Thursday, March 27th 2008

AMD Extends Energy-Efficient Processing Leadership with World’s First 65W Processor

AMD today announced the availability of the world’s first energy-efficient desktop quad-core processor, providing customers with a cool and quiet digital media workhorse. With AMD Phenom X4 9100e quad-core processors, digital media enthusiasts and performance-hungry users can experience the powerful computing capabilities of a true multi-core architecture with a processor operating at a maximum of 65–watts.

By coupling an AMD Phenom X4 9100e with an AMD 780 series chipset, AMD offers an efficient PC platform that plays Blu-ray movies and delivers a rich computing experience for casual gamers and multimedia enthusiasts. The processor gives consumers extensive multi-tasking capabilities like creating digital content while checking and writing e-mails and simultaneously downloading music files off the Web. AMD Phenom X4 9100e and AMD 780 series based PCs are ideal for consumers and business customers looking for cool, quiet, energy-efficient PCs.

“By infusing energy–conscious design into everything related to AMD — facilities, products and alliances — AMD has emerged as a leader in establishing eco-friendly practices. The AMD Phenom X4 9100e processor is our latest endeavor to help customers reduce energy consumption and environmental impact,” said Greg White, corporate vice president and general manager, desktop and embedded division, AMD. “Energy-efficient processors from AMD not only enable differentiated solutions but are extremely conducive to smaller and sleeker form factors like Home Theater PCs that take up less space and operate quietly. PCs such as this can also help reduce energy consumption and the associated environmental impacts of traditional PC form factors.”

“Consumers and businesses alike are requesting smaller, more elegant PCs that aesthetically complement home and office environments, offer lower noise for a better computing experience, and deliver the same performance of larger systems,” said Jim McGregor, research director and principal analyst, In-Stat. “Energy efficient desktop processors like the AMD Phenom X4 9100e offer greater performance-per-watt over traditional desktop CPUs while addressing the growing concerns of end-users for more energy efficient and eco-friendly products.”

The AMD Phenom X4 9100e processor embodies a series of AMD energy-efficient innovations, including:
  • Cool’n’Quiet 2.0 technology, the next generation of AMD’s award-winning power saving technology;
  • AMD CoolCore technology, which helps users achieve more efficient performance by dynamically activating or turning off parts of the processor as needed;
  • Independent Dynamic Core Technology, which allows a fully independent frequency control per processor core that can reduce processor energy consumption by adjusting power usage according to core utilization;
  • Dual Dynamic Power Management, which enables a split power plane design, allowing independent voltage planes for processor and memory controller for greater control over performance based on system demands;
  • AMD Wideband Frequency Control, for simplified performance state transitions to help reduce power consumption, latency and software overhead of performance states changes; and
  • Multi-Point Thermal Control, multiple sensors across processor silicon designed to reduce speed and heat when temperature exceeds pre-defined limits.
AvailabilityThe AMD Phenom X4 9100e processor is expected to be available from leading OEMs and System Builders. For processor pricing details, please visit http://www.amd.com/pricing.Source: AMD
Add your own comment

37 Comments on AMD Extends Energy-Efficient Processing Leadership with World’s First 65W Processor

#1
Mussels
Moderprator
might want to fix the title - 65W CPU's are not new.. only the quads.

They have to be desperate, every one of these CPU things mentions what it can do with the new boards integrated video... if onboard video is the most exciting thing AMD have, they're in trouble.
Posted on Reply
#2
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
The title should be "world's first quad core 65W processors"

Nice, if only they churn out dual-socket AM2+ boards, it will fit into the power / thermal envelope of desktop users and for ~$500 I can run two quad-core processors for 130W (CPU power).
Posted on Reply
#3
phanbuey
except intel has like a 65W proc for laptops, do they not? OH WAIT NO, a 45WATT quad in 3Q08

http://www.techpowerup.com/index.php?55152

bah AMD marketing is almost annoying, I cant wait till their new phenoms come out and actually perform well so we can stop being haunted by bad marketing trying to differentiate variants of a mediocre processor.

65W phenom!!! We tried to make a laptop quad-core, aaaand here is what we did!!! performance per watt (sort of)! Great for people that like to use their computer! Look! A MOTHERBOARD!
Posted on Reply
#4
Dark_Webster
Laptop Processors are one thing, Desktop Processors are another.

Correct me if I'm wrong. A Q6600(previous-gen) is 65nm yet it has 130 watts of dissipated power right??

If Less Watts := Less Heat then overclocker:=happy;

Still, I hope AMD could get some lift off and do some healthy competition with Intel.
Posted on Reply
#5
ShadowFold
Think the 9100e would overclock better?
Posted on Reply
#6
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
EE chips from AMD are not known to oc better infact many of them oc worse
Posted on Reply
#7
Dark_Webster
Perhaps, who knows... I think it will become more stable with less heat :)

The EE's would overclock better, but it may not be true.
Posted on Reply
#8
phanbuey
you would think that, but they dont in reality.

NO a q6600 is 95W (EDIT), but it uses less power than a similarly clocked phenom. Assuming that this phenom at 65W is just a clocked down version of the same thing... then this is really a pretty bad marketing scam.

Here you go... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117158

Intel Xeon L5320 Clovertown 1.86GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 771 50W Quad-Core Processor.

"AMD Extends Energy-Efficient Processing Leadership with World’s First 65W Processor" when intel has had a 50W Quad for some time (non-mobile).
Posted on Reply
#9
tkpenalty
I like how AMD is doing the same thing Intel did to them before.
Posted on Reply
#10
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
I didnt see a price for this but the MSRP of the 9850 BE is 237 which is cheaper than the MSRP for the 9600 BE with is 257. Assuming current newegg prices, the 9600 BE is 219.99 and if they follow AMDS somewhat guided price line, the 9850 could lower than that. Also, I didnt see the X3 pricing on there. Im not sure what phenom line Im getting, the new 9850 (be stepping) or the X3s...ahhh decisions decisions.
Posted on Reply
#11
phanbuey
by: tkpenalty
I like how AMD is doing the same thing Intel did to them before.
:laugh: right? I wonder if intel is going to start whining like AMD did.
Posted on Reply
#12
[I.R.A]_FBi
but AMD calculates heat dissipation witha different (more inefficient) formulate so they might be just as hot or hotter ...
Posted on Reply
#13
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: phanbuey
:laugh: right? I wonder if intel is going to start whining like AMD did.
Indeed. Though the Clovertown is not a desktop quad-core processor...maybe that's what AMD is rubbing its hands on. :laugh: yes, bad marketing.
Posted on Reply
#14
lemonadesoda
Down with AMD marketing department. What spin.

If we all know this is such dreadful spin, why are TPU newsposters copying this rubbish verbatim? It only helps to perpetuate the spin... and ALSO indicates that the newsposters are not exercising any form of editorial oversight. Which, IMO, is poor a poor show.

A job title "news editor" needs to change to "news copy+paster"
Posted on Reply
#15
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: WarEagleAU
I didnt see a price for this but the MSRP of the 9850 BE is 237 which is cheaper than the MSRP for the 9600 BE with is 257. Assuming current newegg prices, the 9600 BE is 219.99 and if they follow AMDS somewhat guided price line, the 9850 could lower than that. Also, I didnt see the X3 pricing on there. Im not sure what phenom line Im getting, the new 9850 (be stepping) or the X3s...ahhh decisions decisions.
the 9850 might end up being the saving grace 2.5ghz and the new steeping if it oc's well i will be looking at it....
Posted on Reply
#17
a111087
by: phanbuey
except intel has like a 65W proc for laptops, do they not? OH WAIT NO, a 45WATT quad in 3Q08

http://www.techpowerup.com/index.php?55152

bah AMD marketing is almost annoying, I cant wait till their new phenoms come out and actually perform well so we can stop being haunted by bad marketing trying to differentiate variants of a mediocre processor.

