POST A COMMENT

135 Comments

Back to Article

  • JoKeRr - Friday, December 09, 2005 - link

    http://www.notebookforums.com/showthread.php?p=147...">http://www.notebookforums.com/showthread.php?p=147...

    a new model of toshiba with yonah @ 2ghz, 2x512ddr2 667 annd x1400 graphics. Very interesting.

    Obviously yonah with 2x512mb ddr2 667 should perform better overall than ddr2 533.

    Similar to how dothan with ddr2 533 completely smokes out dothan at same speed but ddr2-400 or ddr333 (and surprisingly many manufacturers adopted that, example: sony FS toshiba m50 etc... stupid choice for the manufactures, not to mention turbocache or hypermemory will suffer a lot as well due to slower access to system memory).

    So when is the official release date for Yonah based lappy?? and where's the Part II of Yonah article??

    Thanks again AT, great job.
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Monday, December 12, 2005 - link

    quote:

    a new model of toshiba with yonah @ 2ghz, 2x512ddr2 667 annd x1400 graphics. Very interesting.

    Obviously yonah with 2x512mb ddr2 667 should perform better overall than ddr2 533.

    Similar to how dothan with ddr2 533 completely smokes out dothan at same speed but ddr2-400 or ddr333 (and surprisingly many manufacturers adopted that, example: sony FS toshiba m50 etc... stupid choice for the manufactures, not to mention turbocache or hypermemory will suffer a lot as well due to slower access to system memory).

    So when is the official release date for Yonah based lappy?? and where's the Part II of Yonah article??

    Thanks again AT, great job.


    It was weird how single channel DDR2-533 is faster than dual channel DDR2-400 for Dothan. It seems the chipset doesn't take advantage of dual channel at all, so getting faster single channel stick is better than slower dual channel. So I assume it will be same for Yonah.

    Yonah will be released Jan 5, 2006 at CES(some trade show I heard).
    Reply
  • Furen - Thursday, December 15, 2005 - link

    Two DDR channels are bottlenecked by the FSB. The P4 can use dual-channel DDR effectively because of its much higher FSB. Reply
  • cryptonomicon - Saturday, December 03, 2005 - link

    I think yonah is a nice option for low power compact notebooks. As we can see here it doesnt really compare against the desktop amd X2 parts, but will line up good against mobile duel semprons and turion right? Also to be noted is that it has a low clock speed. How will it overclock?.. this interests me greatly. Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    quote:

    I think yonah is a nice option for low power compact notebooks. As we can see here it doesnt really compare against the desktop amd X2 parts, but will line up good against mobile duel semprons and turion right? Also to be noted is that it has a low clock speed. How will it overclock?.. this interests me greatly.


    Actually the highest end will initially be available at 2.17GHz, and a quarter later there will be 2.33GHz. There will be "Extreme Edition" like versions that are clocked 1 or 2 speed grades beyond the 2.33GHz, so 2.5 or 2.67GHz. Of course the "EE" versions will be higher power consumption(Actually its officially called E).
    Reply
  • snorre - Saturday, December 03, 2005 - link

    Are you trying to make "Yonah" look better than it really is (another Intel lemon) perhaps?

    And did you check for CPU throttling activity in your power consumption tests?
    Reply
  • Zebo - Friday, December 02, 2005 - link

    Everyone keeps talking about power consumption..I for one am not impressed. First of all with AMD - X2 in these tests is basically a overvolted part.. will run just fine at 2.0Ghz with 1.15-1.2V rather than 1.4V used here, lowering power signifigantly in "X2 turion" form when it gets here. Second, even so, the power consumption difference was'nt that great 109W vs 144W loaded.. It's not like comparing a P4 setup which sucks over 300W or double X2 power just to run here - you're talking 30-40W differential which will surley be addressed with the addition of DDR2 and unvervolting even AMD's 90nm processes. Nevermind what 65nm should add. AMD's not in trouble in this sector and Yonah gods greatest gift to the sector either. Since we can't buy product now it all moot anyway but either should make a great notebook.

    Since I don't like notebooks I wish anand had done some serious clocking here - after all I/we really care about is can intel reach 3.0+ Ghz with this process and Yonah for those of us who want to slam these chips on the desktop and as a precusor to Conroe.:) That's what intel really needs to perk my intrest again. 3+ Ghz to really compete again on desktop - I don't really see them getting back to Northwood vs Athlon XP day with this chip though no matter how high it clocks.


    Reply
  • Marmion - Thursday, December 08, 2005 - link

    Ever thought that speedstep wasn't used when compiling this test. Also we're basing consumption on the entire platform. This platform would differ compared to the Centrino platform - low power graphics, wireless and chipset. When idle, the Yonah core shuts down a core. It is fairly obvious that the consumption figure shown for the Yonah does not utilise speedstep. You can also underclock a Dothan if you want.

    I also find it difficult that the Turion X2 being cheaper than an equivelent Yonah, as shown by the price difference with AMD64 X2 over the single core equivelent, however the Yonah cost is equal to the Dothan at the next highest frequency, but the yonah has 2 cores - ie Yonah @ 2Ghz = Dothan @ 2.13Ghz.
    A Turion X2 will give up performance of the desktop equivelent to save power - its to be on the 90nm platform. So Yonah compared to a Turion X2 looks very good in all rspects (except 64bit but I don't need it so I don't care)
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    quote:

    First of all with AMD - X2 in these tests is basically a overvolted part.. will run just fine at 2.0Ghz with 1.15-1.2V rather than 1.4V used here, lowering power signifigantly in "X2 turion" form when it gets here.


    Who cares if X2 can be undervolted or overvolted?? Its not. That's default voltage of X2's. By under or overvolting it you are essentially putting it out of spec. Probably Yonah can be undervolted too. Whats your point here??? Plus DDR2 does not consume that much less power, since DDR2 clocks higher. I have even seen presentations that say 533MHz DDR2=400MHz DDR. Though its likely that's wrong, it shows that DDR2 isn't low power as you think.

    For those who thinks dual core Turions with DDR2 would make it lower power. No, because the DDR2 would be at 667MHz, NOT consuming less than DDR400, plus it will be dual channel, unlike the single channel on the current Turions, ACTUALLY consuming MORE power.

    People are essentially dumb here since most people almost assumes Yonah is a desktop chip. And people whos saying Yonah MAY be competitive at 2.6GHz, there WILL be 2.5-2.67GHz versions on "Extreme" ones. That's gonna be something as it would be higher clocked than X2's.

    DDR2 DOES NOT have power consumption advantage since it CLOCKS MUCH HIGHER THAN DDR. The tested configuration DOES NOT use a mobile chipset.

    AMD has NO PROCESS advantage by using SOI, since at 90nm and 65nm process, Intel is superior in leakage current at SAME transistor speeds for BOTH process WITHOUT using the wonderful SOI some are touting.

    65nm DOES NOT NECESSARILY LOWER POWER OVER 90nm, look at initial AXP's at 130nm, called Throughbred, they were about 10% less power and no overclock.
    Reply
  • Zebo - Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - link

    Claim down fanboy.. geez even your user name says it you don't have to keep broadcasting it. It's default for a desktop chip, it's overvolted in the sense that anands substituting a desktop chip and competing with a notebook product here...as in the dual turons slated for lappys will be 1.2 or 1.25, not 1.4 futher reducing power..just like turions today vs regualar desktop A64's. If you really think Dual turions will be 1.4 then we have nothing further to discuss.


    And you're just wrong about DDR vs DDR2
    http://www.samsung.com/Products/Semiconductor/DRAM...">http://www.samsung.com/Products/Semicon...Info/101...




    Reply
  • Missing Ghost - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Why no EM64T???
    They should add this, or I'll buy Turions.
    Reply
  • fitten - Thursday, December 01, 2005 - link

    Do you really *use* 64-bit software today? or just run it to say you run it? or just dream of running 64-bit software? I think Intel is pretty much right-on with what they said about 64-bit in the mobile market. I don't know of anyone who would really do anything with 64-bit right now other than just "have it". I have it at home because I write software that I test on both 32-bit and 64-bit platforms. Other than that, I have no use for 64-bit software yet. I don't run massive databases, I don't run massive CFS/CFD simulation codes. I don't run GIS software where I worry about having the entire world in memory mapped to the nearest centimeter. 32-bit is still fine. I'd like to have a 64-bit laptop myself, but that's so I could develop/test the software I write and not for much other reason.

    Also, 64-bit is more transistors which means more power draw.
    Reply
  • tfranzese - Thursday, December 01, 2005 - link

    Business users I've seen tend to hold on to laptops for quite some time, and when they are done with them they sometimes end up in another groups hands where they can use it for hosting/serving small applications, and not limited to legacy software/OSs.

    I think it's a big misstep to not engineer 64-bit extensions into Yonah. As I mentioned earlier, almost every processor being sold today is a 64-bit desktop or server CPU. With that kind of penetration, it's only a matter of time (which is fast approaching) when 64-bit Windows development will pick up speed. Vista is getting very close (~1 year) and this chip isn't even released yet.
    Reply
  • Shintai - Thursday, December 01, 2005 - link

    Business also dont tend to upgrade early. The larger the slower basicly.

    So a 32bit desktop and laptop will be fine the next 5 years or more. Alot still uses windows 2000 and havent even moved to XP and 2003 server.

    Just because the ubergeek can get Vista before xmas 2006 doesn´t mean any business will implement it.
    Reply
  • stateofbeasley - Thursday, December 01, 2005 - link

    Again, the problem is the assumption that Vista is x64 only - that is wrong. Vista has concurrent x86 and x64 builds. The assumption is that Microsoft will make all software x64 once Vista is out - that is also a foolish assumption to make, given that MS has said nothing about moving office to x64 only.

    Businesses are also going to be very slow to adopt 64-bit OSes for clients. Where I work we upgraded to Windows XP last month. Our IS department isn't planning to roll out Vista any sooner than 2008 - they want at least one service pack (preferably two) and a few months to validate.

    People at AnandTech tend to view these things from the enthusiast standpoint, which is far different than the business standpoint. What makes sense from the enthusiast standpoint is often idiocy from the perspective of a department responsible for maintaining a corporate infrustructure comprising hundreds or thousands of machines.
    Reply
  • BrownTown - Thursday, December 01, 2005 - link

    32 or 64 bits is just marketing stuff. What matters is performance, if a 32bit processor can put out the same performance as a 64bit one then its just as good in my book. Also, people arent gonna go buy Vista as soon as it comes out, it mostly be sold only in new computers. And by the time it comes out Intel should have Mermon ready which does have the 64bit extensions. Im sure Intel considered this and figured that the added transisters were to much to account for the benefit. Reply
  • Scarceas - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    I think the mobile market could REALLY benefit from two different cores...

    A low-power core for most of the time, that will extend battery life while providing enough performance for web browsing and word processing... and a higher performing core for when the performance is needed.

    Pipe dream?
    Reply
  • Furen - Thursday, December 01, 2005 - link

    Two different cores on the same package? That's what speedstep is for. If you dont need the power you run at low clock speeds and clock up when you do. This way you dont duplicate logic. Reply
  • miketheidiot - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    i thinks its interesting that pepole are freaking out here because a top end intel dual core managed to come close to AMD's bottom of the line dual core chip. I think that says alot about intel now days. Reply
  • Hikari - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Ahh, yes, a dual core mobile cpu using less power comes out close in speed (faster, the same, and sometimes slower, depending on the test) to a low-end desktop dual-core. ;) Reply
  • NeonAura - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Yonah seems pretty good. Looks to be doing a good job. But I wonder, how much is that 2.0 ghz Yonah chip going to cost? Retail at launch: $400-$450 is my guess. An AMD X2 3800+ is cheaper than that by a bit, and barely sacrifices any performance. The thing is, AMD is just sitting here watching Intel like Intel used to watch them. AMD is waiting for Intel's next move, meanwhile they're ready to start pimping out some fine chips. The Yonah is going to be released Jan-Feb 2006, while the X2's were released June 2005.

    AMD will be ready for Intel, Intel just doesn't know it yet. I'm not a fanboi, but Intel is going to have to throw up some hail marys to take down AMD with the Yonah, Conroe or whatever chips they may have coming. Because AMD hasn't been sitting on their behinds for the past six months. AMD is just being secretive, they want to surprise Intel by putting out their chip that they haven't really talked about right at the same time as Intel puts out Yonah.

    AMD will be playing the same game as Intel soon enough, and Intel better put these chips as cheap as they possibly can or they'll be taken down.
    Reply
  • mav99 - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    1. intel has confirmed that merom will be compatible with the new upcoming yonah motherboards. you only need a bios update.

    2. the chipset should support ddr2-667 to match the 667 fsb. why did they use ddr2-533 for the article?
    Reply
  • yzkbug - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    My main concern is whether new Conroe/Merom will be compatible with Yonah socket. I hate upgrading the motherboard every time I upgrade my CPU. AMD is definitely better in this respect. Reply
  • Zebo - Friday, December 02, 2005 - link

    Well times are changing- No more 5 years of socket A. AMD doing like Intel nowerdays switching sockets every year..year and half. M2 is coming next year. Before that we had 940 for FX's then 754 and now 939... Reply
  • fitten - Thursday, December 01, 2005 - link

    I typically upgrade my motherboard when I upgrade the CPU as well.... even on my AMD systems. By the time I'm ready to upgrade the CPU, there are typically better boards (more features, better chipset, etc.) around to take better advantage.

    Example, if you bought a Via chipset board with your first Athlon64, it's probably worth spending the extra $85 for a new motherboard to get an nForce4 or better chipset with your new CPU. You can probably get an increase in performance just keeping your old CPU and upgrading the motherboard... especially in features.
    Reply
  • Shintai - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Merom yes, Conroe..will both yes and no. Conroe will use 1066FSB, Meron/Yonah 667FSB. So a Conroe on a Yonah board might be slow due to FSB and multiplier. Reply
  • Leper Messiah - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Sooo...yeah. Intel's possible $500+ notebook part thats coming out next year is competive with AMD's currently out $325 desktop part in basically all things, ya know. Except that price thing, and that whole 64-bit thing. Be interesting to see the OC numbers on this and how high they want to take the speeds. As of right now though, meh. Reply
  • fitten - Thursday, December 01, 2005 - link

    Those are pretty good things for a chip destined for your laptop to have... which is where that X2 won't be going (for obvious reasons).

