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.
Availability
The 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

#26
Mussels
Freshwater Moderator
cdawallactually 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:
why is it needed on an unlocked chip? he found out the CPU's max speeds (well ok, he didnt try hard) without worrying about ram or mobo limitations. you've never used an unlocked chip before?
Posted on Reply
#27
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Musselswhy is it needed on an unlocked chip? he found out the CPU's max speeds (well ok, he didnt try hard) without worrying about ram or mobo limitations. you've never used an unlocked chip before?
i have and first you push the multi then you push the bus speeds. thats how it works cause your going to run out of multis pretty quick. you need to push that before you can even attempt to say you have the chip maxed out. hence why the 5000BE WRs are not set @ 200*whatever but 258*17 wow he pushed both? why would you leave one method of oc'ing completely untouched :shadedshu


you always push bus speeds unlocked chip or not
Posted on Reply
#28
[I.R.A]_FBi
cdawallyou always push bus speeds unlocked chip or not
i cosign that. makes absolutely no sense
Posted on Reply
#29
Mussels
Freshwater Moderator
what if the guy had one day to do the review - i used to review so maybe its obvious to me. If you have multis and FSB, yes FSB will have higher performance... but you will find the max area of the CPU from multis alone.
Posted on Reply
#30
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Musselswhat if the guy had one day to do the review - i used to review so maybe its obvious to me. If you have multis and FSB, yes FSB will have higher performance... but you will find the max area of the CPU from multis alone.
no no you wont thats why the bus speeds is adjustable hell you wont even get a ballpark estimate of a chips max from multis alone.
Posted on Reply
#31
Grings
Phenoms just dont overclock via fsb very well at all, all the pre release ones that hit 3ghz only did so via multiplier
Posted on Reply
#32
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
GringsPhenoms just dont overclock via fsb very well at all, all the pre release ones that hit 3ghz only did so via multiplier
they can still hit a 230 bus speed and 230*15 is way more than 200*15 :p
Posted on Reply
#33
ryboto
phanbueyyou 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... 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).
How else should they market this? It's a low power quad core system for maybe a low power HTPC, or desktop. They can claim this all they want, because technically that Xeon isn't a desktop processor, and it isn't monolithic like the Phenom die, it's 2xC2D. I like the option to buy a cheap quad, and bump it up to speed, or, keep it at stock and undervolt it, probably get it down below 50W load at the stock 1.8ghz. It's not a "marketing scam" it's positive spin, and they're technically correct in their claims.
Posted on Reply
#34
phanbuey
rybotoThey can claim this all they want, because technically that Xeon isn't a desktop processor, and it isn't monolithic like the Phenom die, it's 2xC2D.
Firstly, 4 cores is 4 cores... you can count them 1,2,3,4! all there.. hence "quad core." No not a "monolithic" quad core, but the 'monolithic' ones are much slower and less effective performance/watt ATM, so personally i dont see the benefit of having a "true" quad core (show me one positive).

Be that as it may, claiming that you "Extend(ed) Energy-Efficient Processing Leadership with World’s First 65-Watt Quad-Core Desktop Processor" is misleading.

Same as Intel going "WE HAVE BROKEN PROCESSOR SPEED RECORD WITH THE FASTEST FREQUENCY PROCESSOR, THE 3.6GHz POOPIUM 4!!!" well, yes... but no.

Notice how Intel never said anything about performance/HZ and now AMD never said anything about performance/watt. That's why I thought tkpenalty's first post was dead on.

You can get one, im not knocking the product... its good to find new niches in the same market, thats awesome. But putting so much spin on the product, claiming that it took some sort of leadership, and that its somehow earth-shattering quad core is a bit of smoke and mirrors. Its just bad form because theyre trying to make more money through misdirection.

If you dont think so, then i can sell you "THE FASTEST BICYCLE IN THE WORLD, FASTER THAN ALL OTHER BICYCLES!!!" for $500.
Posted on Reply
#35
ryboto
phanbueyFirstly, 4 cores is 4 cores... you can count them 1,2,3,4! all there.. hence "quad core." No not a "monolithic" quad core, but the 'monolithic' ones are much slower and less effective performance/watt ATM, so personally i dont see the benefit of having a "true" quad core (show me one positive).

You can get one, im not knocking the product... its good to find new niches in the same market, thats awesome. But putting so much spin on the product, claiming that it took some sort of leadership, and that its somehow earth-shattering quad core is a bit of smoke and mirrors. Its just bad form because theyre trying to make more money through misdirection.

If you dont think so, then i can sell you "THE FASTEST BICYCLE IN THE WORLD, FASTER THAN ALL OTHER BICYCLES!!!" for $500.
Monolithic doesn't have to mean slower, just because K10 isn't a huge leap doesn't mean 4 cores on 1 die is inherently slower. But, like I said, they're not going to NOT put positive spin on it. They'll use technicalities like that. You and I and the rest of the tech forum users know 4 cores makes a quad core, but AMD will use there monolithic design as a marketing advantage, and I'm sick of people getting upset when they do. Every company in the history of business will speak positively about their products. They'll say anything and everything that walks the line between truth and lies just to get sales. It's not misdirection, it's slightly misleading, because it isn't the first quad core processor to hit below 65W, but it is the first available for the desktop to be rated 65W. I'm not defending their spin, I'm accepting it and moving on. But people still dwell on it as if it never happens!
Posted on Reply
#36
Mussels
Freshwater Moderator
"AMD turns up the heat on intel with words first 200W quad core CPU!"

Due to its monolithic* design, this CPU has centuries of development behind it!




*CPU was carved by hand from centuries old monolith.
Posted on Reply
#37
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
oh and for all of you wondering if this will oc well its a B2
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 8th, 2024 21:27 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts