Some more info about AM2 processors

rpsgc · Post by **rpsgc** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:28 am

Some more info about AM2 processors @ X-bit Labs

Here's something of interest to y'all.

One of the most interesting things about the new processors is their heat dissipation. Dual-core CPUs with F core stepping and up to 2.6GHz frequency and 2x1MB L2 cache will boast maximum 89W TDP. The today’s processors with similar technical specifications demonstrate 110W TDP at 2.2-2.4GHz core clock rate. Although one of the recent Athlon 64 4400+ modifications with 2.2GHz clock speed boasts 89W TDP.

AMD managed to reduce the power consumption by optimizing the transistor leakage current. The priority task here was to reduce the power consumption, and not to grow the clock speeds. As a result, they managed to "adjust" the 90nm process in such a way that they could really save some power at the same working frequencies. However, the dual-core Athlon 64 FX-62 (2.8GHz) processor will feature 125W TDP, which is higher than any of the today’s AMD CPUs have.

rpsgc · Post by **rpsgc** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:32 am

Another tidbit of information over at VR-Zone

We will also see the AMD Live® platform there to counter Intel's Viiv. CPUs and corresponding boards have to support Cool N Quiet and all drivers have to be WHQL certified. The CPUs will drain 35 to 65W. In phase one the Live machines have to support Windows Media Centre edition and to be Windows Vista capable while in the second phase, manufacturers are supposed to meet Windows Vista Premium logo requirements.

rpsgc · Post by **rpsgc** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:15 am

AM2 power consumption chart @ Matbe

Looks good eh?

scandium · Post by **scandium** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:57 am

That TDP for the Sempron is almost freakishly low. I'm thinking that they should be able to be run with passive cooling fairly easily and without having to adopt underclocking/undervolting or use fairly massive heatsinks like the Ninja etc.

TomZ · Post by **TomZ** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:04 am

35W for a dual-core would be awesome - if it is not a mistake.

rpsgc · Post by **rpsgc** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:20 am

Hmm.. I see that isn't entirely correct. Those are another set of desktop CPUs. More here.

AMD will also soon unveil a new set of desktop Sempron and Athlon 64s specifically geared for HTPC and other low noise / low power devices.

The "normal" AM2 dual-core processors will have 89W TDP, the single-core 62W and the high-end dual-core will be between 110W and 125W (or even more for the FX-64).

stupid · Post by **stupid** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:53 am

Just looking at the numbers makes me consider postponing my upgrade from Socket A. Not sure how many people are in the same boat I am, but if I waited this long to upgrade, I might as well wait a little longer for more details to come out. unfortunately I already decided on the parts that I want for S939. I guess I'll have to do a whole new round of component research for AM2 once they become available.

scandium · Post by **scandium** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:53 pm

stupid wrote:Just looking at the numbers makes me consider postponing my upgrade from Socket A. Not sure how many people are in the same boat I am, but if I waited this long to upgrade, I might as well wait a little longer for more details to come out. unfortunately I already decided on the parts that I want for S939. I guess I'll have to do a whole new round of component research for AM2 once they become available.

On the other hand though that period just before, and even just after, a new socket debuts can also be a good time to buy the newly "obsolete" but fully matured, widely available, and nicely discounted hardware. CPU upgrades become moot but how many people get more than 1 cpu out of a mb before it becomes obsolete one way or another anyway? I think it comes down to the RAM question: if you have existing ddr to use on the new board than now is as good a time to buy as any; but if you don't, and can wait, then then you won't be buying ddr that'll be rendered obsolete in a few months by AM2.

Then again ddr has never been as cheap as it is now allowing one to buy quite a bit of it on the cheap and make use of it fully on S939 (or S754) now rather than wait on ddr2 which nobody can say for certain what it'll cost after am2 comes out... so no clear cut answer I guess

stupid · Post by **stupid** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:05 pm

scandium wrote:On the other hand though that period just before, and even just after, a new socket debuts can also be a good time to buy the newly "obsolete" but fully matured, widely available, and nicely discounted hardware.

Well, I'm thinking about the upgrade from a silence perspective. The X2 4600+ is the CPU I want to get. If I get one right now (S939), it will need a Scythe Ninja and a Nexus fan to keep it cool 'n quiet. On the other hand if wait for the AM2 version with only a TDP of 65w, then it may be cool enough to run passively with just the Ninja. But it will also mean that I will postpone my upgrade until Q3 '06. Hopefully, by then there will be a decent number of MB to choose from. More importantly, revised MBs will hopefully be available to squash any bugs from the first revision.

