| Sunday, August 17 2008 |
While AMD touted the Bobcat as a definitive competitor to Intel Atom, being a low-power K8 based part with the same design advantages its ancestors had over competing Intel parts when they made up for higher performing alternatives, this part won't make it until next year, enough time for the Atom to gain a stronger foothold in the market. As immediate competition to the Atom, AMD seems to have set an Athlon 64 2000+ single core processor as its ULPC / UMPC processor part. This processor is single core, features a 1.00 GHz clock-speed and 256 KB of L2 cache, which should still give it a performance edge over a 1.50 GHz Atom judging purely by the fact that the Atom isn't based on the Core micro-architecture (yet) and uses an older design.
This processor is based on the Lima core, what's most surprising is that it is found to operate at 8 W at its 1.00 GHz frequency which brings it into the Atom platform's energy domain. The second most surprising point is that this processor will be aided by the powerful AMD 780G core logic (chipset), as opposed to current Atom platforms using a i945G adaptation that has significantly higher thermal envelope as opposed the AMD 780G while being a lot slower (in terms of graphics performance and features). Tom's Hardware conducted a comparison between the two and found that the Athlon-780G combo "knocks-out" Atom-i945G technologically.
The AMD 780G uses a fraction of the power i945G uses and makes up for several features the i945G lacks. The only drawback as of now is that AMD hasn't quite been able to reduce the board footprint of these parts. Despite having double the TDP to that of Atom, at 8 W, the Athlon chip still remained comfortable with passive cooling. This opens up a new round of competition, of that between Athlon and VIA Nano which claims to have higher levels of performance / watt over Intel Atom. The first picture shows the processor itself, the second one shows the processor seated on a AMD 780G based motherboard made by Gigabyte, where the processor is made to be cooled by the stock AMD AM2 cooler with the fan removed, to study the effects of passive cooling on the processor.
Source: Tom's Hardware
This processor is based on the Lima core, what's most surprising is that it is found to operate at 8 W at its 1.00 GHz frequency which brings it into the Atom platform's energy domain. The second most surprising point is that this processor will be aided by the powerful AMD 780G core logic (chipset), as opposed to current Atom platforms using a i945G adaptation that has significantly higher thermal envelope as opposed the AMD 780G while being a lot slower (in terms of graphics performance and features). Tom's Hardware conducted a comparison between the two and found that the Athlon-780G combo "knocks-out" Atom-i945G technologically.
The AMD 780G uses a fraction of the power i945G uses and makes up for several features the i945G lacks. The only drawback as of now is that AMD hasn't quite been able to reduce the board footprint of these parts. Despite having double the TDP to that of Atom, at 8 W, the Athlon chip still remained comfortable with passive cooling. This opens up a new round of competition, of that between Athlon and VIA Nano which claims to have higher levels of performance / watt over Intel Atom. The first picture shows the processor itself, the second one shows the processor seated on a AMD 780G based motherboard made by Gigabyte, where the processor is made to be cooled by the stock AMD AM2 cooler with the fan removed, to study the effects of passive cooling on the processor.
Source: Tom's Hardware
User comments
nice one amd, this is what amd should have done from day 1, where intel is weak amd should av been king. SIMPLE
wtf? 2000+? that's like mid-range socket A speed.
by: hat
wtf? 2000+? that's like mid-range socket A speed.
Compare it to the Atom.
Now that AMD has downgraded its mobile processors, its on.
I doubt Intel will be standing still for NINE MONTHS until AMD are ready to launch their competitive product.
AMD Lima is HUGE
...not good for embedded or pica-ITX.
Just applying Moore's law of doubling CPU power every 18 months, we should expect Lima to beat current Atom by at least 100% in order to be a clear winner in 9 months time.
... I'm not seeing it at all. It's going to be about the same performance as Atom is today. The only time Lima beats Atom is when HT is turned off. In fact, being so late to market and no better in performance and being so much bigger, there is only one descriptive: FAIL
AMD Lima is HUGE
...not good for embedded or pica-ITX.