    If you look at this article as being a comparison of desktop systems, then it is pretty ho-hum. If you look at it like you'll be able to have this in a (hopefully) 4-5 lbs laptop and still get over 3 hours (maybe even up to 5) off a battery while you are on the road, then it is a bit more interesting.
    Reply
  • Leper Messiah - Thursday, December 01, 2005 - link

    See, I (and quite frankly most people) don't even need dual core performance in a laptop. The only way I could actually see my self going out and actually spending money on either one, Yonah or dual core turion is if it was to be my only computer. I don't understand why lap top users need this much power. And I guarentee Intel will make it uber expensive. Reply
  • stateofbeasley - Thursday, December 01, 2005 - link

    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27770">http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27770

    The price points are the same as existing Pentium M processors. I don't know why people make the assumption that Yonah will somehow be super expensive, because that's just not true.
    Reply
  • edwardhchan - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    For those who care, this is probably the chip that will make it into the Macs next year. Drooling over a new powerbook that dualboots.... Reply
  • bldckstark - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    I suppose you will be drowning yourself when you start dreaming of a triple boot with the GoogleOS? On Cell processors? With SkyFi wireless bouncing signals off of the moon (system outage during new moon transition)?
    Dreams of vaporware let you down more often than a topless dancer when you run out of ones.
    I do however often dream about my robotically driven car so that I may play PC games from the back seat on my 60" OLED TV during the drive to work. Imagine internet access on the road then. All the mobile PRON. Gives a new meaning to the word carjack doesn't it?
    Reply
  • dougSF30 - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    and on the next generation process.

    So really, one could say it this way:

    AMD's IMC allows their 90nm DC part with 1/2 to 1/4 the L2 cache to perform better than Intel's new 65nm part running at the same clock speed.
    Reply
  • fitten - Thursday, December 01, 2005 - link

    Only fanbois would say that (or folks who just don't know about computer architectures).

    a) The AMD Athlon64 has a faster FPU than the Yonah. Benchmarks doing heavy FPU will do better aon the Athlon64.
    2) The Athlon64 has more memory bandwidth available to it than the Yonah. While chipsets for Yonah are dual channel, the chip itself still seems to be single channel (like it's predecessors - for power reasons). This configuration does give better performance than all single channel but it isn't as good as all dual channel.
    D) Despite these two disadvantages (there are a few others), Yonah still manages to stay close to the Athlon64 parts on average. Some benchmarks it's actually a little faster and some it's a fair bit slower.

    One of the best unsung things about the Athlon64 X2s is that a single core Athlon64 only benefits marginally in real benchmarks with dual channel memory compared to single channel memory (ignore synthetic benchmarks). The best I've seen is 20% faster but it is typically on the order of 7% faster. This means that adding a second core, which can double the bandwidth requirements to main memory in really bad situations, can be almost completely satisfied by dual channel. Using the best cases above, the benchmark would need 1.20x the bandwidth of single channel, so this same with a dual core would need 2.4x single channel bandwidth. That's only lacking by 20%.

    Compare this to the Pentium4 which gets very large speedups (60% or more sometimes) from dual channel over single channel. Two of those cores doing that would need 3.2x single channel, but dual channel only gives 2.0x meaning that the Pentium4 dual core may have a deficit of 60% of the bandwidth needed to run both cores full-tilt.
    Reply
  • Leper Messiah - Thursday, December 01, 2005 - link

    But what does the above have to do with Yonah's performance. Architecturally, Yonah is far closer to K8 than to netburst. It should have more than enough bandwidth provided with the "667" FSB, esp. if its dual channel. Reply
  • Anemone - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    I'd agree, the basic core of the A64 chip is quite superior to the P-M, meaning when you take out the cache factor (remember that also applies to programs whose requirements exceed the 2M cache as well so think ahead on that).

    And yes someone mentioned power requirements going up for Merom - which might require a moderating of clockspeeds to keep it in check in the mobile arena.

    Basically for AMD and Nvidia a big opportunity exists here to deliver (and deliver soon) the M2 and take advantage of a very good, but not superb chip from Intel. It remains to be seen if that can be done.

    Yonah is good, and would have been great if it had delivered when originally promised (Aug 05, from very early roadmaps), however it is not stellar. But as an overall mobile platform is is the current best. Kudos Intel.
    Reply
  • dougSF30 - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    And as far as power goes, Intel admitted that 64-bit would've pushed the power way up on Yonah, so you need to consider that when looking at Yonah TDP vs. X2 TDP. Reply
  • Amagus - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link


    I'm assuming the load tests were for both cores being fully stressed. What I would have like to have seen were power numbers on a similarly configured Dothan desktop. That would give us a better idea of how expensive that 2nd core is and how good Intel's 65nm process is.

    -Amagus
    Reply
  • phaxmohdem - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Well, I'm fairly impressed with this chip personally. It's definately not the "spooge your pants" object of Techno-Lust many of us were hoping for, but as a man truely impressed with the performance of his Banias Pentium M 1.6GHZ CPU, I can only imagine how awesome that 2.0 Dually would be in a laptop.

    If Conroe can pull off slightly better performance per clock + higher clock speeds + add an integrated Mem/PCIe controller.... We might see some good shiznat in the year to come.
    Reply
  • NullSubroutine - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Intel at least has something to offer if you want a decent notebook. I think it all comes down to cost. It probably wont be as equally fast as an AMD dual core Turion, but if it costs alot more, the whole "less power" really doesnt sell me on the extra money I would have to spend for the entire Intel setup.

    The product is a decent product, it doesnt blow you away, but it is something that you can get in a new system and not be disappointed (unless you encode/decode). I personally plan to buy a dual core laptop sometime at the end of spring, if the price is right, then it might be what I am getting (unless they produce that Monroe by then).
    Reply
  • stupid - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Since the closest CPU AMD has that is similar the Yonah is the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ I figured it may be interesting to see how the Yonah would compare to the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ when using the 65nm process. This will happen next year, but I figure crunching some numbers now may shed some light as to its possible performance in terms of TDP and power consumption. My calculations are simply conjecture and I am pretty sure it will raise questions regarding their validity. I must point out that I am not an electrical engineer, and I assume that calculations would be linear.

    So let's begin. First off, I will start by crunching numbers for the die shrink for the single core Athlon 64 from 130nm to 90nm. Why? Because the Athlon 64 X2 was introduced using the 90nm process. Going from 130nm to 90nm is a 30.77% reduction in size. A 130nm Athlon 64 has a TDP of 89, and a 90nm Athlon 64 has a TDP of 67. This is a reduction of 24.72%. So the decrease to TDP is about 80% of the physical die shrink. This is a baseline number used for the next series of calculations.

    Okay, let's look at what might happen when the Athlon 64 X2 is shrunk from 90nm to 65nm. Going from 90nm to 65nm represents a 27.78% reduction in physical size (assuming nothing else is added to the core). The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ has a TDP of 89 (all other Athlon X2 has a TDP of 110), if it can be assumed from above that the reduction in TDP is 80% of the physical decrease, then 80% of 27.78% is about 22.22%. This means that the TDP will drop from 89 to 69. Let me make a dangerous assumption that power consumption will decrease by the same percentage TDP would decrease by. So a 22.22% reduction in power consumption would mean that going from 90nm to 65nm Total System Power when idle is estimated to be 85 watts, and under load would be about 112 watts.

