SPCR

Hmmm. The article seems to indicate that these new processors are 'harvested' from current faulty Deneb chips.

I thought that Callisto and Regor were due to be two entirely new chips?

Admittedly, the wording in the article itself doesn't seem too clear - something lost in translation, perhaps?

I read it as a re-design of the Deneb, a cheap way to get the desired result compared to designing from scratch.

Cheers
Olle

Anand has a reasonably in-depth review of both the Phenom II X2 (harvested from a Deneb at present) and the Athlon II X2 (Regor):

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... spx?i=3572

Regor, especially, looks interesting to me and I'm wondering about power consumption of AMD's 45nm process vs 65nm. Just a pity these sites only ever overclock and don't try to undervolt at all.

more info- nice.

also note that the original link has now turned into a full blown review, with some seemingly more realistic power consumption numbers

I still don't get it why SPCR always measures higher power consumption in idle when they test any of the new 45 nm AMD CPU's.

Here's Lostcircuit's test.

Hmmm. The LostCircuits figures look very encouraging indeed, assuming their measurements are accurate.

Hopefully these chips will also undervolt well and, if so, I can see one of the Athlon II X2's finding its way into my system as a decent performance upgrade in the not too distant future.

Mats wrote:I still don't get it why SPCR always measures higher power consumption in idle when they test any of the new 45 nm AMD CPU's.

Canadian electrons must be less efficient

Cool n'Quiet bugs continue to abound. AMD had an interesting technology the ability to have cores run at different speeds, but lack of 3rd party support has turned it from an asset to a liability.

The AMD Athlon II X2 250 looks amazing.. can't wait to swap my BE-2400's out with this wonder.

Come on guys, I thought there would be loads of posts about these new AMD CPUs. I think this the most exciting thing that's happened in a long while. Who the hell wants to kowtow to those corrupt greedy bastards at Intel. they are very close to having a total monopoly in the CPU field. They have about 90% or so of market share. in any total monopoly consumers get screwed, we can't let it happen.

Don't get me wrong, Intel's equipment is great but I have been longing for AMD to provide something that enthusiasts are proud of and I think these new 45nm are it.

It's a total David and Goliath struggle here and I'm definitely on the side of the little guy. well done AMD.

Anteries wrote:... I have been longing for AMD to provide something that enthusiasts are proud of and I think these new 45nm are it.

I think most of us disagree that these are "it".
- At standard settings they perform on par with Intel's same price competitors.
- They use more power (at least on idle) than said competitors.
- They don't overclock very well, nor can they be undervolted to any extent.

The only real uppage they have on the current Intel competitors is their new socket (AM3) vs the old socket 775, including the use of DDR3. (How this advantage holds up once Intel release Core i5 remains to be seen.)

Once AMD manage to straighten out the CnQ feature they might compete in the low power segment.

Cheers
Olle

I want to wait and see what the quad and tri core Athlon II 45 watt are like.

http://www.guru3d.com/news/new-amd-athl ... ext-month/

Mats wrote:I still don't get it why SPCR always measures higher power consumption in idle when they test any of the new 45 nm AMD CPU's.

Here's Lostcircuit's test.

It seems to me that LC' review is a bit AMD biased:

Lost Circuits wrote:there are the exceptional power efficiency and last not least, the insane overclocking headroom.

Overall, well done, AMD, this little gem might be poised to capture even more market share. Now just give us a Black Edition

so I'm wondering why LC measures such a low power consumption at idle (and why no low-end Wolfdales/Penryns are compared with AMD's new puppies), while other reputable sources (such as Xbit Labs or Anandtech) seem to do not agree on those whoppin' results.

Regards,
Luca

I agree that Lostcircuits results are confusing, but they shouldn't be compared to other sites that measures system total power draw, because in the end you can't tell which part uses how much power. The total power usage is interesting for other reasons though.

The reason why some obvious CPU's are missing in that list is because they've never tested them. That list includes some very old CPU's, Clawhammer is a good example, showing that Lostcircuits is a small review site compared to Anandtech. They just don't get many CPU's to review.

Calling them biased is just wrong, how many of their reviews have you even read? Just because they think one product is great, doesn't mean they have the opposite opinion about the competition. Their QX9650 uses 65 W, less than their X4 940 or 955 while still performing better. Not very AMD biased if you're asking me.

From an older review:

In a nutshell, the Nehalem is a masterpiece and it will be extremely difficult for any other CPU regardless of which brand to measure up to it.