http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2627&p=1
The only page to really look at is the last page in this review for the power consumption benchmarks.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2627&p=1
The only page to really look at is the last page in this review for the power consumption benchmarks.
The performance per watt is awesome - I can't wait to see what Conroe can do.
Looks like Intel will be back in the performance race in 06
They are doing better, still have a ways to go before they will truely be competetive. AMD still going to have the best bang for the buck. I'm sure intel will charge out the *** for this thing.
Unimpressive performance in comparison to the Athlon X2 at 2GHZ. Great power consumption though. It would be good for SFF, DTRs, Notebooks, and people looking for as quiet a system as they can get.
I wonder how it overlocks :)
Clearly some people have missed the point here, this is a mobile processor - if this is what they can do with tight restraints on the wattage, it show promise for the desktop variants.
John
im quite impressed, dual cores with power consumption that will still yeild usable battery life, my only complaint is that it is now clock per clock slower than the a64, the dothan on the other hand was faster, i just hope they can fix the cache lat problem on yohan in a rev down the road and get that IPC back up
I didn't miss the point. The A64 X2 is a few months old now. This processor that is not out and is not even comparing to what AMD offers. Even if it is under tight restraints, it should perform better as it will be over a half year newer when it is released. Did you see the latency times?Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnmcl7
... As John said, it's a mobile processor... What's your point? And latency is probably due to the on die memory controller.
Maybe they should have compared it with the Turion, where it actually competes in the market. But I guess that wouldn't have been fair because it would have dominated so hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timman_24
The fact that Yonah even shows up in a benchmark next to something like the A64 X2 is nothing short of amazing.
When AMD produces a dual-core Turion processor that can even be benchmarked next to something like Yonah, then AMD fanboys can fight back. Until then...you got nothing.
Dual core.... ROCKS!!! ;)
Seriously though, the technology in this chip is the predecessor to a whole new line of CPU's from Intel. If this is their "beta" technology, it really does look like a bright future for Intel, as well as for us. After all, AMD hasn't really had competition in the IPS and performance per watt category on the desktop for quite some time.
Combine this new architecture with new chipsets, and you could be looking at the first real CPU race since back in the PIII vs. Athlon days.
I'm thinking overclock yonah.....(remember xp mobile days?)
You can slice it either way - it's a processor that isn't out yet being compared to processors that are out now. One's a mobile, the others desktops, but will mobile X2's be out when the Yonah comes out? And if not, when?
Either way, it's a preview, not a reality today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaNihilist
Hmm pretty funny if I might say so. This processor isn't even out yet and you're making a statement like that?
Today..right this minute, Intel has nothing that even begins to compete with AMDs current offerings.
I'm no fanboy, I build with whatever gives me my performance at the time.
Have been stuck on Intel since the P4 with HT came out.
As soon as the X2s came out, I went back to AMD.
Once again, when Intel actually releases ANYTHING that even begins to compete with AMD, then you can fight back ;) :p
I'm guessing you must think that the Turion is better than the Dothan? Since they compete and as far as the rest of the world knows, the Dothan spanks it in both performance and power usage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almost Famous
There's more markets than just the desktop market you know.
This test is flawed, but given that AMD is using 4x the amount of power that Intel is to do roughly the same amount of work, I'd say Intel is doing much more than just "competing".
Not to an AMD fanboy. AMD releases the X2, which FINALLY, for the first time in history, beats an Intel chip in everything. Suddenly, their entire portfolio is better. Turion beats Pentium M, A64 beats P4 w/HT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soul Assassin
You've got Intel on top of the single core desktop market with HT and completely owns the notebook market with the Pentium M. That doesn't matter to most people on this forum though. They see it, "OMG I CAN OVERCLOCK MY A64 3000+ to 3800+ speeds!!! AMD FOR THE WIN!"
OMG AMD IS SOOOO BOMBR0X0RZZZZZ!@#11!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaNihilist
I think AMD is cool, but people who think AMD is without equal are 100% mental and need to graduate from elementary school. Oh, and quit riding the short bus to school.
I remember getting an Opteron server once. It had all these bells and whistles and I thought "hey this is badass". 2 weeks later I was thinking "hey this is suck ***". I've never seen a crappier Exchange box in my life. I don't know what it is about single-core AMDs, but they are the worst performing multitasking machines I have ever seen. The machine ran Exchange, a mail server AV (GFI) and a fax server (also GFI) and it was 100% unadulterated crap.
So if dual core AMDs are good, more power to them. In the meantime, anyone who tries to talk shite about Intel can eat it. At least they don't run like Pentium 3's. Good for gamers (people who should buy an xbox) and poor for everyone else.
You have to keep in mind though that most people on this forum are gamers and overclockers. All they care about is FPS, and so that's how performance is judged.
Well if they are overclockers, why don't they buy Intel? Just today I saw Eshbach selling a 3.8 Intel that's overclockable to 6ghz. If you're trying to set records, Intel is the way to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaNihilist
Judging by FPS is like judging by MPG. Sure, a Prius will give you 60mpg. A Ferrari will give 8mpg. Which is the better car?
Prius....
Intel is the king of portable processing. I don't care what AMD has to offer cause it doesn't compare to any processor Intel has out (well... atleast not in the portable arena). I love AMD for desktops, but damn people, you can't deny Intel has AMD pinned in portables - which, I'm sorry to say, is atleast as big a market as desktops. Therefore, Intel for teh win in portable entertainment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soul Assassin
but you also have to consider price... unless i win the lottery, i will alwasy buy a prisu over a ferrari.... since im not a rich college student, price/performance is more important to me than efficiency.. thus i stick with amd for the time being...
I'm guessing you're talking about the notebook market??Quote:
Originally Posted by Soul Assassin
If so, you must have read some VERY flawed info.
When compared in a notebook platform for both chips (not a desktop platform using notebook chips), the dothan gets seriously spanked!
http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources...p?id=17&page=8
This is probably the most comprehensive review I've seen with both chips being compared/reviewed in the notebook platform.
I make it 17 to 11, Turion over Dothan. :p ;)
"First, the power ratings between Dothan and Turion cannot be directly compared. A lot of people see Dothan's 27W TDP & Turion ML's 35W TDP and assume that Dothan is automatically lower power. Intel computes thermal design power as 75% of the maximum load on the chip, while AMD's TDP rating is derived from the absolute worst case power dissipation of the chip. Part of the total system power is also incorporated into AMD's TDP, as the memory controller is located on-chip. Intel's memory controller is built into the chipset and thus draws power not calculated as part of Dothan's TDP."
It seems that different review sites record different data, because GamePC has had this review out (http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...urion64&page=7) for about 8 months showing a much different result.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almost Famous
Either way, both sites show that the Dothan dominates in power usage when the laptop is actually being used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soul Assassin
Did you even read the testbed for that review you linked??
That was exactly what I was talking about.
They did that entire review of the processors in a desktop environment, not in notebooks (laptops).
They did the power usage full load and idle on desktop motherboards (along with the rest of the benchmarks)!!!
Your statement "I'm guessing you must think that the Turion is better than the Dothan? Since they compete and as far as the rest of the world knows, the Dothan spanks it in both performance and power usage." is UNTRUE if you're comparing them in the laptop environment, which is where they were meant to compete.
So what exactly is your point??
https://www.sharkyforums.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by Almost Famous
is my point.
90w != mobile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnmcl7