Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

65nm Athlons Debut With Lower Power Consumption

Posted by kdawson on from the less-of-the-same dept.

TheRaindog writes "AMD has finally rolled out Athlon 64 X2 processors based on 65nm process technology, and The Tech Report has an interesting look at their energy usage and overclocking potential compared to current 90nm models. The new 65nm chips consume less power at idle and under load than their 90nm counterparts, and appear to have plenty of headroom for overclocking. An Athlon 64 X2 5000+ that normally runs at 2.4 GHz was taken all the way up to 2.9 GHz with standard air cooling and only a marginal voltage boost, suggesting that we may see faster chips from AMD soon."

17 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. HTPC by tedgyz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The little gem in this story is the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ EE SFF 2.0GHz. At 35W, that sounds like a perfect CPU choice for a super-silent HTPC.

    --
    "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
    1. Re:HTPC by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do you suggest that one decode 1080i H.264 transport streams with AC3 5.1 audio? This processor may be slightly more than required, but not by much.

    2. Re:HTPC by Ultra64 · · Score: 5, Funny

      right, because it's totally impossible for a computer to run more than one program at a time.
      it's too bad video playing couldn't happen on one cpu while video compression happened on another.
      someone should invent that. it could be called "Sametime Many Programs" or "SMP" for short.

    3. Re:HTPC by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 4, Interesting

      OK, I'll give you that. But the HD H.264 requires a huge ammount of CPU to decode. My current dual 1.6 GHz Opteron system can't do it in real time. Doesn't even come close.

      So I was thinking the same thing about this new chip. It sounds pretty close to what I was wanting.

  2. It's a question of cores by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you have only one core, you need to rely on the OS to not get in the way of running processes during task switches. With more than one core, processes can be split amongst the cores so that they do not need to be interrupted all the time by the OS timer interrupt handler. The more cores you have, the better you can scale up, even if the cores themselves are slower than a competing single core chip.

    It's like driving down the highway in your train vs riding the rails in your Audi. Sure, you can try to drive the car on the train tracks for a while, but eventually the springs will break and your tires will pop and you end up walking to your final destination. But if you took the train, you'd probably tear up the road and it would take a while since you couldn't get much traction with the large metal wheels, but since you're carrying a whole lot of stuff in the train cars being pulled behind you, your bandwidth / time ratio is very favorable.

    1. Re:It's a question of cores by KingArthur10 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Concerning your analogy: I was thinking more along the lines that a train runs on a single track and sometimes has to be held up for another train to use the same track. They have some track switching, but most operations are serial. A car on the highway might not be allowed to go as fast as a train, but it's got four lanes to maneuver through. A bunch of cars will reach their destinations faster than a bunch of trains because the trains have to share single tracks often.

      --
      I came, I saw, She conquered.
  3. Interesting.. by joshetc · · Score: 4, Funny

    considering my 3800+ X2 runs at 2.8ghz with 1.5V. 2.9ghz really doesnt seem like much for a higher end model.. I'm thinking they will need at least 3.1ghz or so overclocks on air to have much of a chance in most highend enthusiast rigs.

    1. Re:Interesting.. by gone9teen · · Score: 3, Informative

      You do realize, well obviously you don't, the clock speed of a processor means nothing between different models when it comes to performance. A newer 2.0 Core 2 Due processor SMOKES my 3.0 Pentium 4.

    2. Re:Interesting.. by joshetc · · Score: 5, Informative

      Duh, all athlon 64 dual cores to date are clock for clock nearly identical though. This means clock speed does matter. I can't believe you got modded up for making such a shitty assumption on a "geek" website.

  4. As someone once said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.

  5. Nice but a little slower. Surprise! by IPFreely · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anand has a nice review of these new processors, including performance comparisons.

    The surprise is that it was a little slower than it's 90nm counterpart. They chased it down to the cache latency going up from 90nm to the 65nm part.

    Other than that, it looks good.

    --
    There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
    1. Re:Nice but a little slower. Surprise! by MrFlibbs · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the AnandTech article you referenced, saying that "it looks good" is a bit of an overstatement. Here are a few quotes from the article:

                "It's clear that these first 65nm chips, while lower power than their 90nm
                counterparts, aren't very good even by AMD's standards."

                "Performance and efficiency are still both Intel's fortes thanks to its Core 2
                lineup, and honestly the only reason to consider Brisbane is if you currently
                have a Socket-AM2 motherboard."

      In every single AnandTech benchmark, Intel wins in both raw performance and performance per watt. And if raw power consumption is important to you, the winner was a 90nm AMD SFF part. In no case was a 65nm AMD better at anything.

      The article does point out that a mature 90nm process is being compared to an immature 65nm process and thus future steppings are bound to be better. However, this doesn't change the fact that the current crop of AMD 65nm parts are a major disappointment.

  6. Good news, guys! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Next time your class stud mentions his 9", you can counter by mentioning that your 6.5" consumes less power and gets the job done faster!

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  7. Re:SMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Whooosh....!

  8. Take my advice....please by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you are about to buy a AMD chip, ensure you buy a AM2 version, this is becuase non-AM2 versions do no support low level Hardware Virtualization (which means that XEN - and competitiors - can only operate in a paravirtualization mode)

  9. OT by Spaceman40 · · Score: 3, Funny

    We really need a "Whoosh" mod.

    --
    I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
  10. A major disappointment for whom? by John+Jamieson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Whenever AMD or Intel moves to a new process, they do not expect much from the first cores(they are happy if they get as many cores from a wafer as they did before-which if my sources are correct, Intel didn't do, and AMD has).
    A lot of people forget that when Intel moved to 65nm, the new chips were slower in many ways, and the clock speeds were lower than the top end 90nm P4's.
    By industry standards these AMD 65nm chips are a SUCCESS.

    My only beef with the 65nm Athlons is that I cannot buy one at newegg, or order one from DELL. In my world, if I cannot order a PC with one, or buy it at newegg, IT IS A PAPER LAUNCH!