Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AMD Announces 65-nm Chips, Touts Power Savings

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the smaller-and-cooler dept.

AMD 234

Several readers wrote in about AMD's entry into the 65-nm manufacturing generation. The company introduced four chips to be manufactured with 65-nm process in the first quarter of 2007 to replace existing 90-nm chips in their lineup. AMD is playing up the power economy of its line, claiming that even its existing 90-nm parts consume less than 50% the power of Intel's Core 2 Duo, averaged over a typical day's usage, while the new 65-nm chips will be even stingier with power. Next stop, 45-nm. The article says that AMD has a goal of catching up within 18 months to Intel's lead on the way to 45-nm technology.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great, but where is the CPU with (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17118496)

Five blades, err... cores.

That's all fine and dandy.... (1)

emor8t (1033068) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118506)

...but I plug my laptop in a majority of the time. I'll admit to being a AMD Fanboy, but my new system's going to be conroe based. I can't justify loosing out to the competition by supporting a chip that far behind.

Re:That's all fine and dandy.... (3, Funny)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118768)

You might change your behavior if your laptop's battery lasted longer. What if it could go 12 hours without plugging in?

I have the reverse problem; HP made a few laptops with full-power Pentium 4 CPUs a couple of years ago, and I got one. It's nice and fast, but its battery life is roughly 23 seconds.

Re:That's all fine and dandy.... (5, Funny)

cmckosaurous (1003055) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118908)

At 23 seconds I would call you lucky. With my Sony, the battery only lasted 16 seconds before it exploded! Now THAT is poor battery life.

Re:That's all fine and dandy.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17118910)

It's nice and fast, but its battery life is roughly 23 seconds.

How come the batteries on that sucker don't explode?!

Re:That's all fine and dandy.... (1)

elphins.son (1021355) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120000)

Yeah, I got one of those too... first laptop model I could find with a built in 10-key. Works great when I can leave it plugged in, but when traveling... can't even get half of a movie finished before I run out of juice.

Re:That's all fine and dandy.... (1)

cHiphead (17854) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120012)

I feel your pain, I still have mine and its definitely a powerhouse machine but useless while mobile. Initially my zd7140us got 2.5hours of battery life, lately it struggles to go 1.75 hours, mostly 1.5 or less with wifi on.

Now I have a work-provided Dell Latitude D620 with dual core intel and 2 gigs o delicious ram and it has a decent 3.5 hour battery and still runs circles around my old hp in performance. Plus I can go the 2nd battery route with this one if needed.

Cheers.

not to mention... (2, Insightful)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118820)

That if you actually use it as a laptop, you won't have a problem with it burning your, er, "parts" [theregister.co.uk] .

Re:That's all fine and dandy.... (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119768)

In what way are these new 65-nm chips behind? I feel that, now that AMD's and Intel's chips are on the same scale, we can finally compare the cores on an equal footing. My feeling is that AMD's might win. At any rate, given that Core 2 was just a little ahead of AMD's 90-mm CPUs, Intel's certainly won't lead by far.

Idles at 3.8W? (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118522)

Dang.... nice.

Looking forward to my next laptop being a 65nm Turion X2 in about 2-3 years :) (when my current laptop dies or just looks old).

Tom

Re:Idles at 3.8W? (4, Informative)

joshetc (955226) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118652)

Extremely nice. Most people dont account for the integrated memory controller reducing the power consumption of the northbridge either. As a whole Turion notebooks should be extremely power stingy.

Re:Idles at 3.8W? (3, Informative)

80 85 83 83 89 33 (819873) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119226)

the best part from the article:

AMD's argument goes like this: modern desktop and notebook processors constantly scale up and down between full speed and an idle state, which AMD has branded "Cool 'n' Quiet". At a given time, pushed to full load by an application, AMD's chips run hotter and consume more power. But across a typical computing day - where a user might check his email or surf the Web - the processor idles more often then not. At idle, AMD's 90-nm Athlon 64 X2 consumes 7.5 watts. Its latest 65-nm chips idle at 3.8 watts. By comparison, the 65-nm Core 2 Duo idles at 14.3 watts.

[...]However, directly comparing the two chips' power load, in a real-world computing environment, over the course of a day, would be a daunting task, Huynh acknowledged.


i can't wait till the hardware sites test a laptop version....

Re:Idles at 3.8W? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17119778)

A while back I was deciding between:

  $85 for mobo + mobile sempron
$160 for mobo + Via C7

This for an 'always on' fileserver kind of thing, where basically I want it to not draw much power when idle. Of a total ~60 watts for the system I'm glad I went with the couple watts AMD vs the 0.1 watt Via. Core2 would have been >20% of the power vs <7% for the AMD. That's pretty significant to me.

Re:Idles at 3.8W? (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119644)

``As a whole Turion notebooks should be extremely power stingy.''

Well, there's still the display and the moving parts to be accounted for.

Re:Idles at 3.8W? (2, Informative)

joshetc (955226) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120174)

Of course but some of AMDs changes in the last year have made a HUGE difference on the notebook front. DDR2 consumes much less power than DDR1, catching them up to intel as far as that goes. Then theres their new 65nm proccess with much less power drawing parts. After notebooks start coming with flashmedia for most hard drive duties we should start to see smaller screens and ultra low power notebooks that last as long as cell phones when in use.

Re:Idles at 3.8W? (1, Insightful)

Bilestoad (60385) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118932)

Why, because you think Intel are going to stand still while AMD move to 65nm? By the time AMD actually ship 65nm, Intel will be shipping 45nm. And I call bullshit on AMD's power claims, at least until independent reviews have verified them. Intel's new core specifically designed for power efficiency and manufactured with a 65nm process uses more power than a 90nm has-been from AMD? Excuse me for feeling skeptical.

Re:Idles at 3.8W? (3, Informative)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119240)

So Intel is shipping 45nm? According to Bit-tech [bit-tech.net] , these 65nm AMD chips are shipping today.

I agree, take things with a grain of salt until we see reviews. But you sound a little too skeptical of AMD to not be working for Intel.

Re:Idles at 3.8W? (2, Interesting)

rrhal (88665) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119464)

Intel seems to get a bit of a pass on the whole memory controller thing. When you see people compare power usage you rarely see the memory controller on the Northbridge added onto the Intel ledger.

Bottom line is we get very fast efficient chips for cheap.

Re:Idles at 3.8W? (4, Interesting)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120020)

I remember a test in the German C't magazine where complete computers were tested. Everything being equal except mainboard and CPU. The CPUs were AMD Athlon 64 vs. Intel Core2Duo

Under load, the Core2Duo machines used a bit less power. Idling, the AMDs were better. The overall differences were pretty small compared to the total power consumption, so I'd disregard them for a typical desktop that does NOT run 24/7.

And BTW, avoid the old Pentium 4/Pentium D. Those are really inferior.

Re:Idles at 3.8W? (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120050)

Correction: the AMDs were Athlon 64 X2, it was a test of dual core vs. dual core.

Technology, progress. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17118526)

When do we say enough is enough and just stop this cancerous shrinkage? How small do transistors really have to be?!

Re:Technology, progress. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17118574)

I'm way ahead of the game, my transistors are -30nm. I had to do some funny things with space time, but they work. Until you observe them anyways. Next up, I'm going for inm chips.

Re:Technology, progress. (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118708)

Why don't you just borrow Time Lord technology and use it?

Re:Technology, progress. (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118862)

The nano-transistor uncertainty principle anyone? They are very fast and power efficient when processing... but when you process you won't know what the answer will be?

Nope. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118960)

It will give you every answer possible, except that one your looking for.

Re:Nope. (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119330)

The only problem is not so much that the negation function is not polynomial time, so much as that the length of input is not bounded.

:-)

Re:Nope. (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120106)

And it is a chief component in the Improbability Drive.

I hereby trade mark the term (1)

p3d0 (42270) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119064)

"nansistor"

Re:Technology, progress. (5, Funny)

ajlitt (19055) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118934)

Just stay away from (-30+i)nm chips. They're way too complex.

Re: Technology, progress. (1)

John.P.Jones (601028) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120156)

Not really, in nature (-30+i)nm cores always appear along side (-30-i)nm cores in what we call conjugate pair processors.

Re:Technology, progress. (3, Funny)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119346)

I'm way ahead of the game, my transistors are -30nm. I had to do some funny things with space time, but they work. Until you observe them anyways. Next up, I'm going for inm chips.

Great! This guy has Schroeder's Notebook!

Re:Technology, progress. (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119782)

"Next up, I'm going for inm chips."

Feh, those are imaginary.

Re:Technology, progress. (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119914)

Yeah, but extremely lightweight.

Re:Technology, progress. (1)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118584)

When do we say enough is enough and just stop this cancerous shrinkage? How small do transistors really have to be?!

We can say enough is enough when I have more processing power than I know what to do with it in a laptop that is small, lightweight and has 18 hours of battery life. Ultimately, I think we'll get there in 10 to 15 years.

Re:Technology, progress. (1)

lixee (863589) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118642)

When do we say enough is enough and just stop this cancerous shrinkage? How small do transistors really have to be?!
We can say enough is enough when I have more processing power than I know what to do with it in a laptop that is small, lightweight and has 18 hours of battery life. Ultimately, I think we'll get there in 10 to 15 years.
I expect that we'll hit the atom barrier before that.

Re:Technology, progress. (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118602)

when gates are a few atoms wide.. when to make it smaller they need to use sub atomic particals as building blocks.. even at 45 nm the interconnects are only a few atoms wide.. when they get to 1 atom wide.. i think that will be a safe stopping point.. but till then.. the smaller the better.

Re:Technology, progress. (2, Informative)

databoing (259158) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118964)

Keep in mind, though that 1 atom wide for Si is 111pm (that's 0.111nm for those who dont know their units), so we're talking about ~400 atoms wide at 45nm. We've still got a little breathing room. I'm still waiting for Carbon Nanotubes to replace the Si interconnects.

Re:Technology, progress. (2, Interesting)

Bender_ (179208) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120010)


I think while being smartassy and all you completely forgot that the atomic radius is not equivalent to lattice spacing in crystals.
Your numbers are way off.

Re:Technology, progress. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17118676)

When do we say enough is enough and just stop this cancerous shrinkage? How small do transistors really have to be?!

look in yer shorts.

Re:Technology, progress. (2, Interesting)

eudean (966608) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119690)

When it stops being profitable to continue scaling transistors. The reason we scale is because it makes chips cheaper, faster, just plain better, meaning Intel and AMD (and others) can sell it for lots of money. If scaling no longer achieves that goal, you'll see it end in a heartbeat (just like you saw clock speed ramping come to a halt once it wasn't selling like it used to).

Re:Technology, progress. (1)

Impeesa (763920) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120234)

When do we say enough is enough and just stop this cancerous shrinkage? How small do transistors really have to be?!

At roughly the 10nm mark (if I recall correctly), at which point a MOSFET will no longer exhibit transistor-like behaviour due to quantum tunneling across the body.

this is great news from AMD (2, Interesting)

matt328 (916281) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118562)

It will probably drive down the costs of the Core 2 so many of us can justify buying one.

Cooler is better. (2, Informative)

Kenja (541830) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118622)

I went from a pair of 2.8ghz xeons to a pair of Opteron 250HEs and its a world of diference.

Re:Cooler is better. (2, Insightful)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119196)

I went from over 500 Opeterons to just over 400 Xeon 5100's and got:

Better peformance

Better power utilization

Better BTU consumption

And last but not least... saved some cash...

Not a contradiction (2, Interesting)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120152)

I take it those 2.8GHz Xeons were based on the old Netburst Architecture (P4).
AMD did better with the Opteron, but the new Xeon 5100 are Conroe-based.
Conroe vs. Netburst = massive improvement ;-)

Re:Not a contradiction (1)

Orestesx (629343) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120394)

Bzzt! Your geek card has been temporarily suspended for improper use of =.

Nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17118632)

65 nautical miles per hour? That's pretty fast for a ship.

nanometers != knots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17118836)

parent AC is knot funny

18 months is, like, a generation (2, Interesting)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118660)

So if AMD doesn't catch up with Intel by that timeframe, they'd be pretty much screwed, wouldn't they?

Hopefully we can see some Socket AM2 65nm stuff in the retail channel soon.

Re:18 months is, like, a generation (3, Informative)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119200)

Not really screwed, especially if they fail to catch up but do narrow the gap. AMD has always been behind Intel in terms of process technology. AMD has gotten ahead on some specific process tech, like copper interconnect and SOI, but in terms of overall process shrinkage and quality of process, Intel has always been ahead. AMD has been more behind in the past, but also a lot closer, sometimes only months behind Intel. Basically, they are familiar with this situation.

65nm was a particularly bad node for AMD in terms of Intel's lead. Their plan for 45nm seems to be shaping up better with Fab 36, so I expect them to be closer though probably not caught up.

Re:18 months is, like, a generation (5, Informative)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119682)

AMD has consistently been a step behind Intel in the die-shrinking competition. The fact that AMD's chips run as cool as or cooler than their equal-performing Intel counterparts even at the larger process is a credit to good engineering.

Of course, since Intel will also be moving forward over the next 18 months, they might end up still in the lead. Making a huge turnaround like they did (from Netburst to Core) in such a short time is remarkable. Creating an architecture and setting up the process and designing a generation of chips takes a looooong time. Kudos to Intel for that. Now the ball is in AMD's court, and they have to respond.

At the high end, of course, Intel rules. What about processors that normal people buy?

I was recently looking at a Core2Duo review, and noticed something interesting. At each brand's bottom end (E6300 vs. X2 3800), Intel outperformed AMD. The problem in my mind, however, is that Intel's bottom-end starts at a higher price point than AMD's. Very smart marketing move by Intel. However, If you match the processors price-to-price, the E6300 matches up against the X2 4200 (both currently around $180), and there is relatively little performance difference. In other words, the price/performance metric really isn't in anyone's favor.

Another smart (but a little slimy) marketing move Intel has made is in the power dissipation numbers. AMD quotes their CPU's maximum dissipation, and Intel quotes a power figure for some arbitrary (under 100%) CPU load. Intel looks good here....until you actually measure a system's power draw at the outlet, and find that again, there's not that much difference. This may (and probably will) drastically change as AMD's 65nm parts get out, but we'll have to wait and see.

Of Course.. (2, Insightful)

sylvainsf (1020527) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118776)

Intel will be holding still for 18 months while AMD catches up.

Re:Of Course.. (1)

EasyT (749945) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118830)

I suspect they meant they'd be caught up with wherever Intel is at that point, not merely catching up with where Intel is now.

Re:Of Course.. (1)

sylvainsf (1020527) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119092)

That's assuming they know where intel is going to be in 18 months.. My comment was mainly to show the absurdity of playing catchup as a plan. They need to differentiate their product, not catch up with the same specs.

Diffenciting their products.... (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119398)

They need to differentiate their product, not catch up with the same specs.


Like adding a massive parallel vector coprocessor with the Fusion ?
up, that'll definitely differenciate them from Intel. And that's also why they need to catch-up with 45nm soon, in order to be able to cram all this on a single die.

Great! (0, Offtopic)

corychristison (951993) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118822)

I've been in the market for upgrading my system. Currently, I've been running an AMD XP 2500+ [Barton Core], 1GB generic DDR Memory, Seagate 120GB hard drive and a random AGP 8X video card I found laying around [literally].

This is great news for me. I knew that if I had waited long enough that something nice would come from AMD. I've been waiting for something I can keep turned on all day without draining my pocket too much. I will definitely purchase an X2 65mn processor. I'm not one for paying enormous amounts of cash for a "high end" machine. I just want something newer than what I have. I'll probably give this machine to my youngest brother for something to learn on. He has a system, but is a really old Celeron. Older than this machine.

Also, hopefully this will launch off some nice new Laptops and HTPC machines. I'm currently looking at a Westinghouse LVM-37w3 and a nice cool HTPC to drive it would be a dream. :-)

Re:Great! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17119788)

This is Slashdot, not Santa Claus. Please stay on topic.

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17120198)

> I've been in the market for upgrading my system. Currently,
> I've been running an AMD XP 2500+ [Barton Core], 1GB generic
> DDR Memory, Seagate 120GB hard drive and a random AGP 8X video
> card I found laying around [literally].

You found a video card laying around? Wow. Normally, the Ethernet cards are the promiscuous ones. :)

We'll see when it's out. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118882)

until then we get to read about AMD fanboys talking about how much better this is then Intels current line up. Completly ignoring that fact that Intel has plans for the next 18 months as well.

Wait and see what happens, in the mean time buy the chip that you need now.

Re:We'll see when it's out. (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119486)

"Catch up" means "We're moving faster than them, we've accelerated our research, we should have an intersection point in this timeframe."

Re:We'll see when it's out. (1)

WuphonsReach (684551) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120008)

until then we get to read about AMD fanboys talking about how much better this is then Intels current line up. Completly ignoring that fact that Intel has plans for the next 18 months as well.

As long as the two of them remain mostly neck-n-neck (as they are right now if you ignore the extreme ends of the product lineups), I'm happy.

Competition is good.

Cheaper multi-core for everyone!

Re:We'll see when it's out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17120188)

Intel and AMD were equal (8088, 8086, 80286)
then Intel was ahead of AMD (80386 vs legal tie ups)
then AMD was ahead of Intel (Am386 vs i386, Am486 vs i486)
then Intel was ahead of AMD (Pentium vs K5, Pentium Pro/P2 vs K6/K6-2/K6-3)
then AMD was ahead of Intel (Athlon/Athlon XP vs Pentium 3/Pentium 4, Opteron vs Itanium/Xeon)
now Intel is ahead of AMD

See a trend?

Depends on the Architecture (0, Flamebait)

segedunum (883035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118942)

Intel have stolen a march at the moment, basically because they had to, but because they've seen huge improvements by revamping their architecture and going to 65 nm. AMD have been behind in going down to 65 nm (it takes a lot of effort to get the processes in place), but I was always intrigued as to what would happen if they took their existing Athlon 64 architecture, improved it and ran it through a 65 nm process. I guess we'll find out, but I'd expect Core Duo's apparent lead to be pretty short lived. There's nothing inherently brilliant in their architecture, other than them stealing a march on AMD in terms of 65 nm and adding cores like there's no tomorrow, that suggests they're going to have a lead anything like AMD had with the Athlon and Opteron over the ill-fated Pentiums. Cores is the new gigahertz.

AMD still leads Intel by a country mile on budget processors as well. I've heard a lot of price/performance arguments from the Intel camp, but it's just crap basically. The fact is that AMD still produces the most unbelievably cheap processors around, and they're not exactly miles behind the expensive stuff either. Processors like the Sempron have done an awful lot to give people budget, but fast systems.

Quite frankly, on a level playing field I think we're going to find out that Intel's Cores are not quite as good as a lot of people have been raving. AMD's architectures are just a whole lot better.

Re:Depends on the Architecture (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119010)

AMD fanboi much?

Re:Depends on the Architecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17119026)

Quite frankly, on a level playing field I think we're going to find out that Intel's Cores are not quite as good as a lot of people have been raving. AMD's architectures are just a whole lot better.

Fanboy. DIAF.

Re:Depends on the Architecture (0)

segedunum (883035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119096)

Alas I have something to back that up. Pentium and Xeon versus Athlon and Opteron. All Intel have done is made the chips smaller and added cores, which is their new selling point.

Nuff said.

Re:Depends on the Architecture (1)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119252)

Um, no, you really need to check your facts. You are quite simply misinformed.

Re:Depends on the Architecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17119564)

troll?

either way, amd can't match intel's core 2 architecture (be it desktop or server versions) for any benchmark, and won't be able to until the k8l comes out. and even that's not for sure, no one's seen benchmarks of it.

intel chips are running cooler and faster than amd's. desktop and server. it's just a fact of life right now.

Re:Depends on the Architecture (3, Interesting)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119118)

Quite frankly, on a level playing field I think we're going to find out that Intel's Cores are not quite as good as a lot of people have been raving. AMD's architectures are just a whole lot better.

You know, that's what a lot of people said before the Core Duo came out, and they were proven quite wrong. I was as surprised as anyone, but I learned the lesson: wait for the actual chips to be tested.