    Summary:

    Yonah: Idle - 92 watts, Load - 108 watts
    Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (65nm): Idle - 85 watts, Load - 112 watts

    So what does this all mean?

    When the desktop Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is migrated to the M2 socket and the 65nm process is applied, it's power consumption may be very close to that of Intel's mobile CPU the Yonah. Thus, a mobile version of the 65nm X2 3800+ could mean better thermal, and power consumption performance than the Pentium M.

    Let me just repeat again, all this is based on simple calculations that does not take into account potential variables in the real world.

    LET THE FLAMING BEGIN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Reply
  • forPPP - Thursday, December 01, 2005 - link

    Completely false assumption.
    Yonah idle = 92 W. Do you really think 92 W in ile for notebook is possible. Provided in article power usage is not for CPU but a few components. You should rather recalculate by assuming that at idle CPU takes 0 W.
    So:
    Yonah = 109 - 92 = 17 W (+ true idle, how much can it be 3-5 W ?)
    Athlox X2 = 144 - 109 = 35 W (+ true idle, 10-15W ?)
    22% reduction for 65 nm and you got 28 W, almost 65% more than Yonah. Taking into account proposed idle usage it's stil 50% more than Yonah.
    But Turion use less power than Athlon 64, mostly because it's clocked lower (and can have lowe voltage).
    I suposse Turion Dual 1.8 GHz will be at the same TDP as Yonah 2.13 GHz.
    Reply
  • Furen - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Actually, even though going from 130nm to 90nm is about a 30% feature size reduction, the actual die size redution is closer to 50%. This is because each transistor is shrunk close to 30% in each of its two dimensions, meaning that it'll have about 49% of the area of a pre-shrink transistor (70% x 70% = 49%, though this is not absolutely exact). In truth going from the 144 sq mm Newcastle to the 84 sq mm Venice gives you a die-size reduction of around 42%, which makes sense considering that you can't shrink everything in proportion to the feature size. I would expect the 65nm die shrink to offer similar or slightly worse size reduction. Reply
  • Shintai - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Let me give you a hint. Remove the hueg GFX card etc before doing your calculations. A hint for you is that Yonah idle comsumes around 1-3W depending on speedstep setting.

    Anyway, you need to do better homework since your math is flawed by other systemcomponents :P
    Reply
  • stupid - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    I can understand that you want to only look at the power consumption of the CPU. However, the article does not provide a breakdown of power consumption used by each individual component. I've also stated that my calculation will be linear, so yes the results are a bit skewed.

    The calculations are meant to be quick and dirty, not scientific.
    Reply
  • xenon74 - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Hm, you and all other are forgetting that Turion uses Athlon64 architecture BUT with different type of transistors for mobile use, that consumes even less power. Based on that, my approximation goes as follows:

    90nm Athlon64 3500+ @ 2,2GHz is in 67W TDP envelope, E4 rev
    90nm Athlon64 X2 4200+ @ 2,2GHz is in 89W TDP envelope, E4 rev

    Thats 43% increase in TDP for second core (or 22W). Both CPU's are using the same voltage.

    90nm Turion64 MT-40 @ 2,2GHz is in 25W TDP envelope, E5 rev, 1,2V_core
    I speculate that dual core Turion64 will be:

    90nm Turion64 X2 MT-40 @2,2GHz in 36W TDP envelope.

    Reply
  • stupid - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Yes, the Turion uses transistors that are more gear towards reducing power consumption whereas an Athlon uses transistors that are geared more towards performance. But you need to realize that the article is comparing the Yonah to the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and not the Turion.

    Yonah cannot be compared directly to the Turion because that is comparing a dual core CPU to a single core CPU.

    The point of my post is not to compare Intel's mobile solution to AMD's next mobile solution. It is to emphasize that given a mere die shrink AMD's dual core CPU based on the 65nm process is potentially almost as energy efficient as Intel's dual core mobile CPU. If this is true then you can make the assumption that a dual core Turion will be even more effiencent than the Yonah because the dual core Turion will most likely be based off of an already efficient desktop CPU, and will have transistors that are geared towards power consumption efficiency rather than performance.

    Do you follow?
    Reply
  • xenon74 - Thursday, December 01, 2005 - link

    quote:

    Yonah cannot be compared directly to the Turion because that is comparing a dual core CPU to a single core CPU


    Yes it can be and was in a TDP manner! :P

    I cannot compare future mobile chip to noexistent desktop X2 chip (there will be no Athlon64 3800+ X2 in 65nm, maybe Sempron). But I do understand your emphasization and assumption.

    Reply
  • crotale - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    What was the FSB for the Yonah platform in this test? Reply
  • Donegrim - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    I don't think they said, but I think all DC Yonahs are 667 (quad 166), which is a bit slow. Reply
  • bhtooefr - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Also, isn't there a way to disable the second core in BIOS?

    I think it's definitely possible to make your dual-core chip into a single-core for testing.
    Reply
  • Slaimus - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    No, since it is a CPU with double execution units, rather than 2 CPUs linked together. Reply
  • fitten - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    I've not seen that stated anywhere. What I've seen is that there are two cores, two independent L1 caches, and a shared L2 cache. Reply
  • Anemone - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    The reason it was compared against the X2 is simply because that is where the next gen Turion "may" land in performance. Power consumption in this test is nice, but not really relevant to the new Turion, nor is it relevant to the mobile arena where AMD with integrated controller does well against P-M plus external controller consumption (well though Intel is better so far).

    I had a feeling things were going to turn out this way. That cache on the P-M is really what makes it such a nicely performing chip. Weakening that was really the telling test in all this. It's nice that you put that test first. The dual core Turion is going to be very close in release timing to Yonah, and quite a few samples of the chip are already out there, but I'd bet AMD is keeping its cards close, as it has less of a need to prove a point.

    However, from a mobile perspective AMD's use of Via and ATI chipsets really will be the telling factor, and will impact the "you get it all" bundle of a notebook. Where, after over a year, is Nvidia and a pci-e mobile chipset for AMD? Turion is almost out the door and they haven't even spoken up yet. That's probably because they won't be there when Turion releases. If Nvidia had no chipset on the desktop, the competition would be starkly different right now, and a good many folks know this to be true. So I'm expecting the dual core Turion to do incredibly well. 64 bit isn't an end all be all, but it will be a wonderful perk when Vista comes, and Vista will be here sooner than previously expected. Power consumption "may" favor Yonah, however Intel is doing what they always do, when a chip performs so-so, they push up the clockspeed. When they find out what Turion has on the table, they'll put out the EE version of Yonah to try to match it. THAT I bet, won't be so power friendly.

    Intel is improving on Yonah with Conroe. But remember that the low latency L2 is what gave the Dothan its ability to stand in the A64 arena. That got lowered and we see the results. Now imagine what will happen when they "gently" increase the pipeline of Conroe vs P-M/Yonah. It'll drop a bit again. Against that you'll have architecture improvements and higher clockspeed (Conroe is expected to clock higher). That might end up making Conroe only "slightly" better than Yonah. That is why the marketing of th two can overlap, probably.

    So IF (and it's not promising) Nvidia gets the NF4 into a mobile format and gets builders to use it on the new Turion dual cores, we might see some interesting things from the AMD side. If not, they stay as now, a niche market only. ATI chipsets aren't going to change that, much as they have not done much to the desktop side of things.

    IF Yonah clocks at 2.6ghz you may see some competitive desktop systems to A64 X2's. It will rule the mobile roost unless the above happens for AMD. Conroe had better make some dramatic improvements to even Yonah's ability, though I'm doubtful, or putting both Yonah and Conroe on the desktop will simply hand even more of the market to AMD. On the mobile front, again unless the above happens for AMD/Nvidia on a mobile chipset, you will watch Yonah/Conroe rule the mobile roost.

    :)
    Reply
  • Griswold - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Intel just now managed to close the gap between them and AMD as far as dual core is concerned. I dont care if one is a mobile part and the other is not, mobile computing is of no interest to me and even less dual core mobiles. But it gives a good idea of what to expect.

    The numbers are there. Yonah isnt groundbreaking besides the fact that it is a dual core - and the desktop versions probably wont be either. Wow, thats late...
    Reply
  • nserra - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    TG Daily: What is your reason for not including support for 64-bit technology in Yonah? Why is it going to be supported only in Meron?

    Perlmutter: Like everything in technology or life, it is all a matter of timing. Integrating unneeded features into a processor means a waste of power consumption. Our assumption was, and still is, that 64-bit extensions are not the most important thing required from a processor, not even in the beginning of 2006. We believe this will change with Windows Vista, when applications start migrating to 64-bit, and we want to be ready then, and not a minute earlier.

    Reply
  • Furen - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    64-bit extensions = more transistors, which means higher power consumption. Reply
  • Donegrim - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    If this is cheaper than the X2 3800, and overclocks really well on the desktop (say, 2.7-3ghz or so), then I could see myself being tempted by it. As long as the 'secret' motherboard isn't as ridiculously overpriced as current dothan desktops. Reply
  • Griswold - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    WHat makes you think that thing will go to 2.7-3ghz? *laff* Reply
  • Donegrim - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Well the x2 3800 that consumes much more power (therefore is hotter) consistently goes to at least 2.5ghz, so I don't think it's unrealistic for a lower power chip to go further. Plus the FSB is nice and low, which makes for a good start with the overclocking. Reply
  • nserra - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Well he is assuming it will, if not.... another Intel fiasco. But then, I’m still impressed with the power consuming numbers.
    But how will it scale performance/power consuming? At 2.6Ghz 20%?
    Reply
  • xsilver - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    my guess is that its an asus and it will be ridiculously priced.

    it will also be funny how intel will sell this as the "fastest" processor in the world . blah blah blah.. even though it still cant beat the p4 in video encoding

    has it been reported that there will be wide desktop mobo support, unlike the pentium M series so far? more manufacturers need to get in on the action b4 even the possibility of it becoming cheap.
    Reply
  • VooDooAddict - Thursday, December 01, 2005 - link

    First version of a next generation Intel CPU... Slower then the previous generation? NEVER! Reply
  • nserra - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    "Intel still needs to improve their video encoding and gaming performance, but it looks like we may have to wait for Conroe and Merom for that."

    Yes i will wait, the wait, wait. Wait for wait. You must wait for wait. Then wait will wait for wait. Then i will wait for wait.
    Reply
  • Marlin1975 - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    quote:

    the pin-out has been changed once more, and of course Yonah won’t even physically fit into any current Pentium M motherboards. Instead, you’ll need a brand new motherboard with a brand new chipset.


    wow intel chaning the pin/board layout to force others to buy all new gear, who would have thought.
    Reply
  • shabby - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Geez they moved one little pin just to spite us, friggin sad. Reply
  • Shintai - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Yonah and Dothan is electrical incompatible.
    You only end up with either a fried chip or simply no ability to even run it.

    The new socket is however future proff. It will work with the Merom mobile chip aswell.
    Reply
  • Nyati13 - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    It's "rumoured" to be future proof, but Intel will probably change sockets between Yonah and Merom, like they always do. Reply
  • nullpointerus - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Um...how do you know they didn't just move the pin to prevent people from frying the chip in older boards? In other words, does Yonah have a completely different use for the pins, or is it just a marketing scam? Reply
  • Deathcharge - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    I think Intel has a lot of potential, this is a great mobile cpu and we've come a long way from the original P4 (which is what I am using to type this comment). I think this is really just a taste of things to come and if I was AMD I would be looking at what else I have to remain competitive. Sure what they have is far better than anything Intel TODAY but this time next year might be a completely different story. Reply
  • monsoon - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    i am waiting for overclocking tests and most of all the coming release of a MAC MINI with this baby inside. I'm going to run windows on it if possible ( so does it come with VT or not ? ). Hopefully january won't be a let down from apple... Reply
  • tfranzese - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Are you dense?

    Ask yourself: What's the mini's price point? Now, what do you think this chip's price point will be?

    I think you're dreaming.
    Reply
  • Furen - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    I wouldnt quite put it like that. I think single-core Yonahs will find themselves thrown into the cheaper Mac Minis, I dunno if apple will actually make a premium version with the dual-core CPUs. Reply
  • forPPP - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    I don't understand all those comments that AMD is 2 year ahead because Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is on average 8% faster.
    Yohan is MOBILE cpu, while Athlon 64 X2 is desktop. Please compare Yohan with Turion and then complain.
    Intel has lead with 65 nm technology which means AMD won't catch it up for very long in mobile market. Turion dual core at 90 nm will be far far behind Yohan.
    Reply
  • rpsgc - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    quote:

    Please compare Yohan with Turion and then complain.


    Yonah is a 65nm dual-core, Turion is a 90nm single-core....
    Reply
  • forPPP - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    [quote]Yonah is a 65nm dual-core, Turion is a 90nm single-core....[/quote]
    And that's why for now there is nothing to compare. Yonah is its in own class. Even "Turion Dual Core" will be behind it, because of power consumption problem.
    Reply
  • tfranzese - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    quote:

    Yonah is its in own class.


    Really? I can't pick a notebook up today that has one, so comparing a processor that's been shipping for quite some time to this one means little.

    Further, no one seems to point it out, but does Yonah not have 64-bit extensions? If not, now that near every desktop CPU sold today has them it'd be a real shame if 64-bit Windows development gained momentum.
    Reply
  • forPPP - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    quote:

    Further, no one seems to point it out, but does Yonah not have 64-bit extensions? If not, now that near every desktop CPU sold today has them it'd be a real shame if 64-bit Windows development gained momentum.

    Great point. You are right. It's the biggest disadvantage of the Yonah.
    Reply
  • Viditor - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    quote:

    Even "Turion Dual Core" will be behind it, because of power consumption problem


    WHAT power consumption problem?
    Reply
  • Shintai - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Maybe the power problem with adding over twice the transistors.

    Dothan->Yonah ~140mio to ~151mio ~8% more transistors
    Turion->Turion X2 ~105mio to ~233mio(X2 current) ~121% more transistors.

    And transistors = powerusage.
    Reply
  • Furen - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Silicon on Insulator helps with current leakage, though. The problem for AMD, as I see it, is the delay of its 65nm process. Reply
  • forPPP - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Interpolating results shown in this article, I think we won't see Turion Dual Core with more than 2.0GHz or maybe even 1.8GHz for now, because it will consume much more power. That's why Turion will be behind it till AMD gets to 65 nm. But then Intel will have new architecture. Reply
  • Cygni - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Heres a quick summary of my thoughts:

    Best mobile proccessor option ever produced. Would be silly not to get one with your next laptop. But it doesnt have the muscle for the desktop. Nuff said.
    Reply
  • Miggle - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    gaming wise, its looks good. Altho it would be more fair to compare a 2ghz yonah to a 2ghz Athlon X2 /w 2MB L2, being within 5% of 3800+ is very good already, considering that its a notebook cpu. the desktop version may even surpass Athlon64. I sure hope AMD also has something up their sleeves. Exciting match! Reply
  • defter - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    "Altho it would be more fair to compare a 2ghz yonah to a 2ghz Athlon X2 /w 2MB L2"

    Actually current comparison is fair, since Turion has only single channel memory controller. 2*512KB + dual-channel memory controller Athlon64 achieves about the same performance as 2*1MB + single-channel memory controller.
    Reply
  • Furen - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Dual-core Turions will (supposedly) be socket S1, which will have dual-DDR2 channels. Reply
  • michaelpatrick33 - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    How is it good to be within 5% of a 3800? The 3800+ has only 1024L2 cache total. Additionally, this is their 65nm product compared to a 90nm product and it still doesn't match it in performance? I was expecting more from Yonah than this. AMD already has dualcore notebook Turions coming in Q1 '06 so Intel does indeed look further behind.

    Additionally, I am not too fond of Sysmark as a performance indicator either way, but still I don't think AMD needs to run around panicing at this point.
    Reply
  • Furen - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    If the FX-60 is a 2.6GHz dual-core then AMD will have something that will more than match any Yonah thrown at it (a 2.7GHz or so Yonah could conceivably beat it, I suppose). Yonah really does make things a lot more exciting though, since at least Intel is within striking distance. Reply
  • anandtechrocks - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    You are comparing the most powerful AMD FX processor with a mid-range mobile chip? What does this prove? Reply
  • tfranzese - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Considering the single core Dothan at 2.0 GHz runs about $300 I don't see how you could say that a dual-core Yonah of the same clock is 'mid-range' especially for a notebook. I highly doubt the chip previewed today will launch at or below that price point, and probably much higher. Reply
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    It doesn't seem that bad actually at 423US for 2.0GHZ Yonah at launch, it isn't double the 294US, that they are charging for Dothan 2.0GHZ parts now, the price isn't like the double we are seeing on Athlon 64x2. Reply
  • Furen - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Huh? I'm saying that the FX-60 will probably match the EE edition of Yonah, which (supposedly) will have a 50+ W TDP and will hardly be a "mid-range" mobile chip. Reply
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    These are the leaked pricing sheets from around the web on the launch pricing of Yonah.

    T2600/ Yonah 2.17GHZ/667/2MB 637US
    T2500/ Yonah 2.00GHZ/667/2MB 423US
    T2400/ Yonah 1.83GHZ/667/2MB 294US
    T2300/ Yonah 1.67GHZ/667/2MB 241US

    T means somewhere in 25W-49W TDP

    Yonah Extreme Edition would be interesting, either 2.5GHZ/2.66GHZ if on the same FSB speed.
    Reply
  • Furen - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    It would have been nice if you'd included Dothan's power consumption just to see whether or not the "Yonah will have a 49W TDP" claims have any validity. I dont suppose you guys are up to testing the current CPU's current draw directly, huh? :) Reply
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Also you got to keep in mind Yonah will fall in the T category, of processors which is 25W-49W in TDP, with the way Intel measures it. The acutal TDP of Yonah was supposed to be 31W.
    Reply
  • Furen - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Yes, but when Intel announced that Yonah was going to fall into that category EVERYONE (most tech sites, heck, even Cnet) equated that to a higher TDP Yonah, which is why it would have been nice to have something to compare it against. Reply
  • bob661 - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    quote:

    Yonah will have a 49W TDP
    Anandtech is NOT measuring TDP in these tests!!!!!! They ARE measuring what they call "Total Power Consumption". These are two TOTALLY different measurements. AT can only measure power consumed by the ENTIRE computer coming from the wall socket. They can't measure TDP in these tests. It's not the same. It's not the same. Jesus!
    Reply
  • Furen - Sunday, December 11, 2005 - link

    I never said they could measure TDP. I asked if they were willing to measure the CPU's current draw directly, which is VERY doable, though it takes a bit more effort. If you remember that a month or so ago there were news articles published at, basically, all tech news sites claiming that Yonah would have a greater TDP than it was originally anticipated. Though TDP is not necessarily the typical power draw, a higher TDP (compared to another one that is defined the same way) can lead to a higher current draw.

    I said that it'd be nice if they could include dothan in order to have a CPU with which to do an apples to apples comparison. Try to keep your patronizing comments to yourself if you don't plan on at least reading what you're commenting on properly.
    Reply
  • Calin - Friday, December 02, 2005 - link

    Nobody can measure the TDP - TDP is the Total Designed Power - and refer mostly to the cooling capacity of the processor package. You will see several models of processors having the same TDP even if their power consumption is certainly different.
    The Sempron 2500, 2600, 2700 and I think 2800 have the same TDP - even if the 2500 is a 256kB L2 cache part and the 2600 and 2800 have just 128kB L2 cache.
    TDP is NOT power consumption!
    Reply
  • Calin - Friday, December 02, 2005 - link

    Sorry. TDP is thermal design power Reply
  • lee1026 - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    They still can't beat the A64 3800+? sad, intel, sad. Reply
  • Pythias - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Graphs I looked at, it appeared the two were neck and neck. And the yonah cosumes less power. Reply
  • Darth Farter - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    well, what about the RAM power consumption difference... is this censored or something?

    Yonah's 1.8V DDR2 ram opposed to the Athlon X2's 2.6V DDR ram

    if the reviewer really measured "Total System Power" this will factor in... the same reason why the Pentium M is still king of Battery Life on mobile platforms...


    When Socket M2 arrives Q2 2006 it could prove better for performance and less for power requirements again.... and without being transitioned to 65nm process yet.

    anyway, this is not cpu isolated and therefore I'd suggest just mentioning it includes the worse DDR power consumption (apples to apples) before the community blames the cpu only like in the comments here.

    (btw, if there would be any way to isolate the cpu power usage only without motherboard and ram I would really like to know. (I thought I saw something like that on overclockers.com a few moths back.)


    anyway could my point matter on the graphs on last page Anand?
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    This is the price you pay for having an On Die Memory Controller, Intel can adopt new memory technologies quciker then AMD can as they don't need another revison of a CPU plus a Socket change due to the memory controller, this is the price AMD paid to get the added performance, and reduced power cosumption of having the memory cnotroller on Die and not needing a Northbridge. This is AMD's choice and they have to live with the consequences of this choice. Reply
  • Zebo - Friday, December 02, 2005 - link

    Nevermind they did change thier socket. Reply
  • coldpower27 - Sunday, December 11, 2005 - link

    I think they wanted to make sure that only the i945M Chipset series is compatible with the Dual Core Yonah and not run the risk of people sticking these into older i915M and the currently available desktop Pentium M boards.