Slaugh · Post by **Slaugh** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:16 pm

More info on Daily Tech

The Energy Efficient Athlon 64 3800+ rated at 35W is not a typo -- AMD actually has a dual core 35W processor on the roadmap. This bodes well for dual core Turions.

35W for an Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is impressive!

rpsgc · Post by **rpsgc** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:54 am

It was mentioned above

http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewto ... 389#245389

dan · Post by **dan** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:53 am

are the dual core turions socket 754 compatible?

i have a socket 754 and i would like dual core

rpsgc · Post by **rpsgc** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:02 am

dan wrote:are the dual core turions socket 754 compatible?

i have a socket 754 and i would like dual core

No, they'll use a new socket called S1 (638 pins) and DDR2 RAM too.

dan · Post by **dan** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:32 am

thx - i was hoping to install dual core

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:20 am

eh, no real way of making the heat lower besides undervolting the chips at default.

Im thinking the debut aspect of am2 is going to be a heap of crap possibly and the processors out for it are just stepping stones until it can go 65nm and quad cores.

Mikael · Post by **Mikael** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:09 am

~El~Jefe~ wrote:eh, no real way of making the heat lower besides undervolting the chips at default.

Huh? How about dynamic clock gating or transistors with high threshold voltage? As far as I know, these are techniques that are being implemented (or refined) in the rev F CPUs.

rpsgc · Post by **rpsgc** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:36 am

~El~Jefe~ wrote:eh, no real way of making the heat lower besides undervolting the chips at default.

It's right there on my first post

AMD managed to reduce the power consumption by optimizing the transistor leakage current. The priority task here was to reduce the power consumption, and not to grow the clock speeds. As a result, they managed to "adjust" the 90nm process in such a way that they could really save some power at the same working frequencies.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:52 am

pwnd

oops!

yeah well hm. i guess they are using Turion technology ?

ronrem · Post by **ronrem** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:05 pm

I think the big deal here is AMD specifically optimizing a line of CPU's to run extra cool and so quieter. This will really become huge near year's end when 65nm debuts. A plus is that so far the AM2 stuff won't require new chipsets. Nvidia,Via,etc can evolve and refine what is working rather than start over and go through a period of bugs and bad drivers.

TomZ · Post by **TomZ** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:11 pm

ronrem wrote:I think the big deal here is AMD specifically optimizing a line of CPU's to run extra cool and so quieter.

To be fair, both AMD and Intel are developing new products to meet these objectives. The strong portable and HTPC markets are very attractive to both processor vendors.

rpsgc · Post by **rpsgc** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:29 pm

Those are the CPUs for the AMD Live! brand.

jaganath · Post by **jaganath** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:17 pm

I think the big deal here is AMD specifically optimizing a line of CPU's to run extra cool and so quieter

I'd agree. Finally there seems a reasonable prospect that in the not too distant future we will see chips which can be passively-cooled in stock form and which have been specifically designed for the desktop, with excellent performance.

So far we have had hot, powerful chips and cool, slow chips. Hopefully by this time next year we will have the best of both worlds: cool and relatively powerful desktop CPU's.

perplex · Post by **perplex** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:27 pm

jaganath wrote:
I think the big deal here is AMD specifically optimizing a line of CPU's to run extra cool and so quieter
I'd agree. Finally there seems a reasonable prospect that in the not too distant future we will see chips which can be passively-cooled in stock form and which have been specifically designed for the desktop, with excellent performance.

So far we have had hot, powerful chips and cool, slow chips. Hopefully by this time next year we will have the best of both worlds: cool and relatively powerful desktop CPU's.

I think Intel looks more promising in the future as far as power goes. Even today, Yonah seems an excellent CPU for high performance and very low power consumption. Also a nice undervolted Yonah maybe a good candidate for passive cooling. There's also Merom too in Q3, I'm not sure if power will be lower than Yonah but performance will be higher.

jaganath · Post by **jaganath** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:23 pm

There's also the thorny issue of price. Even today you could argue that Intel has the edge in the powerful, cool processor race with their Pentium M range; however the motherboards and CPU's required to assemble a desktop system based on these chips are often prohibitively expensive and I have no reason to think that Merom and Conroe will be any different in this respect. So if AMD can come out with an affordable, cool chip (and I mean <30W cool) it may not matter if it isn't a giant-killer in terms of performance, as long as it can run high-quality HDTV and other HTPC applications (which after all is the growth market for these kinds of chips).

