AMD's new AM2 platform launched
Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 11:05 pm
Discussions about Silent Computing
https://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/
https://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=31628
I find it difficult to think of a reason why they would drop it. Maybe if the AM2 Sempron was so cool it wasn't necessary.winguy wrote:To kick start, do all AM2 Semprons have CnQ?
Well Semprons S754 below 3000+ had CnQ disabled; so it’s an obvious question to ask.jaganath wrote:I find it difficult to think of a reason why they would drop it. Maybe if the AM2 Sempron was so cool it wasn't necessary.winguy wrote:To kick start, do all AM2 Semprons have CnQ?
The new AM2 Sempron range starts at 3000+, so they all have C'n'Q:Well Semprons S754 below 3000+ had CnQ disabled; so it’s an obvious question to ask.
Sempron "Manila" (Socket AM2, 90 nm)
All models support: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit, AMD64, Cool'n'Quiet
Well that’s very good news, although your logic is flawed as AMD could simply have disabled CnQ in the slowest AM2 Semprons as they did with S754. The fact that they are all labelled as 3000+ or higher is not really relevant.jaganath wrote:The new AM2 Sempron range starts at 3000+, so they all have C'n'Q:Well Semprons S754 below 3000+ had CnQ disabled; so it’s an obvious question to ask.
wikipedia list of sempron procs
Sempron "Manila" (Socket AM2, 90 nm)
All models support: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit, AMD64, Cool'n'Quiet
DailyTech wrote "By utilizing aggressive power state timings settings and processors binned for lower voltages, AMD has managed to take a select few processor cores and modify them to use less energy during typical operation." (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2368) So I'd say you are right.Prozzaks wrote:However, I wonder if AMD just added some extra tests in their production line to sort out which CPU could be undervolted while remaining stable and now sell them with a price premium.
Most "cream of the crop" products off any assembly line are the same -- a certain portion always turn out to be better in one way or another. The work is in sorting them, and once sorted, some people are willing to pay more for them. (Diamonds are one example. Ditto high end speaker drivers.) For the longest time, the only difference between higher and lower priced CPUs from Intel and AMD was clock speed capability (and post-binning multiplier lock).TheQuietType wrote:DailyTech wrote "By utilizing aggressive power state timings settings and processors binned for lower voltages, AMD has managed to take a select few processor cores and modify them to use less energy during typical operation." (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2368) So I'd say you are right.Prozzaks wrote:However, I wonder if AMD just added some extra tests in their production line to sort out which CPU could be undervolted while remaining stable and now sell them with a price premium.
I'm agreed on the rather boring articles and whatnot for the AM2 launch, but underneath I do like the extra features on the motherboards, the lower power, and the one socket architecture for desktop processors that we're moving into. Not to mention DDR2 is lower power!tay wrote:*sigh*
Nforce 5 series is interesting, but it runs hotter than the ATI chipset. Wonder if the new to nforce5 features work stably.
The chips are boring other than the low power ones. Intel's choice to leave the MC off chip now seems well advised. All this hoopla about merely changing the memory controller *meh*.
So when is conroe out anyway? 2 weeks?
I took the time and trouble to find the answer to your question, so it is disappointing that you choose to nitpick and criticise. I almost certainly won't bother next time.Well that’s very good news, although your logic is flawed as AMD could simply have disabled CnQ in the slowest AM2 Semprons as they did with S754. The fact that they are all labelled as 3000+ or higher is not really relevant.
Just my thought, isn´t it possible AMD just took a TL-60 and put it on a AM2 socket? Specifications are exactly the same.DailyTech wrote "By utilizing aggressive power state timings settings and processors binned for lower voltages, AMD has managed to take a select few processor cores and modify them to use less energy during typical operation." (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2368) So I'd say you are right.
I’m sorry to hear you say that as it wasn’t my intention to nitpick or criticise. Rightly or wrongly, I deduced from your posts that you hadn’t been aware that AMD had disabled CnQ in lower clocked Sempron S754 and also not fully understood the nature of this process, so I was attempting to clarify the situation for you. To repeat, it seems highly likely that the disabling of CnQ was a marketing based decision and not a technical one, which is why I suggested that the cut-off point of 3000+ was arbitrary.jaganath wrote:I took the time and trouble to find the answer to your question, so it is disappointing that you choose to nitpick and criticise. I almost certainly won't bother next time.
Good points, I completely forgot about that. On another positive note, AT claims that the new nf5 features are working reliably. So the platform is already an improvement I think. The CPU, not so much.merlin wrote: The main thing I want to note though, basically every power comparison so far has compared the Nforce 590 SLI against ATI's chipsets. It's seems pretty apparent that their 2 chip architecture is very power inefficient not to mention it seems likely the voltages are higher for the built-in overclocking features. The heatpipes say it all.
In very important comparison, the non-sli 570 and 550 seem to just use simple small heatsinks on the single chip. I suspect their power usage is comparable to ATI and possibly even less. Those are definitely the chipsets I'm drooling over...the 590 is completely useless for a low power silent pc lover
I'm looking forward to MikeC's review of the Nforce 5xx platform... hopefully we'll see some pretty good power numbers on the 550/570... my friend's very likely to build a 570 ultra Shuttle very soon too!tay wrote: Good points, I completely forgot about that. On another positive note, AT claims that the new nf5 features are working reliably. So the platform is already an improvement I think. The CPU, not so much.
You know I noticed that and thought that maybe it was because they used an 1900XT vs a 7900GTX in those comparisons because the difference was so huge. The test setup page isnt clear enough and as you said there are likely other factors such as VRMs at play.smilingcrow wrote:Hothardware have a review which shows nForce 590 SLI consuming ~40W more than CrossFire Xpress 3200. It’s hard to know if any of the difference is down to VRM efficiency differences between the two motherboards, but that’s still a hell of a big difference.
The Power consumption test page does state that they all used the 7900GTX and 1GB of RAM, at least for that comparison; I didn’t read the rest of the review. The difference of 35W at idle is the thing that stands out for me, as that can’t really be explained by VRM efficiency differences!tay wrote:You know I noticed that and thought that maybe it was because they used an 1900XT vs a 7900GTX in those comparisons because the difference was so huge. The test setup page isnt clear enough and as you said there are likely other factors such as VRMs at play.
Sempron 2800+Fifteen processors were launched on the new AM2 platform by AMD today, ranging from the new flagship FX-62 at $1031 all the way down to a $77 Sempron 3000+
It seems AMD has continued to disable CnQ on processors <1.8GHz.tempeteduson wrote:According to this translated HKEPC page of the first testing of AM2 Semprons, all these new Manila-based Semprons have CnQ except for the 3000+ (both "regular" and Energy Efficient versions).
For the ones with many PCI-E lanes, most certainly they are creating tons of heat. But the standard non-sli ones are not. I believe the chipset went through a minor die shrink from 150nm to 130nm compared to the Nforce4(Can anyone confirm these are 130nm?), and as it's basically the same chipset with a few bonus features, it probably gained the same power advantages as a die shrink of a cpu. This is the likely reason why we see small aluminum heatsinks as enough to cool the nforce 570/550.Ackelind wrote:The nForce chips are becoming more and more advanced microprocessors, incorporationg lots of features, and creating large amounts of heat.
Strange that they keep using tiny active or not so well working passive solutions, when the chip probably puts out a lot more than a P-M for example, or even more than a lower powered A64!