    This is a move for profit of course, as Intel wants to sell their new i945M chipsets as a Centrino bundle with Yonah.
    Reply
  • nserra - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    AMD 64 2.0Ghz at .13 at full load does 68W
    AMD 64 2.0Ghz at .09 at full load does 43W
    AMD 64 2.0Ghz at .65 at full load maybe ~27W


    AMD 64 2.0Ghz at .13 at idle does 19W
    AMD 64 2.0Ghz at .09 at idle does 13W
    AMD 64 2.0Ghz at .65 at idle maybe ~9W
    Reply
  • tayhimself - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    90nm 3800x2 is around 68 W. Take out 8 or so for the northbridge. There is no 130nm x2 IIRC Reply
  • nserra - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Sorry I forgot to mention, its single core amd processors not dual. Reply
  • Viditor - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    quote:

    90nm 3800x2 is around 68 W


    Someone who doesn't know the difference between TDP and power usage...
    Reply
  • Furen - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    It's not supposed to compete against the 3800+ (But it would have been nice if it could match X2s clock-for-clock, at least, since X2s will hit 2.6GHz soon enough) and it does very considering its power consumption.

    I must say that it looks like 90nm dual-core Turions will be a very good match for these though (which I still dont think they'll hit 35W max power draw), since Yonah on a mobile chipset only uses 25% less power than a "high-voltage" X2 on a desktop chipset.
    Reply
  • fitten - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    18% less power at idle and 33% less power under load supposedly with the same video card, HDD, and all of that (they didn't actually reiterate the test system configurations, just said they were the same and were the same as configured in a different article).

    Remember... the board tested with Yonah was a desktop version board, not a laptop configuration AND both the Yonah and the board it was on were pre-production test boards. It used the 945G chipset but that doesn't mean that the board was designed in any way like a laptop board. Of course, all of the numbers (performance and power) are subject to change (can be up or down) when Yonah and boards are in production.

    I wish the Yonah would have been faster, too. It does well in some areas (nearly equaling the X2 4200 which is 200MHz faster clocked) but others it seems to fall down. It looks like the FPUs weren't beefed up enough and it still isn't up to par main memory wise as the Athlon64s.
    Reply
  • Carfax - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Please post some overclocked scores! Reply
  • bigtoe36 - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Anand

    Please lower the multiplier, run 200fsb with the ddr2 in 1:1 mode and give us a true apples to apples comparison against X2.

    EIST should work with clockgen in windows if the bios is poor on your board.

    Thanks

    Reply
  • Beenthere - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    As other PC industry folks have already stated, Yonah, aka YAWNER, is too little, too late and not worth even bothering with. When Conroe and friends arrive, AMD will have already released faster, cheaper X2 CPUs so Intel is still 2 years behind and loosing ground. Why would anyone buy an obsolete, under-performing CPU that requires a new Mobo? Makes no sense. Reply
  • Calin - Friday, December 02, 2005 - link

    No, they are fine. They are as fast as the X2 3800+ processors in almost everything (except heavy non-SSE floating point), and they consume less. Everything depends on the price Intel will ask for them.
    And I would certainly prefer that Yonah over a Pentium D 830. Why there was no power comparison to the D 830 line too?
    Reply
  • DrZoidberg - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Yonah looks ok for notebooks. I mean its slower than AMD X2 but as a mobile processor, its real competitors are AMD Turion and Sempron and Pentium Centrino not X2.

    I do hope Intel wont price gorge dual core notebook processors, hopefully they only be slightly more expensive than Dothan.

    Reply
  • Viditor - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    quote:

    its real competitors are AMD Turion and Sempron and Pentium Centrino not X2

    Actually, it's real competitor is the dual core Turion...I suspect we shall see AMD extend their lead into the mobile sector this next year.

    I must say that I had one dissapointment with this preview...
    While Anand finished with power numbers, he didn't tell us how or what they measured. For example, was it the whole system or just the CPU? Did it include the Northbridge numbers for Yonah (since these are alreeady included in the X2)? How does this compare to the numbers from the Turion?
    Reply
  • tayhimself - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    quote:

    Actually, it's real competitor is the dual core Turion...I suspect we shall see AMD extend their lead into the mobile sector this next year.

    Well you suspect wrong, which I suspect, in your case, is quite often. First, there are no dual core Turions on the horizon. Second, AMD is not having much success in that sector because intel's platform strategy is useful for laptop builders. Third, Turion power consumption isnt quite on the same level as Dothan. They will need to move to 65nm before building Turion laptops.
    Reply
  • Viditor - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    quote:

    Well you suspect wrong, which I suspect, in your case, is quite often. First, there are no dual core Turions on the horizon


    Sigh...have you ever heard of Google before? It's a wonderful little search engine that would have shown you inumerable articles on the Dual Core Turion being released in early 2006...

    quote:

    AMD is not having much success in that sector because intel's platform strategy is useful for laptop builders


    Gee...then increasing their marketshare by 75% from Q2 to Q3 was unsuccessful, eh?

    quote:

    Turion power consumption isnt quite on the same level as Dothan. They will need to move to 65nm before building Turion laptops


    If someone could translate this for me, I'd be happy to respond...
    Reply
  • fitten - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    [quote]Sigh...have you ever heard of Google before? It's a wonderful little search engine that would have shown you inumerable articles on the Dual Core Turion being released in early 2006... [/quote]

    "Early" 2006 is indeed the quote from the ones I saw.

    [quote]Gee...then increasing their marketshare by 75% from Q2 to Q3 was unsuccessful, eh? [/quote]

    Well... so 1.75X is interesting... without knowing what X is, we cannot draw any conclusions from your statement. If AMD sold 4 laptops in Q2, a 75% increase would be 7 laptops for Q3. Selling 7 laptops is not exciting and is miniscule marketshare. Intel's Centrino/Sonoma/etc. laptop packaging schemes are really nice for manufacturors and has been very popular, even increasing the entire laptop market's numbers. Intel has a huge share of the laptop market right now, even larger than the desktop market.

    [quote]quote:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Turion power consumption isnt quite on the same level as Dothan. They will need to move to 65nm before building Turion laptops
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If someone could translate this for me, I'd be happy to respond... [/quote]

    Seems like English to me. What language do you need it translated into? The one obvious issue was one the author corrected himself. He meant to say "dual-core Turion laptops" instead of what he directly said. Just a simple restatement may make it clear: Dothan power consumption is less (which is better) than Turion and Yonah is on par with Dothan or better than Dothan. AMD will need to have 65nm dual core Turions to be/remain competitive with Yonah parts. I don't think much response is necessary since the statement is pretty much accurate. Laptops are about battery life and small form factor. Intel is winning there, no question about it.

