45W Athlon 64 X2 spotted ...

[NoobyDoo]

TechReport

... the processor appears to use AMD's rumored new model numbering system. A CPU-Z screenshot of the processor identifies it as an "Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor BE-2350." According to rumors we heard earlier this month, the BE-2350 code corresponds to a 45W chip based on the "Brisbane" core and running at 2.1GHz. The 2.1GHz clock speed is confirmed by the CPU-Z screenshot, which also shows a core voltage of 1.152V. AMD is expected to introduce similar BE-2300 and BE-2400 models running at 1.9GHz and 2.3GHz, as well.

OCWorkBench

Still based on 65nm design, this CPU has a lower TDP of only 45W. From the CPU-Z screen using v1.39 and v1.40. This CPU is recognised as Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor BE-2350. It runs at a multiplier of 10.5x and bus speed is at 200MHz. HT is at 1GHz. The amt. of cache is also shown on the screen shot. voltage is 1.152v
From what we gathered, AMD is also changing its branding of this new processors, the BE-2XXX series. They won't be called Athlon 64 X2. Instead it will be known as Athlon X2 Dual Core. The "64" is dropped. No reasons were given for dropping the "64"

There's a CPU-Z screenshot too.

 

[leekirlew]

Is this the EE chip? efficient edition?

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: leekirlew
Is this the EE chip? efficient edition?

Nah, just a low clocked, undervolted Brisbane.

Kind of pointless, if you want to run a cpu this slow, just use a C2D mobile part at 1/3rd the power.

 

[mamisano]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: leekirlew
Is this the EE chip? efficient edition?

Nah, just a low clocked, undervolted Brisbane.

Kind of pointless, if you want to run a cpu this slow, just use a C2D mobile part at 1/3rd the power.

Huh? The chip is running at 2.1ghz, with variants expected from 1.9ghz up to 2.3ghz. Not bad for a 45w thermal envelope.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: mamisano

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: leekirlew
Is this the EE chip? efficient edition?

Nah, just a low clocked, undervolted Brisbane.

Kind of pointless, if you want to run a cpu this slow, just use a C2D mobile part at 1/3rd the power.

Huh? The chip is running at 2.1ghz, with variants expected from 1.9ghz up to 2.3ghz. Not bad for a 45w thermal envelope.

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?

 

[tersome]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

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?

puff puff pass?

I'm guessing this will be most useful as a cheap cpu in those thin OEM desktops. Other than that, i don't see the point.

 

[sayNOtoFSB]

So pay 4.5x as much?
This 45w is around $99 (most probably) but Intel's T7400 is $440.
Remember that Intel's thermal design does not include Northbridge. The T7400 you are referring to has a 37w (average) which means it could be a lot more after adding Northbridge (about 65w). The final TDP for Intel will be around 100w compared to AMD's 45w. You cannot deny- this is a known fact.
Furthermore, you need to realize that average consumer (90% of total) is budget minded and energy conscious. These days the processor performance has advanced beyond MHz and a few percentage lead here and there is meaningless. AMD provides performance with less energy, and a lot cheaper. Brisbane is an excellent chip and OC's very well. A $60 chip that can compete w/ a $500 Intel?s counterpart that can do it with less power and stay much cooler.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819111301

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL9SE

 

[CrazyHorse]

Originally posted by: sayNOtoFSB
So pay 4.5x as much?
This 45w is around $99 (most probably) but Intel's T7400 is $440.
Remember that Intel's thermal design does not include Northbridge. The T7400 you are referring to has a 37w (average) which means it could be a lot more after adding Northbridge (about 65w). The final TDP for Intel will be around 100w compared to AMD's 45w. You cannot deny- this is a known fact.
Furthermore, you need to realize that average consumer (90% of total) is budget minded and energy conscious. These days the processor performance has advanced beyond MHz and a few percentage lead here and there is meaningless. AMD provides performance with less energy, and a lot cheaper. Brisbane is an excellent chip and OC's very well. A $60 chip that can compete w/ a $500 Intel?s counterpart that can do it with less power and stay much cooler.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819111301

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL9SE

He has a point. Besides AMD has to come up with something lets wait until we see what that CPU can do.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: sayNOtoFSB
So pay 4.5x as much?
This 45w is around $99 (most probably) but Intel's T7400 is $440.
Remember that Intel's thermal design does not include Northbridge. The T7400 you are referring to has a 37w (average) which means it could be a lot more after adding Northbridge (about 65w). The final TDP for Intel will be around 100w compared to AMD's 45w. You cannot deny- this is a known fact.
Furthermore, you need to realize that average consumer (90% of total) is budget minded and energy conscious. These days the processor performance has advanced beyond MHz and a few percentage lead here and there is meaningless. AMD provides performance with less energy, and a lot cheaper. Brisbane is an excellent chip and OC's very well. A $60 chip that can compete w/ a $500 Intel?s counterpart that can do it with less power and stay much cooler.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819111301

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL9SE

65W for a Northbridge, lol, your insane. Northbridges especially the low power mobile variants on 945/965 Chipset don't consume anymore then 10-20W at the most. As well 440 isn't 500 last time I checked.

 

[coldpower27]

To be fair though yes Intel has better performing processor at lower power, but they are stuck on a mobile chipsets and aren't really available for the desktop arena, these AMD Brisbane will be made of Socket AM2 form factor and can be dropped into a large array of motherboards. 45W for the desktop isn't bad and AMD will be pricing these at worst, mild premium over their equivalently clocked counterparts or best case equivalent to their counterparts.

 

[Accord99]

The recently released 6x20s and 4000 series appear to have mobile like power usage

http://hardtecs4u.com/reviews/2007/intel_e6420_e4300/index6.php

 

[lopri]

I don't understand why mobile chips and desktop chips are compared to begin with? (WRT power/thermal)

 

[NoobyDoo]

Originally posted by: Accord99
The recently released 6x20s and 4000 series appear to have mobile like power usage

http://hardtecs4u.com/reviews/2007/intel_e6420_e4300/index6.php

I don't know German, this is what Babelfish says :

Intel had already described that one had worked clearly on Idle consumption and here now in 12 a Watt TDP range lay. Our measurements confirmed that this no exaggeration is.
With material 3.4 Watts with the E4300-Testprozessor and 5.44 Watts with the E6420-Testprozessor Intel sets up new Bestmarken. The TDP indication remains further only one appoximate value, in particular for radiator manufacturers, that can adjust themselves to who achievement the own models must remove.
In addition, under load the processors of the new manufacturing, at least our test processors, show clear improvements. The E6400, which we tested still some months ago, achieved round 47 Watt under load, whereas the new E6420 incorporates here straight once round 30 Watt. The Bestmarke sets the E4300, which needs straight once 21 Watts.

Does that mean e4300 & e6420 use 3.4W & 5.44W idle and 21W & 30W load resp ? What does TDP of 65W really mean ?
Are these figures with EIST enabled ?

Might get better ? For the coming M-0 stepping of e4400 : " The extended halt power specification is reduced from 12 watts to 8 watts.".

 

[clairvoyant129]

Originally posted by: sayNOtoFSB
So pay 4.5x as much?
This 45w is around $99 (most probably) but Intel's T7400 is $440.
Remember that Intel's thermal design does not include Northbridge. The T7400 you are referring to has a 37w (average) which means it could be a lot more after adding Northbridge (about 65w). The final TDP for Intel will be around 100w compared to AMD's 45w. You cannot deny- this is a known fact.
Furthermore, you need to realize that average consumer (90% of total) is budget minded and energy conscious. These days the processor performance has advanced beyond MHz and a few percentage lead here and there is meaningless. AMD provides performance with less energy, and a lot cheaper. Brisbane is an excellent chip and OC's very well. A $60 chip that can compete w/ a $500 Intel?s counterpart that can do it with less power and stay much cooler.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819111301

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL9SE

Good going AMD fanpoi, 65w for Northbridge? Are you dumb? Mobile Intel CPUs are far more energy efficient.


Good read,

http://hardtecs4u.com/reviews/2007/intel_e6420_e4300/index6.php

"Intel had already described that one had worked clearly on Idle consumption and here now in 12 a Watt TDP range lay. Our measurements confirmed that this no exaggeration is.
With material 3.4 Watts with the E4300-Testprozessor and 5.44 Watts with the E6420-Testprozessor Intel sets up new Bestmarken. The TDP indication remains further only one appoximate value, in particular for radiator manufacturers, that can adjust themselves to who achievement the own models must remove.
In addition, under load the processors of the new manufacturing, at least our test processors, show clear improvements. The E6400, which we tested still some months ago, achieved round 47 Watt under load, whereas the new E6420 incorporates here straight once round 30 Watt. The Bestmarke sets the E4300, which needs straight once 21 Watts."

 

[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.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: clairvoyant129
Good going AMD fanpoi, 65w for Northbridge? Are you dumb? Mobile Intel CPUs are far more energy efficient.

Did you fail reading comprehension? We're discussing AMDs 45W desktop CPUs, not mobile.

 

[MarcVenice]

he's calling someone a amd fanboy, but he reeks of intel fanboy-ism pretty badly ...

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
he's calling someone a amd fanboy, but he reeks of intel fanboy-ism pretty badly ...

and he only has 4 posts. I forsee a short future for him here...

Be nice, newbie.

 

[clairvoyant129]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: clairvoyant129
Good going AMD fanpoi, 65w for Northbridge? Are you dumb? Mobile Intel CPUs are far more energy efficient.

Did you fail reading comprehension? We're discussing AMDs 45W desktop CPUs, not mobile.

Actually you're the one who is "failing." Read sayNOtoFSB's post again and tell me he isn't talking about Intel mobile CPUs. So why don't you go back to 5th grade.

This 45w is around $99 (most probably) but Intel's T7400 is $440.
Remember that Intel's thermal design does not include Northbridge. The T7400 you are referring to has a 37w (average) which means it could be a lot more after adding Northbridge (about 65w). The final TDP for Intel will be around 100w compared to AMD's 45w. You cannot deny- this is a known fact.

Yes the X2 is cheaper but the 45w shouldn't impress anyone.

 

[clairvoyant129]

Originally posted by: gersson

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
he's calling someone a amd fanboy, but he reeks of intel fanboy-ism pretty badly ...

and he only has 4 posts. I forsee a short future for him here...

Be nice, newbie.

Oh you have 2000+ posts, congratulations. Want a cookie?

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: clairvoyant129

Originally posted by: gersson

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
he's calling someone a amd fanboy, but he reeks of intel fanboy-ism pretty badly ...

and he only has 4 posts. I forsee a short future for him here...

Be nice, newbie.

Oh you have 2000+ posts, congratulations. Want a cookie?

That's cos I haven't been banned; I get along with everyone on this forum. This is an enthusiast forum. If you have an opinion you want others to respect/value, you're going to have to use persuasive arguments... not rudeness.

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.