65W phenom!!! We tried to make a laptop quad-core, aaaand here is what we did!!! performance per watt (sort of)! Great for people that like to use their computer! Look! A MOTHERBOARD!
intel calculates their energy requirements differently, in actuality Intel cpu require more than stated
Posted on Reply
#18
Winterwind
phenom may be more power hungry than intel offerings but amd chipset is cooler than intel's.
Posted on Reply
#19
Mussels
Moderprator
one thing people are getting confused over here: Intel calculate TDP wattages (95W) for the Q6600. All four cores at load is 130W.

AMD didnt used to do that, but for phenom they DO - and AMD's TDP is lower than intels TDP. I remember a test that proved a phenom with a lower TDP than a Q6600 actually used more power.
Posted on Reply
#20
Fhgwghads
Once again, AMD places a strong foothold in the mediocre market. What happened to AMD making processors to compete with the big boys?They need to get back to what they do best, making something as fast as the competitor but alot cheaper, not slower and kinda cheaper, oh well.
Posted on Reply
#21
brian.ca
by: lemonadesoda
Down with AMD marketing department. What spin.

If we all know this is such dreadful spin, why are TPU newsposters copying this rubbish verbatim? It only helps to perpetuate the spin... and ALSO indicates that the newsposters are not exercising any form of editorial oversight. Which, IMO, is poor a poor show.

A job title "news editor" needs to change to "news copy+paster"
Do the posters actually write or significantly edit any of the usual news posts? I thought besides the occasional short afterthought just about all news posts here were copy and paste jobs from other sites?

And of course this one is obviously biased towards AMD, it's taken directly from their website... it's the same with any post that's a press release direct from any company. I think the readers are supposed to realize the source and use their own heads. If you ever read an article that uses the word leadership early on do realize that a good chunk of it will be spin and take it with a grain of salt. If you're not sure scroll down and check the listed source.
Posted on Reply
#22
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: btarunr
Think again: http://techreport.com/articles.x/14424/1 :cool:
well i for one see 1 HUGE issue with that review does anyone else here see it? this is an easy one to anyone who knows how to OC any cpu they seem to have missed one major part


Posted on Reply
#23
a111087
that review is so biased :D
"Our Bioshock results are an object lesson in CPU performance in today's games: most of the time, you don't need an especially fast CPU in order to get acceptable performance. Even at this modest display resolution, our graphics card (the very fast GeForce 8800 GTX) or some other constraint looks to be limiting frame rates. That said, the new Phenoms rank in the upper echelon of all of the processors we tested."

You can almost hear the author yelling: "NO!!! It can't be!"
Posted on Reply
#24
Mussels
Moderprator
by: cdawall
well i for one see 1 HUGE issue with that review does anyone else here see it? this is an easy one to anyone who knows how to OC any cpu they seem to have missed one major part



if you're talking voltage, CPUZ just might not be reading it right.

from the charts it seems AMD is still behind clock for clock... YES, its 3GHz < 200USD where intel costs a lot more for a quad there, compared to say... intels 9300 at its current 350-$400 pricing.
However, if you compare it to an overclocked intel (anything with a multi above 8.0) then intel is going to own it.
AMD has made the right choice with the low prices, i just hope these things OC somewhat decently (especially the unlocked multi ones)

Intels 65nm are faster clock vs clock, and the 45's only widen the lead... so MHz and price are what matters.
Posted on Reply
#25
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: Mussels
if you're talking voltage, CPUZ just might not be reading it right.

from the charts it seems AMD is still behind clock for clock... YES, its 3GHz < 200USD where intel costs a lot more for a quad there, compared to say... intels 9300 at its current 350-$400 pricing.
However, if you compare it to an overclocked intel (anything with a multi above 8.0) then intel is going to own it.
AMD has made the right choice with the low prices, i just hope these things OC somewhat decently (especially the unlocked multi ones)

Intels 65nm are faster clock vs clock, and the 45's only widen the lead... so MHz and price are what matters.
actually i was going on the fact that he only changed the multi and did NOTHING with the bus speeds wtf? thats the most common way of oc'ing and he completely left it out? :wtf:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment