45W Athlon 64 X2 spotted ...

[CrazyHorse]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Phynaz
So?

A T7400 runs at 2.16Ghz, will smack the A64's ass, and do it with a quarter of the power.
So, why again should a 45w chip impress me?

You must be dumber than a brick comparing a $450 mobile CPU to a $70 desktop CPU.

Maybe, but how stupid do you look bringing up price when that's not what anyone is talking about?

Or how about how stupid you look saying the desktop part costs $70. How about a link?

Just another idiot AMD fanboy.

I know it must be tough for you to use common sense, but try to follow along.

The BE-2xx0 series is just the new naming scheme for future AM2 Athlon 64 X2 parts.

Current AM2 65W Athlon 64 X2 2GHz parts go for $60 shipped on Newegg.

Common sense would lead most people (with a primary school education) to conclude that the future parts of an equivalent clock speed (with the new naming scheme and slightly lower TDP) will go for roughly the same price. $70 is a ballpark figure for a 2GHz part.

Common sense also makes people compare parts in equivalent price ranges (e.g., comparing a BMW to a Mercedes is smart, while comparing a Porsche to a Kia is not).

If you need any help understanding that, let me know.

AMD Phenom X2 but other then that you are right so lets all chill and drink a cold :beer:

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Toadster
funny how AMD used 45w to completely FUD with Intel's 45nm

makes it 'seem' like AMD is keeping pace with the '45' number

Coppermine anyone?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Toadster
funny how AMD used 45w to completely FUD with Intel's 45nm

makes it 'seem' like AMD is keeping pace with the '45' number

There are two kinds of computer buyers.

Type A: Joe Six Pack. He knows two things: brand (Intel or AMD?) and clock speed (how many gigahertz?).

Type B: You and me. We're smart enough to know the difference between the process used to manufacture the CPU (65nm, 45nm) and the TDP of a CPU (65W, 45W).

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: sayNOtoFSB
I guess I should have been clearer. Sorry about the confusion.
I meant the mobile would be 65w if mobile system and the desktop about 100w is the T7400 was to be used in desktop (hypothetically).
But considering mobile, AMD's today turion uses a lot less power/energy than Intel's.
A 2.3 turion has a TDP of 35w which includes the Northbridge and memory controller.
The Intel?s T7400 is 37w without the Northbridge (65w may not be overstated considering Intel?s deceptive practices).

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Pro...ormation/0,,30_118_13909_13911,00.html

In desktop, no-one believe Intel's numbers anymore. They have lied too many times to public. But by checking the reviews lately, you will find AMD's system consume a lot less power than Intel's. A 45w TDP is another 5%-10% (give or take) reduction in energy consumption.
The person who says a $450 mobile chip should be compared to AMD?s $90 desktop chip has always resorted to absurd "FUD" against AMD and should be given no credential.

Not really... I don't see any proof of this, when you consider the platform as a whole AMD's power consumption comes out worse due to the firms crappy chipsets on the mobile front. If your talking about mobile vs mobile.

Desktop vs Desktop TDP's are right where they should be.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q4/athlon-65nm/index.x?pg=3

That review shows the Athlon 64x2's on a microATX board while the Core 2 Duo remain on the flagship 975X. Two of AMD's 65W TDP processors despite having the MC integrated have their overall system power consumption higher then Intel's regardless.

I want you to keep in mind this is a fully featured ATX board on Intel side vs a microATX AMD motherboard, these results are already skewed in AMD's favor.

The typical TDP on the Intel vs AMD MAX argument doesn't stand with Core 2 Duo processors, it doesn't matter if they were misbehaving in the past the data now shows otherwise.

AMD processors can only boast lower idle power consumption only but this data is fairly old, Intel's L2 stepping processors have boosted idle numbers from 22W down to 12W, and Intel continues working on improving the idle draw for Core 2 Duo. If you then turn to using a microATX Intel chipset power consumption will go down so more as well.

65W is extremely overstated talking about mobile chipsets. 28W is still far too high. The Northbridge on a mobile motherboard is no more then 10-15W maximum and in most cases will be lower then that.

I am not going to even comment on 100W for a Intel desktop that would still mean 63W for the Northbridge, still far too absurd.

 

[ObscureCaucasian]

Originally posted by: CrazyHorse

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Phynaz
So?

A T7400 runs at 2.16Ghz, will smack the A64's ass, and do it with a quarter of the power.
So, why again should a 45w chip impress me?

You must be dumber than a brick comparing a $450 mobile CPU to a $70 desktop CPU.

Maybe, but how stupid do you look bringing up price when that's not what anyone is talking about?

Or how about how stupid you look saying the desktop part costs $70. How about a link?

Just another idiot AMD fanboy.

I know it must be tough for you to use common sense, but try to follow along.

The BE-2xx0 series is just the new naming scheme for future AM2 Athlon 64 X2 parts.

Current AM2 65W Athlon 64 X2 2GHz parts go for $60 shipped on Newegg.

Common sense would lead most people (with a primary school education) to conclude that the future parts of an equivalent clock speed (with the new naming scheme and slightly lower TDP) will go for roughly the same price. $70 is a ballpark figure for a 2GHz part.

Common sense also makes people compare parts in equivalent price ranges (e.g., comparing a BMW to a Mercedes is smart, while comparing a Porsche to a Kia is not).

If you need any help understanding that, let me know.

AMD Phenom X2 but other then that you are right so lets all chill and drink a cold :beer:

No I believe Athlon X2 is still right. The Phenom will be the more expensive parts with L3 cache while the Athlon X2 will be a step down, or at least that is my understanding of it.

 

[Techno Pride]

this is merely an undervolted Brisbane.

I managed to get my Windsor 2GHz down to 35w SFF-EE levels by changing the voltage myself.

 

[PetNorth]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: sayNOtoFSB
I guess I should have been clearer. Sorry about the confusion.
I meant the mobile would be 65w if mobile system and the desktop about 100w is the T7400 was to be used in desktop (hypothetically).
But considering mobile, AMD's today turion uses a lot less power/energy than Intel's.
A 2.3 turion has a TDP of 35w which includes the Northbridge and memory controller.
The Intel?s T7400 is 37w without the Northbridge (65w may not be overstated considering Intel?s deceptive practices).

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Pro...ormation/0,,30_118_13909_13911,00.html

In desktop, no-one believe Intel's numbers anymore. They have lied too many times to public. But by checking the reviews lately, you will find AMD's system consume a lot less power than Intel's. A 45w TDP is another 5%-10% (give or take) reduction in energy consumption.
The person who says a $450 mobile chip should be compared to AMD?s $90 desktop chip has always resorted to absurd "FUD" against AMD and should be given no credential.

Not really... I don't see any proof of this, when you consider the platform as a whole AMD's power consumption comes out worse due to the firms crappy chipsets on the mobile front. If your talking about mobile vs mobile.

Desktop vs Desktop TDP's are right where they should be.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q4/athlon-65nm/index.x?pg=3

That review shows the Athlon 64x2's on a microATX board while the Core 2 Duo remain on the flagship 975X. Two of AMD's 65W TDP processors despite having the MC integrated have their overall system power consumption higher then Intel's regardless.

I want you to keep in mind this is a fully featured ATX board on Intel side vs a microATX AMD motherboard, these results are already skewed in AMD's favor.

The typical TDP on the Intel vs AMD MAX argument doesn't stand with Core 2 Duo processors, it doesn't matter if they were misbehaving in the past the data now shows otherwise.

AMD processors can only boast lower idle power consumption only but this data is fairly old, Intel's L2 stepping processors have boosted idle numbers from 22W down to 12W, and Intel continues working on improving the idle draw for Core 2 Duo. If you then turn to using a microATX Intel chipset power consumption will go down so more as well.

65W is extremely overstated talking about mobile chipsets. 28W is still far too high. The Northbridge on a mobile motherboard is no more then 10-15W maximum and in most cases will be lower then that.

I am not going to even comment on 100W for a Intel desktop that would still mean 63W for the Northbridge, still far too absurd.

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_65nm/5.shtml

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: PetNorth

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: sayNOtoFSB
I guess I should have been clearer. Sorry about the confusion.
I meant the mobile would be 65w if mobile system and the desktop about 100w is the T7400 was to be used in desktop (hypothetically).
But considering mobile, AMD's today turion uses a lot less power/energy than Intel's.
A 2.3 turion has a TDP of 35w which includes the Northbridge and memory controller.
The Intel?s T7400 is 37w without the Northbridge (65w may not be overstated considering Intel?s deceptive practices).

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Pro...ormation/0,,30_118_13909_13911,00.html

In desktop, no-one believe Intel's numbers anymore. They have lied too many times to public. But by checking the reviews lately, you will find AMD's system consume a lot less power than Intel's. A 45w TDP is another 5%-10% (give or take) reduction in energy consumption.
The person who says a $450 mobile chip should be compared to AMD?s $90 desktop chip has always resorted to absurd "FUD" against AMD and should be given no credential.

Not really... I don't see any proof of this, when you consider the platform as a whole AMD's power consumption comes out worse due to the firms crappy chipsets on the mobile front. If your talking about mobile vs mobile.

Desktop vs Desktop TDP's are right where they should be.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q4/athlon-65nm/index.x?pg=3

That review shows the Athlon 64x2's on a microATX board while the Core 2 Duo remain on the flagship 975X. Two of AMD's 65W TDP processors despite having the MC integrated have their overall system power consumption higher then Intel's regardless.

I want you to keep in mind this is a fully featured ATX board on Intel side vs a microATX AMD motherboard, these results are already skewed in AMD's favor.

The typical TDP on the Intel vs AMD MAX argument doesn't stand with Core 2 Duo processors, it doesn't matter if they were misbehaving in the past the data now shows otherwise.

AMD processors can only boast lower idle power consumption only but this data is fairly old, Intel's L2 stepping processors have boosted idle numbers from 22W down to 12W, and Intel continues working on improving the idle draw for Core 2 Duo. If you then turn to using a microATX Intel chipset power consumption will go down so more as well.

65W is extremely overstated talking about mobile chipsets. 28W is still far too high. The Northbridge on a mobile motherboard is no more then 10-15W maximum and in most cases will be lower then that.

I am not going to even comment on 100W for a Intel desktop that would still mean 63W for the Northbridge, still far too absurd.

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_65nm/5.shtml

Lost Circuits is not competent the differences between Presler XE 3.46GHZ and EE 840 is more then 3 watts. It's is very biased not in favor of Intel. But even still proves my point Core 2 Duo are below their rated TDP's. Core 2 Extreme QX6700 is 130W and draws 115W, Core 2 Duo E6700 is 54W with a 65W TDP, so from that Intel's mobile processor will indeed be still below their rated TDP's 34/35W TDP. As well you buy platforms not isolated CPU's, it doesn't matter if the CPU eats less power if the platform as a whole draws more power.

http://www.hothardware.com/articles/Int..._Express_Chipset_65nm_is_Here/?page=13

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/pentium-xe-965/index.x?pg=14

 

[sayNOtoFSB]

What about SPEC ? Is this outfit bias too?

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Pro...n/0,,30_118_13223,00.html?redir=CPBM01
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Pro...ion/0,,30_118_8796_8800~115623,00.html
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Pro...ion/0,,30_118_8796_8800~115627,00.html
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Pro...ion/0,,30_118_8796_8800~115599,00.html

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: sayNOtoFSB
What about SPEC ? Is this outfit bias too?

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Pro...n/0,,30_118_13223,00.html?redir=CPBM01
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Pro...ion/0,,30_118_8796_8800~115623,00.html
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Pro...ion/0,,30_118_8796_8800~115627,00.html
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Pro...ion/0,,30_118_8796_8800~115599,00.html

If they're not, then they are stupid. Which company doesn't try to put their products in the best possible light.....

 

[sayNOtoFSB]

Read dailytech's blog posted today. Is this also a bias assessment?

http://www.dailytech.com/Kanter+AMD+Wil...oor+with+Intel+for+HPC/article7338.htm
http://www.dailytech.com/DailyTech+Digest+Intel+Price+Cuts/article7312.htm

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: sayNOtoFSB
Read dailytech's blog posted today. Is this also a bias assessment?

http://www.dailytech.com/Kanter+AMD+Wil...oor+with+Intel+for+HPC/article7338.htm
http://www.dailytech.com/DailyTech+Digest+Intel+Price+Cuts/article7312.htm

In the first article, except for the AMD guidence numbers, isn't everything else just speculation?

The 2nd article seems to be mostly about pricing and inventory?

In any case, what are you trying to say? It seems like you're all over the place, initially energy efficiency, then performance, and finally pricing and inventory?