AMD News: T64X2, Efficient Processor Roadmap, K8L Preview

Want to talk about one of the articles in SPCR? Here's the forum for you.
Post Reply
MikeC
Site Admin
Posts: 12283
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:26 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Contact:

AMD News: T64X2, Efficient Processor Roadmap, K8L Preview

Post by MikeC » Wed May 17, 2006 4:12 pm

Mike Chin, SPCR Editor/Publisher
Support SPCR by buying your gear through this link: Amazon

JazzJackRabbit
Posts: 1386
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 6:53 pm

Post by JazzJackRabbit » Wed May 17, 2006 4:23 pm

Why is it that new articles always appear when I'm browsing the forums and not when I open the front page? It has happened three times in the past two months. I browse article discussion forums and notice that there supposed to be new article just uploaded that wasn't there when I checked front page 10 minutes ago...

BTW why does it say amd will still be more affordable? The way I read the table Core Duo will cost less per CPU clock. Of course there may be performance differences as I haven't been following performance reviews, but price wise intel wins?

MikeC
Site Admin
Posts: 12283
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:26 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Contact:

Post by MikeC » Wed May 17, 2006 4:33 pm

JazzJackRabbit wrote:Why is it that new articles always appear when I'm browsing the forums and not when I open the front page?
We specifically target the changes to occur when you are in the forums. ;) :lol:
JazzJackRabbit wrote:BTW why does it say amd will still be more affordable?
error corrected.
Mike Chin, SPCR Editor/Publisher
Support SPCR by buying your gear through this link: Amazon

dano
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 4:16 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

Post by dano » Wed May 17, 2006 5:02 pm

Did anyone else notice that the article mentioned Chuck Norris as an AMD employee? Was AMD having some security issues and they had to bring in the real Texas Hammer?

talcite
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 5:16 pm

Post by talcite » Wed May 17, 2006 6:44 pm

rofl yes i noticed it. i thought it was a joke or something.

quote from original article.

Hey Guys,
I'm sitting in a keynote from AMD's Chuck Moore, ...

lol can someone fix that? or is it intentional? AMD planning to round house kick intel or something? =p

GamingGod
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2002 9:52 pm
Location: United States, Mobile, AL

Post by GamingGod » Wed May 17, 2006 10:03 pm

all of these are going to be the new 940 socket? or are some going to be 939 and 754? It would be nice to build a new computer around the new socket if it isnt too expense, then you get the best of both worlds, cheap and upgradeable.
Internet Computer: e4300w/Mininja, DS3, 2gigDDR800, hd501lj, Evga 8800gts, 380w Earthwatts Big Fan Modified Case

Gaming Computer: q6600w/TRUE penny modded, GA-EP45-DS3P, 4gigDDR800, WD640 Black, Evga 260core216, 520HX, Antec 900

haugland
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 1:26 am

Post by haugland » Wed May 17, 2006 10:48 pm

GamingGod wrote:all of these are going to be the new 940 socket? or are some going to be 939 and 754? It would be nice to build a new computer around the new socket if it isnt too expense, then you get the best of both worlds, cheap and upgradeable.
No luck. :( The new Turion X2s will be socket S1. All AMD CPUs will change sockets to support DDR2.

Mats
Posts: 3044
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Sweden

Post by Mats » Thu May 18, 2006 5:29 am

I'd really like to see all four X2 3800+ compared here at SPCR in the near future.

T64 review here. Nothing exciting.

Mariner
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:25 am

Post by Mariner » Thu May 18, 2006 9:13 am

Just the kind of performance you'd expect from the TurionX2 really. It is quite impressive that they are able to provide this level of performance in the 35W TDP envelope however, especially when you look at the size of the core! :shock:

This ought to bode well for the K8 family once AMD finally moves to the 65nm process, either with a lower TDP at similar levels of performance to current chips or keeping the TDP at similar levels whilst improving performance.

We're not expecting consumer chips from AMD on the 65nm process until 2007 though are we? I'd guess Intel will have the edge until then.

~El~Jefe~
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 2887
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: New York City zzzz
Contact:

Post by ~El~Jefe~ » Fri May 19, 2006 8:59 pm

I love amd, but merom will embarrass it.

where is 65nm amd? mid 2007 is too late to recover the huge slaughter of its name as performance/watt/price king.

Conroe is out before christmas and so will be the low wattage version.

blech.

(however, ill never buy it, just the same)

Does anyone realize that a yonah of the same ghz is faster than than a turion, and cooler?

amd overpriced its dual core chips when it knew it had intel beat (still overpriced, 4200 is great, i own it but its not cheap), now intel has higher price because it has AMD beat.

blech. sickens me! :evil:

Mats
Posts: 3044
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Sweden

Post by Mats » Sat May 20, 2006 3:03 am

Mariner wrote:It is quite impressive that they are able to provide this level of performance in the 35W TDP envelope however, especially when you look at the size of the core! :shock:
Well it's actually quite the opposite. The smaller core, the harder it is to keep it cool. More dissipating heat per area (if the TDP is the same, of course).

C2 looks really nice to me, and it's only two months left until it will be here. Even the older, slower CD is faster than X2 in every benchmark in this article when running at the same speed except when encoding MP3.

HueyCobra
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:16 am
Location: Australia

Post by HueyCobra » Fri May 26, 2006 8:28 pm

mikec wrote:Note that AMD's Thermal Design Power ratings, measured more stringently than Intel's
Is Intel continuing to use 'typical' rather than maximum TDP for Conroe/Core 2 Duo? The 65W figure that has been touted would be very nice, but I don't quite trust it yet; even if Intel has said max, I'd like to know that there isn't a footnote saying 'max typical' or something like that.

smilingcrow
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1809
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:45 am
Location: At Home

Post by smilingcrow » Sat May 27, 2006 3:56 am

HueyCobra wrote:Is Intel continuing to use 'typical' rather than maximum TDP for Conroe/Core 2 Duo? The 65W figure that has been touted would be very nice, but I don't quite trust it yet; even if Intel has said max, I'd like to know that there isn't a footnote saying 'max typical' or something like that.
Just listing one max TDP for a whole range of CPUs is what frustrates me. Because it’s not always clear what the fastest chip within that range will be, it makes it hard to extrapolate actual TDPs for individual chips within the range. E.g. with Conroe, does the 65W max relate to the 2.67 GHz part or to the 2.93 GHz part that was alluded to but now seems to have been bumped in favour of a 2.93 EE part? The EE parts were initially announced with a max TDP of 95W I seem to remember, although this one should be less than that as the Woodcrest 3.0 has a TDP of 80W and that has a 1333 FSB. I’m not sure how much bumping up the FSB whilst keeping the same clock speed affects TDP. Is there a formula for calculating that?

Looking at the CPU power consumptions that were measured in the SPCR Survey, it looks as if Dothan & Yonah comfortably fell within the max TDP for their respective ranges. I’d rather see real-world values for TDPs and not values that can only be expected under laboratory conditions.

Post Reply