45nm amd x2 preview at xbitlabs
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
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.
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.
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.
Here's Lostcircuit's test.
-
- Posts: 1406
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:28 pm
- Location: USA
-
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:19 am
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.
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.
I think most of us disagree that these are "it".Anteries wrote:... I have been longing for AMD to provide something that enthusiasts are proud of and I think these new 45nm 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/
http://www.guru3d.com/news/new-amd-athl ... ext-month/
-
- Posts: 5275
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: ITALY
It seems to me that LC' review is a bit AMD biased: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.
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.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
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:
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.