AM2 is going to last given that they're already talking about S1207 and some future move to DDR3 (yet another socket change?) Currently, for me to upgrade my AMD machines, I have to buy a CPU + motherboard because even the S939 X2s are EOL'd. I've thought about buying some upgrade AMD CPUs but I'm not going to do it. Core2 offers too much performance increase with the promise of socket compatible quad core very (very) soon. I believe AMD is requiring S1207 for quad core, so if you bought AM2, you're already EOL'd because of the change for DDR3 and quad core. AM2 was dead before it was released, it seems.
Intel seems to get a bit of a pass on the whole memory controller thing. When you see people compare power usage you rarely see the memory controller on the Northbridge added onto the Intel ledger.
Bottom line is we get very fast efficient chips for cheap.
All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
It doesn't matter, eventually linux will be the same.
I have a 500MHz Pentium III laptop I use, which was fine with Windows 2000. After they EOL'ed it, I switched to Linux. I am currently running Xubuntu (Ubuntu with Xfce), but as even Firefox and Thunderbird are getting bloated, it's sluggish. I even maxed out the ram (576MB), which helped a little, but I'm going to have to replace it soon.
Any suggestions on laptops with decent linux driver support that wouldn't crap out after 3 years? I'm spoiled by these old Thinkpads.
Will the War in Iraq get better or worse in 2007? Vote here
When it stops being profitable to continue scaling transistors. The reason we scale is because it makes chips cheaper, faster, just plain better, meaning Intel and AMD (and others) can sell it for lots of money. If scaling no longer achieves that goal, you'll see it end in a heartbeat (just like you saw clock speed ramping come to a halt once it wasn't selling like it used to).
This is Slashdot, not Santa Claus. Please stay on topic.
So the 35-Watt X2 consumes 1.53 times as much power as the 65-Watt X2? Something is wrong there...
A 65nm 65W X2 idles with lower power consumption than a 90nm 35W X2. At full CPU load the 35W X2 would still have the edge. Since your average desktop PC spends most of its time idling this is not insignificant.
I think while being smartassy and all you completely forgot that the atomic radius is not equivalent to lattice spacing in crystals.
Your numbers are way off.
I remember a test in the German C't magazine where complete computers were tested. Everything being equal except mainboard and CPU. The CPUs were AMD Athlon 64 vs. Intel Core2Duo
Under load, the Core2Duo machines used a bit less power. Idling, the AMDs were better. The overall differences were pretty small compared to the total power consumption, so I'd disregard them for a typical desktop that does NOT run 24/7.
And BTW, avoid the old Pentium 4/Pentium D. Those are really inferior.
C - the footgun of programming languages
But other than that, I pretty much agree. As has been said for many eyars, brand loyalty is a socially acceptable version of battered spouse syndrome. Products should always be objectively evaluated for suitability to a task. Sometimes one chip is better for a certain task. Sometimes another chip is better. Sometimes the CPU doesn't really matter at all.
Features or efficiency. That's just how it goes. If you want software that does more nifty shit, you have to be willing to throw more horsepower at it. Lynx uses less memory, disk, etc than Firefox, however you certainly aren't going to see me switching. It's not like there is some magic programmers could use but don't to write fast, feature rich software.
Now maybe you long for the days of spartan computing, maybe you want to do nothing but scroll text really fast. That's fine, there's stuff out there to accommodate you. However that's not what most of us want. I want a feature rich system, I want my computer to be everything, do everything. Well for that I need hardware, and I'm willing to pay for it.
It would be like trying to compare frame rates between Ultima 1 and ES4: Oblivion. When you get down to it, Ultima 1 probably has a frame rate as fast or faster than Oblivion. Ultima 1 wouldn't have any trouble running at 30fps or more, even on 286 hardware. Oblivion can run under 30fps, even on an 8800GTX. However you are dealing with a totally different level of graphics. Ultima 1 was made to run in CGA which is 2D, 2-bit (4 colour), 320x200. Oblivion is full 3D with amazingly high geometry, 128-bit FP colour, 2560x1600 with anti-aliasing. Despite the speed being around the same, there is a difference.
While games are teh most pronounced difference, it's still there with other apps. Comparing Office to an old text mode Wordperfect app is meaningless. Ok, maybe for what you do you don't notice any difference, but many of us do. As a simple example, take a highly accurate, learning, in-line spell checker. I love that feature. Well, guess what? That takes resources. You couldn't do that on a really old computer, it just lacks the resources.
So if you are happy with what you have now, great, stick with it, but don't get mad that people want to find ways to use the new power. I do not buy a new graphics card to get higher and higher frame rates, 60fps is enough thanks that's all my screen does. I buy it for more an more features, at the same framerate. Likewise with processing in my computer. Everything is plenty fast now, my computer responds near instantaneously for normal tasks. So what I want is for my computer to do more. I want it capable of doing more complex things. In 1996 my computer played little postage-stamp sized videos, and used nearly 100% CPU to do it. Now it plays fullscreen HD videos and uses nearly 100% CPU (well ok, of one of the cores) to do it. I'm not pissed that it hasn't changed, I'm pleased with the increase in quality, the increase in features.
I take it those 2.8GHz Xeons were based on the old Netburst Architecture (P4). ;-)
AMD did better with the Opteron, but the new Xeon 5100 are Conroe-based.
Conroe vs. Netburst = massive improvement
C - the footgun of programming languages
Of course but some of AMDs changes in the last year have made a HUGE difference on the notebook front. DDR2 consumes much less power than DDR1, catching them up to intel as far as that goes. Then theres their new 65nm proccess with much less power drawing parts. After notebooks start coming with flashmedia for most hard drive duties we should start to see smaller screens and ultra low power notebooks that last as long as cell phones when in use.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/25/green_mach
That's actually not true... As Intel introduced new CPUs going into the 775 socket, they started using more and more of the pins that were originally "reserved" -- so, in order to support a new CPU, certain additional pins would have to be tied high, low, to calibration resistors, etc. What that means is that while *older* 775 CPUs will run fine on new motherboards, the new 775 CPUs will not run on old motherboards, even with a BIOS flash.
For example, my 775 board running a P4 3GHz will only take P4s up to 3.4GHz or so, since the faster ones were new 65nm cores with slight pin changes. Pentium D, and newer Cores are also in the excluded category..
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
I'd rather see less dense microprocessors. The problem is this big chip manufactuerers make these super dense mammoth race car processors, it concentrates heat in one place, requiring a CPU fan, which is a mechanical component that can and will eventually fail.
I would rather have a motherboard with a CPU design distributed, where the surface area is spread out in such a way, that is completely solid state without any moving parts to fail, namely, a CPU does no require active cooling.
The future lies in completly 100% solid state devices. What does this philosophy mean?
No CPU fans, no power supply fans, no harddrives (flash memory instead), no noise, no moving parts whatsoever. Distributed or minimized waste heat.
Reliability and shock resistance skyrocket. You can seal them inside waterproof and dust proof and fire proof boxes.
I've implemented these kind of computers, at critical network points, and literally you can plug them in FOR YEARS and forget about them.
They are absolutely silent. And absolutely low powered. And totally reliable. All of which, is a very beautiful thing from an engineering standpoint.
These guys need to hire me on their team, because the definition of what is going to be expected in computers is going to radically change in the near future. Computers are going to go under, they are going to become *embedded* in everything with no expectaions of mainenance to them at all and installed in harsh environments. They either work or they fail after decades of use (or preferably, never), and then you replace them.
Reliability is CORE, and to achieve it, computers are going to have to abandon all cruches and become purely solid state devices entombed in indestructible plastic modules.
How often have you ever reformated the drive on your wrist watch? Had to reinstall an OS on your cellphone? Had to replace the CPU fan on your calculator?
I often wondered, why in heck weren't motherboards encased in protective plastic casing, and the same for ISA / PCI / AGP / PCI-x cards. Putting a comptuer together today has become like putting together lego blocks. And each component should be as equally durable and interchangable based on standards as a lego block.
Einstein
http://anarchy-tv.com/
Luxury. My laptop would run out of power 45 minutes before I started it, explode, stab me to death with bread knives and then dance about on my grave singing Hallelujah. And that was if we were lucky!
I drank what? -- Socrates
- Intel puts twice as much L2 cache on their dies as does AMD for their high-end parts. The high-end Intel part has 4MB, the high-end AMD part as 1MB per core for a total of 2M.
- Intel's L2 cache architecture is "shared", meaning that when you're running a single-thread benchmark, the single core on which the benchmark is running basically has access to the entire 4M L2. This is significant because it now means the single core running on an Intel part has 4M of L2, whereas on AMD it has 1M. This is quite a nice feature for Intel's single-thread performance.
- In 32-bit x86 mode, there are 8 general purpose registers (GPRs). That means spill/fill code (which certainly hits in L2 and almost certainly hits in L1) is a lot more common. In other words, memory ops are more common. Intel, with the C2D, introduced a more aggressive out-of-order memory architecture, basically allowing any memory op, even with an unresolved address, to execute out of order, fixing it up later if there was a problem. This really, really helps with memory ops, especially the common spill/fill ones going to the (cached) stack. In 64-bit AMD64/EM64T code, there are more GPRs for the compiler to play with, so you have less spill/fill code and fewer memory ops, which mitigates C2D's advantage here. That's one of my theories on why 64-bit performance of AMD vs. Intel chips is closer (the other, which isn't a theory, is Intel's lack of a 64-bit-capable IOMMU, causing the OS to use bounce buffers for DMA to high-addressed main memory).
What I'm basically saying here is, C2D's larger cache and more-aggressive load/store architecture are really helping it for certain apps. My guess is that the libtomcrypt benchmarks are run in 64-bit mode (mitigating Intel advantage point #3 above) and either a) fit entirely in the L1 or L2 of both processors, nullifying any cache advantage C2D has, or b) fit in *neither* of the L2 caches, and is significantly larger than 4MB, which lets AMD's faster on-die memory controller make up for its lack of L2.That's funny, cause 2 years ago I got a 2.2Ghz A64 3400+ in a 15.4in lappy, and it gets over 2 hours of battery life. Then again, it underclocks to 800MHz when unplugged because the manufacturer said so.
Once Intel puts the memory controller on-die like AMD has, it's going to *really* hurt AMD.
Like I said. AMD has a better architecture.
Perhaps once we all have 8+ core chips on our desktops, you might see some HT advantages, but I believe I read somewhere that Intel has plans for on-die memory controllers and an answer to HT
Like I said. Better architecture. HT works much better as memory sizes grow, and guess which way memory sizes are going?
1) That would take into account the efficiency of the transformer, which doesn't impact battery life.
2) Many laptops run in a high power/performance mode when plugged in.
3) At least be sure to take the battery out of the laptop so it's not charging while you're measuring!
Intel puts twice as much L2 cache on their dies as does AMD for their high-end parts. The high-end Intel part has 4MB, the high-end AMD part as 1MB per core for a total of 2M.
Back when Itanium was sporting both impressive SpecFP scores and also gigantic caches, I wondered what would happen if you put a cache that size on a mainstream x86 part -- specfp is really more about cache size and memory bandwidth than it is about the floating point execution units, so I never bought the specfp rating as being due to an inherent advantage of itanium. Well, now we know.
While not very exciting architecturally, big caches are certainly a good way to boost performance. Intel gets those huge caches because of two things: First, they have the fab tech and fab capacity to produce gigantic chips with good yield and still make money. Second, Intel has the smallest cache cell size in the industry. So they are uniquely positioned to put big caches on mainstream parts, and they are taking advantage of it.
Intel, with the C2D, introduced a more aggressive out-of-order memory architecture, basically allowing any memory op, even with an unresolved address, to execute out of order, fixing it up later if there was a problem.
Slight correction on a very fine post: Memory ops that have their address are allowed to go out-of-order even if there are older ops which do not have their address (meaning in the case of an out of order load and a store without its address a possible forwarding case that will have to be fixed once the store gets its address). It doesn't make any sense to have a memory op go without its address, because you couldn't really do anything with it (without something like an address predictor).
The enemies of Democracy are