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:53 pm

I dont really think that amd needs to consider wattage for a good year. it is already shown that 65 nm for intel is just "a die shrink" and offers nothing in terms of heat reduction. It allows overclocking to be done more but nothing for heat. There is nothing to show that intels dual cores will outperform amd 939's, so yeah, no point for the enthusiast to switch everything around.

I bought a 4200 a few days ago, have to hook it up. I detect a lot of lackluster performance bumps for the next year or so, things that increase the speeds on things that no one needs speeds increased for. (like video compression, yeah, I do that all day long, cant get enough of it.)

The eyes are on ATI and Nvidia for gfx cards. they are the only ones that actually provide consistently better performance that is usable daily.

90%+ of the people in a business setting would do fine on a tualatin or athlon processor and 512MByte ram.

Wake me up when 40nm quad cores come out at 4.0 ghz for amd and they cost 300 dollars.

raziell · Post by **raziell** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:08 pm

El~Jefe~ is right....

Mikael · Post by **Mikael** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:35 am

raziell wrote:El~Jefe~ is right....

Except for the part about 65nm not decreasing power consumption on Intel chips. The 65nm Netburst CPUs got a pretty significant reduction and are now much closer to AMD. Admittedly, they're still quite a bit hotter, though.

Also, Yonah seems to be much cooler than Dothan per core and on the same frequency. The 1.3GHz ULV parts are supposed to use some 5W under load, which is fairly impressive.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 8:31 pm

click me but dont get burned

Look at this.

this is a major die shrink. 1/3 less just about.

check out the wattages. OUCH! dont let your kids near that. the wattages went down a small amount. they really didnt get much help. even tom's said the wattage pre-claim didnt hold up any. The netburst needs to die, and well, yonah kills it finally. The difference from 130nm to 90nm for amd was remarkable. Some may show bench marks on other sites of a this difference or that in wattage and performance, but take into account the undervoltability (new word?) of 90nm and now newer Venice/manchester builds, you have to say that it is a rediculous difference in wattage at load and at idle. Probably preaching to the choir here, but really I am just reflecting. While I do that, reflect on this link, new Tomshardware.com review. Sometimes they do an ok job.

AM2 reviewed finally

I miss it when I used to go out and buy the latest best featured Intel motherboard and the best low wattage intel chip. I havent seen those days since my ever stable and quiet 1.2 ghz tualatin. (for a lower price mind you, there was always banias and dothan to consider if I was wealthy)

Didnt someone do some theoretical testing of Conroe and Merom and decide that current AMD processors would beat it performance wise? I read that somewhere on here. I hope it isnt true, I would hate for only AMD to have the good chips, that would make for stagnant things.

I want 64 cores with nanotubes to fit into the size of a half dollar with 32 megs cache and consume 12 watts of power.

make me that someone.

For now we can see that my 2 day away prediction was correct! But I thought I would be seeing 10% increases in some areas of performance, not 1-2% LESS. They say that ddr2 800 will provide matching performance.

Jeez, that's what will make me spend 1000 dollars on new board, chip and ram, getting the same performance as I do now.

Well, we know that it cant be that bad, I mean there must be some umpf in the chip. Well, maybe not. Maybe they am2 will just be the same price as 939 and it will be a lure to those who are building new to get it all ready for multi-core. The lower wattage chips are of course a nice thing to see, however, couldnt we do that with an undervoltable motherboard to probably the same degree? I mean, some guys on here get dual cores down below 34 degrees during usage.

rpsgc · Post by **rpsgc** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:12 am

OH NOES! That awful Tom's review? You should've known better!

It's pretty flawed. For one, they use a old buggy AM2 processor (memory controller problems), then they use a "misterious" GeForce 6100 pre-production board with memory timings problems and to top it all they seem to be using the memory @ DDR2-400 and not DDR2-667.

It's been discussed at HardOCP.

jaganath · Post by **jaganath** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:31 am

I want 64 cores with nanotubes to fit into the size of a half dollar with 32 megs cache and consume 12 watts of power.

There's not much point in having XXX number of cores if the OS or applications aren't written to take advantage of it. Also, CPU's are pretty small now; how big is a half dollar?