Once Intel puts the memory controller on-die like AMD has, it's going to *really* hurt AMD. HyperTransport doesn't seem to have any advantage at all on the desktop, so AMD's only real tech advantage right now is that on-die mem controller. Perhaps once we all have 8+ core chips on our desktops, you might see some HT advantages, but I believe I read somewhere that Intel has plans for on-die memory controllers and an answer to HT in the wings for 2008, though obviously that's just rumour at this point.

Not just more cores (1)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119368)

HT also shines as memory sizes grow larger. One of the problems with the current generation of workstations is that few have enough (and fast enough) memory and memory bandwidth to keep a single core, let alone several, at 100% utilization all of the time. A dual core duo system with four cores, however, would benefit immensely with something like HT and multiple banks of memory.

Re:Depends on the Architecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17119132)

"nothing inherently brilliant in their architecture" eh?

here's an activity for you. get an athlon64 x2 and a core 2 duo, run them at the same mhz speed with the same ddr2 speed/timings, and compare how much faster the core2duo is clock for clock.

it's faster. it does more work per mhz. it's more efficient.

this has nothing to do with 90nm or 65nm. amd isn't changing anything about their cpus, they're just shrinking them. that means less heat, possibly more mhz, but it won't change the fact that intel does more per mhz than amd.

so we have 2 facts - intels do more work per mhz, and run at higher mhz than amd to boot! it won't be until amd's k8l is released that they'll actually improve their core architecture and be on semi-equal footing with intel again.

Re:Depends on the Architecture (1)

Tmack (593755) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119614)

"nothing inherently brilliant in their architecture" eh?

here's an activity for you. get an athlon64 x2 and a core 2 duo, run them at the same mhz speed with the same ddr2 speed/timings, and compare how much faster the core2duo is clock for clock.

it's faster. it does more work per mhz. it's more efficient.

this has nothing to do with 90nm or 65nm. amd isn't changing anything about their cpus, they're just shrinking them. ......

Trollish, fanboish, but Ill bite anyway. DUH! AMD is slower MHz to MHz, they dont claim otherwise! Thats why they went to CPU ratings as opposed to raw MHz on their model names. They did that years ago. Get over it. AMD's architecture allows them to run on much less power (thus cooler) than the equivalent Intel. They might not always have THE FASTEST CPU EVAR!! but neither does Intel, the lead swaps back and forth. As for "just shrinking them", isnt that all that intel is doing too? Oh yeh, they are also cramming another peice of silicon into the same package to add cores... AMD is putting all the cores on the same piece. They also have the memory controller on board, something that Intel is probably working towards since it dramatically increases memory bandwidth to the CPU. Evaluate the CPUs based on how they perform for your specific needs at the prices you can get them for, and you end up with "The Best CPU" for you. Thats what I do, and sometimes Intel wins, sometime AMD does. I currently run an older P4 as my desktop, and a dual AMD MX as a workstation, and a few multi-cpu/core Opteron based SUN servers.

blah

tm

Re:Depends on the Architecture (1)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119824)

One minor correction--the memory controller does not increase memory bandwidth per se, but it does significantly reduce latency, as well as the complexity and power consumption of the Northbridge.

They went to CPU ratings for the opposite reason (2, Interesting)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120084)

With the Athlon series, AMD went to CPU ratings because, clock for clock, an AMD part was significnatly faster than an Intel part at the same clock speed. They had a hard time getting people to reject the ``megahertz myth'' that a faster clock was always a fast chip. And, in fact, this very myth came back to bite Intel in the ass and is part of the reason (but certainly not the only reason) that Merced died a much deserved death.

But other than that, I pretty much agree. As has been said for many eyars, brand loyalty is a socially acceptable version of battered spouse syndrome. Products should always be objectively evaluated for suitability to a task. Sometimes one chip is better for a certain task. Sometimes another chip is better. Sometimes the CPU doesn't really matter at all.

Re:Depends on the Architecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17120284)

er..

fact: intel runs faster than amd, mhz for mhz
fact: intel runs cooler than amd, mhz for mhz
fact: you haven't been keeping up with your cpu architectures

amd went to cpu ratings instead of mhz because they were FASTER than intel at that point. their 1.6ghz cpus were beating intel's 2.4ghz cpus and it was hurting them in the world of dimwitted consumers.

intel is not 'just shrinking them', if you looked up what they changed about the core2duo cpu architecture itself (doubled sse/sse2/sse3 throughput, doubled cache bandwidth, more instruction decoders, improved op fusion, etc.) it was a major overhaul.

i was responding to the parent's misinformation about intel doing 'dumb shrinks' and amd having the better architecture, which right now is completely and utterly untrue. the improvements amd is incorporating into their upcoming native-quad-core k8l chip are the same ones intel made earlier to their core2duo - sse throughput, cache access width, out-of-order load/store ops, etc.. intel got there first, amd is playing catch up, and i'm sick of misinformation being pushed around.

when k8l comes out, if the benchmarks show it beating intel and intel fanboys start griping and whining that amd copied them or whatever other nonsense they come up with, i'll point out the facts to them as well - amd has (may have) the better product, so suck it up.

Re:Depends on the Architecture (1)

Dr Kool, PhD (173800) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119238)

Fanboi alert. Have you checked Pricewatch in the past six months? Intel is kicking AMD's ass in price, performance, and price/performance at almost every price level.

Re:Depends on the Architecture (3, Interesting)

fitten (521191) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119376)

but I'd expect Core Duo's apparent lead to be pretty short lived. There's nothing inherently brilliant in their architecture, other than them stealing a march on AMD in terms of 65 nm and adding cores like there's no tomorrow


Obviously you haven't read anything about Core2. Core2 is, on average, 20% faster at the same clockspeed as AMD's Athlon64. If you liked the fact that AMD's Athlon64 was comparable to the Pentium4 at 2/3 the clock speed, then you simply must like Core2's being faster at ~80% of the clock speed of the Athlon64... while still being on the obsolete, much maligned FSB architecture that AMD spends so much time and money poo-pooing over their obviously-so-much-better IMC+HT technology.

AMD still leads Intel by a country mile on budget processors as well.


Well... when you can't lead in performance, you try to lead somewhere else. Yes, the launch of Core2 parts drove AMD to cut the prices of their processors by 50% or more in order to stay competitive. Had they not done that, they would be selling nothing right now because even a fanboi couldn't justify buying AMD at the complete destruction that equal priced CPUs from AMD would get compared to the Intel parts. So, AMD dropped back to attempt to remain king of the bargain market until they could release something that would put them back into the performance game, which Intel currently owns (not counting the obviously boutique, one-off 4x4 deadend attempt to save face that AMD marketing released).

I have three Athlon XP and four Athlon64 machines at home (and no Intel other than two laptops). This migration of socket requiring a new CPU and all has bitten me already. My S939 parts barely lived a year (two years given the entire lifetime) and already AMD is requiring me to buy a new motherboard *and* CPU if I wish to upgrade because they're already killing off S939. Many of the already existing S775 boards for Intel will upgrade the CPU to Core2 (perhaps with a BIOS flash). It makes me kind of wonder how long Socket AM2 is going to last given that they're already talking about S1207 and some future move to DDR3 (yet another socket change?) Currently, for me to upgrade my AMD machines, I have to buy a CPU + motherboard because even the S939 X2s are EOL'd. I've thought about buying some upgrade AMD CPUs but I'm not going to do it. Core2 offers too much performance increase with the promise of socket compatible quad core very (very) soon. I believe AMD is requiring S1207 for quad core, so if you bought AM2, you're already EOL'd because of the change for DDR3 and quad core. AM2 was dead before it was released, it seems.

Re:Depends on the Architecture (1)

karnal (22275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119558)

Amen.

I've purchased AMDs ever since I got rid of a Pentium 133 (aside from "donated" machines). But over my Thanksgiving break (took some vaca) I put together a Core2Duo; upgrading from an Athlon XP 2800+/Geforce 6600gt.

I put together 3 lists of items. A single core AMD 4000+ s939, a dual core 4800+ AM2 and an Intel e6600. Single core price was 1000$; both duals were just under 1300$ (with GeForce7950gtko)

I went with the Intel. From what I can tell, it's been a good buy; however, I'm kind of kicking myself for not buying a Raptor to go with it - I can tell that disk access is a majority of what holds back anything on this system... and upgrading the 2800+ just didn't make sense...

Re:Depends on the Architecture (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119770)

Obviously you haven't read anything about Core2. Core2 is, on average, 20% faster at the same clockspeed as AMD's Athlon64.

No it isn't. consider [libtomcrypt.com] this....

The Core 2 Duo has caught up, and in certain applications beat the AMD64 design, but in terms of IPC it's not really better. Where the C2D shines is power efficiency. My E6600 (2.4GHz) is running happily at 3.42GHz without overvolting or other fooling around. At this speeds I can compile, and run any crypto test I throw at it through my daily chores faster than any AMDX2 on the market. For a hell of a lot less than what the AMDFX series cost.

I imagine the AMD 65nm part is suitable for overclocking and in 2007 we'll see 3+GHz high IPC parts be standard in retail.

Tom

Re:Depends on the Architecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17119890)

and the outcome with a better compiler, i.e. msvc or intel?

or any kind of vector optimizations? ....

it's amazing that your benchmark is the only one i've been able to find that shows an amd advantage clock for clock. and i've looked.

Re:Depends on the Architecture (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120382)

While it would be nice to think this is correct, the fact is after looking over a period of weeks, I can't find /any/ benchmarks other than yours that support this claim. (Yes, before some ninny points out the obvious, I'd been researching before you posted this, in preparation for a new laptop purchase -- otherwise it couldn't have been weeks.)

Re:Depends on the Architecture (3, Informative)

Pulzar (81031) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120296)

Many of the already existing S775 boards for Intel will upgrade the CPU to Core2 (perhaps with a BIOS flash).


That's actually not true... As Intel introduced new CPUs going into the 775 socket, they started using more and more of the pins that were originally "reserved" -- so, in order to support a new CPU, certain additional pins would have to be tied high, low, to calibration resistors, etc. What that means is that while *older* 775 CPUs will run fine on new motherboards, the new 775 CPUs will not run on old motherboards, even with a BIOS flash.

For example, my 775 board running a P4 3GHz will only take P4s up to 3.4GHz or so, since the faster ones were new 65nm cores with slight pin changes. Pentium D, and newer Cores are also in the excluded category..

Re:Depends on the Architecture (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120386)

This migration of socket requiring a new CPU and all has bitten me already. My S939 parts barely lived a year (two years given the entire lifetime) and already AMD is requiring me to buy a new motherboard *and* CPU if I wish to upgrade because they're already killing off S939.

Which is funny, because for years this was a commonly cited problem with Intel's platform, while AMD's Socket A was long-lived and stable. One would expect a company to copy their competitor's successes, but to copy their mistakes? I'd wager that this is a temporary glitch in AMD's roadmap and that they are going to try to re-stabilize. I bet they were just flummoxed trying to work out their socket strategy in the face of having to address several markets they weren't serious competitors in prior to K8 and of having to deal with their changing memory interface needs -- Socket 939, for example, only existed because they realized they wanted dual-channel memory in the client space, but the 940-pin Opteron package wouldn't support unbuffered DIMMs. Oops! So 939 was a hack, and I'm not surprised it's short lived, though certainly it sucks for those hoping to upgrade -- a.k.a. the do-it-yourself hobbyists that have been AMD's main supporters since K7. Double oops!

but what socket? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17118956)

Are they going to release this for the 939 socket? There is a huge amount of people out there with these boards, and they are still making CPUs for them even though AM2 is the latest and greatest. I personally am running 939 as long as I can because I can't afford to replace all of my DDR with DDR2.

No (1)

homer_ca (144738) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120180)

The good stuff is AM2-only: 65nm and virtualization extensions.

Nice chip but... will we get to see the benefit? (4, Interesting)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119084)

"With the Vista rollout, it's more and more important to multitask and multicore without a super loud box -- that's the end goal," Huynh said.

Is anyone as tired of software companies eating up the gain in hardware performance as me? And for what? How about someone writing better software, not just new software. I got sick of buying new hardware just to open the same document because the O/S or new Office suite was bloated/full of shit/required way more horsepower just to do the same task. No Vista for me. I'll stay will XP and Linux on my (older) machines. And if MS forces people to go Vista, I'll go Linux or BSD. If I get new hardware, it will be to make these systems faster, not make new software, doing the same job, run the same speed.

Re:Nice chip but... will we get to see the benefit (3, Insightful)

Retardican (1006101) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119518)

It doesn't matter, eventually linux will be the same.

I have a 500MHz Pentium III laptop I use, which was fine with Windows 2000. After they EOL'ed it, I switched to Linux. I am currently running Xubuntu (Ubuntu with Xfce), but as even Firefox and Thunderbird are getting bloated, it's sluggish. I even maxed out the ram (576MB), which helped a little, but I'm going to have to replace it soon.

Any suggestions on laptops with decent linux driver support that wouldn't crap out after 3 years? I'm spoiled by these old Thinkpads.

Re:Nice chip but... will we get to see the benefit (1)

Non-CleverNickName (1027234) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119850)

"What Andy [Grove] giveth, Bill [Gates] taketh away."

Ok look, you can have it one of two ways (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120118)

Features or efficiency. That's just how it goes. If you want software that does more nifty shit, you have to be willing to throw more horsepower at it. Lynx uses less memory, disk, etc than Firefox, however you certainly aren't going to see me switching. It's not like there is some magic programmers could use but don't to write fast, feature rich software.

Now maybe you long for the days of spartan computing, maybe you want to do nothing but scroll text really fast. That's fine, there's stuff out there to accommodate you. However that's not what most of us want. I want a feature rich system, I want my computer to be everything, do everything. Well for that I need hardware, and I'm willing to pay for it.

It would be like trying to compare frame rates between Ultima 1 and ES4: Oblivion. When you get down to it, Ultima 1 probably has a frame rate as fast or faster than Oblivion. Ultima 1 wouldn't have any trouble running at 30fps or more, even on 286 hardware. Oblivion can run under 30fps, even on an 8800GTX. However you are dealing with a totally different level of graphics. Ultima 1 was made to run in CGA which is 2D, 2-bit (4 colour), 320x200. Oblivion is full 3D with amazingly high geometry, 128-bit FP colour, 2560x1600 with anti-aliasing. Despite the speed being around the same, there is a difference.

While games are teh most pronounced difference, it's still there with other apps. Comparing Office to an old text mode Wordperfect app is meaningless. Ok, maybe for what you do you don't notice any difference, but many of us do. As a simple example, take a highly accurate, learning, in-line spell checker. I love that feature. Well, guess what? That takes resources. You couldn't do that on a really old computer, it just lacks the resources.

So if you are happy with what you have now, great, stick with it, but don't get mad that people want to find ways to use the new power. I do not buy a new graphics card to get higher and higher frame rates, 60fps is enough thanks that's all my screen does. I buy it for more an more features, at the same framerate. Likewise with processing in my computer. Everything is plenty fast now, my computer responds near instantaneously for normal tasks. So what I want is for my computer to do more. I want it capable of doing more complex things. In 1996 my computer played little postage-stamp sized videos, and used nearly 100% CPU to do it. Now it plays fullscreen HD videos and uses nearly 100% CPU (well ok, of one of the cores) to do it. I'm not pissed that it hasn't changed, I'm pleased with the increase in quality, the increase in features.

18 months? (3, Funny)

abshnasko (981657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119428)

The article says that AMD has a goal of catching up within 18 months to Intel's lead on the way to 45-nm technology.
How are they already 18 months behind when they were ahead 4 months ago?

Great (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119470)

Great. Smaller manufacturing processes are the root of all good. Well, in microchip land, anyway.

Errr... (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119548)

FTFA:

``AMD's 90-nm/65 watt Athlon 64 X2 chips consumed 47.6 percent the power of a 65-nm Core 2 Duo chip, the company said. A 35-watt X2 consumes 73.3 percent of the power of the same Core 2 Duo.''

So the 35-Watt X2 consumes 1.53 times as much power as the 65-Watt X2? Something is wrong there...

Re:Errr... (2, Informative)

Brian Stretch (5304) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119856)

So the 35-Watt X2 consumes 1.53 times as much power as the 65-Watt X2? Something is wrong there...

A 65nm 65W X2 idles with lower power consumption than a 90nm 35W X2. At full CPU load the 35W X2 would still have the edge. Since your average desktop PC spends most of its time idling this is not insignificant.

Re:Errr... (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120088)

``A 65nm 65W X2 idles with lower power consumption than a 90nm 35W X2.''

Why? If they just manufactured the same core on a 65-nm process that they did on a 90-nm process, they would end up with a lower power consumption (at all speeds), right?

Re:Errr... (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119866)

AMD ratings are max TDP not average.

For example, an Opteron 885 idles at 1GHz and consumes ~32W even though it's a 95W part.

Tom

No price difference (1)

All_One_Mind (945389) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119650)

Well the good news is that the 65nm processors will not cost more than their siblings. For example, the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ in both 90nm and 65nm will sell for $301 [amd.com] in quantities of 1000.

About time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17119908)

It's about time AMD is getting down to 65nm. Intel has been on 65nm for a long time now and Intel is almost down to 45nm soon.

I am very pleased that AMD are touting power efficiency.

Intel already has a quad-core CPU. AMD don't have any quad-core CPU, they just have dual dual-core systems.

THE FUTURE IS COMPLETELY SOLID STATE (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17120304)

I'd rather see less dense microprocessors. The problem is this big chip manufactuerers make these super dense mammoth race car processors, it concentrates heat in one place, requiring a CPU fan, which is a mechanical component that can and will eventually fail.

I would rather have a motherboard with a CPU design distributed, where the surface area is spread out in such a way, that is completely solid state without any moving parts to fail, namely, a CPU does no require active cooling.

The future lies in completly 100% solid state devices. What does this philosophy mean?

No CPU fans, no power supply fans, no harddrives (flash memory instead), no noise, no moving parts whatsoever. Distributed or minimized waste heat.

Reliability and shock resistance skyrocket. You can seal them inside waterproof and dust proof and fire proof boxes.

I've implemented these kind of computers, at critical network points, and literally you can plug them in FOR YEARS and forget about them.

They are absolutely silent. And absolutely low powered. And totally reliable. All of which, is a very beautiful thing from an engineering standpoint.

These guys need to hire me on their team, because the definition of what is going to be expected in computers is going to radically change in the near future. Computers are going to go under, they are going to become *embedded* in everything with no expectaions of mainenance to them at all and installed in harsh environments. They either work or they fail after decades of use (or preferably, never), and then you replace them.

Reliability is CORE, and to achieve it, computers are going to have to abandon all cruches and become purely solid state devices entombed in indestructible plastic modules.

How often have you ever reformated the drive on your wrist watch? Had to reinstall an OS on your cellphone? Had to replace the CPU fan on your calculator?

I often wondered, why in heck weren't motherboards encased in protective plastic casing, and the same for ISA / PCI / AGP / PCI-x cards. Putting a comptuer together today has become like putting together lego blocks. And each component should be as equally durable and interchangable based on standards as a lego block.

Einstein
http://anarchy-tv.com/ [anarchy-tv.com]

I am an AMD fanboi, BUT (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120334)

I was EXTREMELY pleased and happy when Intel finally took over the CPU market again with the claim of most powerful consumer CPU. AMD had been at the top for a slight bit too long...after all, what good is competition in a free market if one side is ALWAYS better?

This means AMD is trying even HARDER to make a better chip...it will release, and in a way I am hoping that it STILL isn't better than Intel. Intel continues down it's path and continues to hold the crown for the next couple years.

Then, AMD reclaims it, pushing innovation and the need to claim to have "the fastest" will be reheated again. And next time, who knows...maybe ANOTHER upstart will come around (although I doubt that) that will challenge BOTH Intel and AMD.

I am an AMD fanboi. I have bought nothing but AMD CPU's since the days of the K6, regardless of the power of other procs on the market. And yet I am still very happy Intel is holding the crown. Nothing breeds innovation like having the knowledge that the OTHER guy took the number one spot from you.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?