    Personally, I have 8 machines at home including laptops. The two laptops are both Banias/Dothan based but all my desktops are AMD. Three are Athlon64s and the rest are AthlonXPs. I'm not a fanboi. I simply by what I think are the best tools for the job. I think AMD desktop CPUs are better than Intel offerings. I think Intel laptops are better than AMD offerings. However, I'd love to get an Athlon64 laptop so I could run a 64-bit OS on a laptop for my development but I rarely use the laptop that I have these days so getting another doesn't make sense right now. Don't let religion cloud your senses. I know it's easy to do.
    Reply
  • Viditor - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    quote:

    Well... so 1.75X is interesting... without knowing what X is, we cannot draw any conclusions from your statement

    A fair enough comment...I shall expand.
    Firstly, AMD released the Turion late. The problem is that OEMs that manufacture laptops always release their new designs near January, and AMD didn't get them the Turion in time for a 2005 release. That said, all major OEMs except Dell have already stated that they will be releasing numerous Turion laptops next year...
    Secondly, Turion sales last quarter represented the largest number of mobile processors that AMD has ever sold. Don't get me wrong, Intel sells one helluva lot more right now...but when AMD is able to achieve design wins with laptop OEMs next year, that's expected to start to even up...
    quote:

    The one obvious issue was one the author corrected himself

    Yes, I know...unfortunately he corrected himself while I was typing my reply...
    quote:

    Laptops are about battery life and small form factor. Intel is winning there, no question about it

    I certainly DO question it...take a look at the http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/detail.php?id...">Laptop Logic review...
    Notice to what extent they've documented all of their testing and retesting...
    It shows Turion and Dothan are at about the same power usage. Unfortunately, Anand didn't have (I assume) a Turion to compare against for this review...
    I think many people need to reevaluate their assumptions about the P-Ms supremacy in power usage.
    One other thing to keep in mind is that the Turion is 64bit and the Dothan/Yonah are not. Remember that 64bit adds to power usage, so we still aren't comparing apples to apples yet...
    Reply
  • tayhimself - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    I dont want to bother rehashing everything addressed in fittens well written reply above, but I'll add a few things.

    quote:

    Intel sells one helluva lot more right now...but when AMD is able to achieve design wins with laptop OEMs next year, that's expected to start to even up...


    AMD is nearly 50% of PC desktops sold at retail (this excludes laptops, dell and corporate), but the laptop market has recently become bigger than the desktop. intel has nearly 80% of the overall market. Excluding dell home sales, it still stands that intel has a large lead in the corporate and laptop areas (they probably overlap a lot). So if AMDs laptop market share is 75% bigger, they still have a long way to go. The opteron, and to a lesser extent, the A64 have been so much BETTER than intel and yet AMD has only recently made inroads into the server market and expanded their desktop market share to near where it was in the AthlonXPs heyday.

    quote:

    I certainly DO question it...take a look at the Laptop Logic review...

    They disabled enhanced speedstep? What does the powermanagement software do other than put the CPU in different modes? Still the numbers on the Turions are in the same region that I would'nt hesitate (too much) picking a Turion for myself or a friend. I'd still choose the intel if the price was the same though (for the fantastic chipset not the cpu). All that said, the 25W Turions are worthy laptop cpus, and I'm hoping for a successful Turionx2 so that we can have dual core everywhere sooner rather than later.

    WRT dual core Turions on 130 nm, I dont think too many people will find them interesting other than for the 7-9 lb DTR "laptops".
    Reply
  • Viditor - Thursday, December 01, 2005 - link

    quote:

    WRT dual core Turions on 130 nm

    Turions have never been 130nm...you meant 90nm. The dual core Turions will be 90nm, and will migrate to 65nm mid year...
    Reply
  • Darth Farter - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    and again are people ignoring the fact that DDR2 is giving the P-M an edge in battery life....

    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Friday, December 02, 2005 - link

    It showed in an -->INTEL<-- presentation that showed that DDR2-533 consumes SAME POWER as DDR400!!! Yonah uses DDR2-667, and WILL consume more power than DDR400.


    So when AMD goes DDR2, there will be a relative disadvantage in power consumption.
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Friday, December 02, 2005 - link

    Even if DDR2 is 50% low power than DDR400, that's assuming they are at same clock.

    DDR2-667 would be close to DDR400 in power consumption so Yonah has no real advantage in RAM power consumption UNLIKE THE CONTRARY.
    Reply
  • Gary Key - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    quote:

    and again are people ignoring the fact that DDR2 is giving the P-M an edge in battery life....
    Let's not forget the fact that the memory controller is on the North Bridge of the Intel system so you have it and a South Bridge to power unlike a single chip solution in the AMD systems. This is one reason why we look at total system power usage instead on concentrating on one particular component as it provides a look at the platform differences in a fair manner. Also, not all DDR-2 runs at 1.8v, several suppliers provide 2~2.1v modules depending upon the latencies requested by the OEM.
    Reply
  • Shintai - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    The Northbridge for a centrino chipset with GFX is between 3.0-3.5W peak. Reply
  • Darth Farter - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    -----------------------------------------------------
    "Let's not forget the fact that the memory controller is on the North Bridge of the Intel system so you have it and a South Bridge to power unlike a single chip solution in the AMD systems."
    -----------------------------------------------------

    hey, AMD: ATi, VIA, SIS and even the NForce4 Sli(the one with 2x 16pci-e lanes editions) all use a southbridge too, plz investigate before making such claims...

    and that gives the yonah/pentium-m otherwise the advantage everyone touts over the net in power usage as AMD has it's included on chip which makes the AMD chip use more.
    Also, the Pentium-M/yonah have 2x the cache which is back to AMD's advantage..........

    -----------------------------------------------------
    "This is one reason why we look at total system power usage instead on concentrating on one particular component as it provides a look at the platform differences in a fair manner. "
    -----------------------------------------------------
    excluding what I just said about DDR vs DDR2 with the obvious advantages you seem to avoid....
    and:
    "...instead of concentrating on..." uh, we're looking at yonah vs manchester here (which ARE particular components)?


    -----------------------------------------------------
    "Also, not all DDR-2 runs at 1.8v, several suppliers provide 2~2.1v modules depending upon the latencies requested by the OEM"
    -----------------------------------------------------

    as does ddr2 requiring often 3+ in volts making your arguement completely reversed in DDR's heavy disadvantage...

    BTW, I looked it up before posting but couldn't find any evidence, but it seems OCZ EL PC3200 rus at 2-3-2 timings stock and requires 2.75Vdimm to function at 2-2-2-1T @ DDR400.... but as I wasn't sure I let this out of my statements....



    anyway not really a point here in battling chip architecture as it's just trading blows, but my point being platform difference is mainly the DDR2 vs DDR1 with a TANGIBLE difference in power consumption between the two which is discredited incorrectly imo to the CPU's power consumption on the last page.... see?
    Reply
  • fitten - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    I've wanted an AMD 64-bit laptop for a while so that was a good read and made me feel a bit better about Turions.

    One other interesting thing about Yonah is the power management capabilities. I'd be interested to see the upcoming dual core Turion specs there. For instance, the Yonah, when in battery conservation mode, can turn off a complete core and parts of the L2 cache. I can't imagine the dual core Turion not having similar things, though, it would really give Intel the edge.
    Reply
  • tayhimself - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    UGH! I meant dual core Turion laptops in the last line Reply
  • bhtooefr - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Umm...

    Note that it said "Total System Power Consumption" in the graphs...
    Reply
  • Viditor - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Yup...my bad. (sorry for that Anand...)
    I really would like to get more info on the tests though. I understand that they have to keep the origins of the mobo quiet, but without the details it makes it very difficult to gauge exactly what and how the tests were conducted...

    I would also LOVE an "edit" function on these things...:)
    Reply
  • Calin - Friday, December 02, 2005 - link

    How about the overclocking experience? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now