Slashdot Mirror
AMD Releases 2 Low-Power 64-bit Processors
rwiggers writes "AMD has released two new low power processors for embedded apps. With a power of 18W and a chipset with 3W of average consumption [PDF] it seems we may have some interesting competition with Intel's Atom."
.
Maybe, but not by much - reports suggest the Atom costs less than $10 to manufacture. At that price any savings between processor types is pretty tiny unless you're deploying a vast number of them.
There's so much x86 development though, I'd imagine x86, and especially windows programmers, are much easier to find and cost less to hire. The processor cost in a POS system is going to be a tiny fraction of the total when you add in touch screens, bar code scanners, cash drawers, scales etc etc.
From the manufacturer's point of view it can probably develop software faster and cheaper using .net and it's that saving that probably drives lots of x86 uptake in these sorts of devices.
I didn't look at individual pricing, but the AMD Turion Neo X2 L625 is alread being offered in a laptop from HP - listed at a base of $569.99 but the processor is a $75 upgrade... or so you think, as soon as you select it you are told you need to upgrade the video card as well!
Either way, they wasted no time getting this on the market. The price seems competetive with the Intel Atom model.
I'm sure it's just a matter of time before Intel one-ups them though.
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
But do not forget the 945 chipset eats energy like there is no tomorrow, so combine Atom (~4W)+ 945 (~24W) and then compare to AMD + AMD Chipset and they end like almost same (even favoring AMD a bit) power envelope but AMD will be much more powerful. 945GC eats a little less but only because better idle control.
Even Intel acknowledges it and is using a new chipset will far less consumption, but still with very weak video.
ION plataform is powerful with video but eats almost same power than 945 chipset.
It's a guarantee of availability.
The typical lifetime of a CPU package is a year or 18 months.
Embedded designers want to be able to design around something that won't disappear next year right when they've got the bugs out and they're ready to ship.
Okay, so the 18W number is "thermal design power"... sigh, another bloody spec.
Is this a typical spec that is used for comparison? I ask because I've been an electrical engineer for 15 years and, up until now, have done fine with "typical power consumption" (which is supposedly 3 W for this chip, compared to 7 W for the Intel Atom Z530) and "maximum power consumption", which is what you have to design the power supply around, lest the supply rails brown out.
Sigh... like they say: "A datasheet writer can get twice the performance out of a chip that an engineer can."
The Thermal Design Power is the spec for the cooling system -- so relax, it's the Mechanical Engineer's problem, we don't do thermo.
I am not a crackpot.
Assuming you're half the Linux fanatic you're coming off as, I'm sure you already know that no one has more open documentation than AMD/ATI. Hell their open documentation and support is pretty much keeping them alive on Linux, seeing how their drivers are still inferior to those of nvidia. So because they didn't have an entire article promising to do what they're already doing, you're complaining?