Just applying Moore's law of doubling CPU power every 18 months, we should expect Lima to beat current Atom by at least 100% in order to be a clear winner in 9 months time.
... I'm not seeing it at all. It's going to be about the same performance as Atom is today. The only time Lima beats Atom is when HT is turned off. In fact, being so late to market and no better in performance and being so much bigger, there is only one descriptive: FAIL
Who the hell is gonna care about 4w?
If this is an immediate competition then it may be enough to knock the sales out of intels Atom. Good strategy AMD!
by: ShadowFoldI shit 4 watts for breakfast :p
Who the hell is gonna care about 4w?
The 2000s not really comparable in the most important field, size. It's only available in mATX form factor so basically pushes it's self out of the market it's trying to get a foothold in. I guess it all depends on who they can get to use this in an ITX or netbook. It's performance per watt puts it above intel and Via but we all know AMDs biggest problems always been marketing.
Ive been doing some research in this area, cheap my low power computing thread in system builders
The intel solution isnt blu ray capable (something one would want in a htpc), and with todays high energy rates one could se how one would want a low powered htpc or download box.
the amd solution has 3 times the sata ports, insanely faster onboards graphics, just to name a few.
The intel solution isnt blu ray capable (something one would want in a htpc), and with todays high energy rates one could se how one would want a low powered htpc or download box.
the amd solution has 3 times the sata ports, insanely faster onboards graphics, just to name a few.
by: [I.R.A]_FBiwith the 780 chipset you would expect that though
Ive been doing some research in this area, cheap my low power computing thread in system builders
The intel solution isnt blu ray capable (something one would want in a htpc), and with todays high energy rates one could se how one would want a low powered htpc or download box.
the amd solution has 3 times the sata ports, insanely faster onboards graphics, just to name a few.
by: lemonadesodaActually, if you actually read the entirety of Tom's review, they came up with a 13% performance advantage for the Athlon in real-world tests (not the synthetics you posted). Factor in the huge advantage in graphics power (and features) offered by the 780G chipset, and I don't see a whole lot of fail. Also, keep in mind that they used a desktop-grade motherboard with a 4-phase power design. The Athlon system proved itself energy efficient as it is, and with a minimalist board design like the Atom uses, power consumption would only drop further. Swap the 780G for a 740G and... Well, I think you get my point.
I doubt Intel will be standing still for NINE MONTHS until AMD are ready to launch their competitive product.
AMD Lima is HUGE
{performance graph}
...not good for embedded or pica-ITX.
Just applying Moore's law of doubling CPU power every 18 months, we should expect Lima to beat current Atom by at least 100% in order to be a clear winner in 9 months time.
{performance graph}
... I'm not seeing it at all. It's going to be about the same performance as Atom is today. The only time Lima beats Atom is when HT is turned off. In fact, being so late to market and no better in performance and being so much bigger, there is only one descriptive: FAIL
The real downside is, as you said, the size of the chip, but I highly doubt that is going to restrict it in the netbook market. UMPCs, maybe, but do we even have full-speed Atom chips in the UMPC market to begin with? No, nor is that a market consumers are particularly interested in anyway. The primary issue as I see it will come from the higher cost of production for AMD, especially given that they will be competing in a low-margin market to begin with. As the Tom's preview pointed out, while I'm sure AMD's yields on K8 chips are doing just fine, what we're not sure of is how many of them can run at the voltage standard this chip is setting, and that may be what ultimately creates a good deal of trouble for the project until its successor arrives...
by: WhiteLotusTrue dat
with the 780 chipset you would expect that though
Tom's states the 2000 system can't decrypt blu ray ether.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Atom-Athlon-Efficient,1997-8.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Atom-Athlon-Efficient,1997-8.html
by: unsmartbut even so the 2000 coupled with the 780 chipset is a no brainer surely
Tom's states the 2000 system can decrypt blu ray ether.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Atom-Athlon-Efficient,1997-8.html
by: unsmartThe intel system cant even get to that resolution much less to think about decoding it
Tom's states the 2000 system can decrypt blu ray ether.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Atom-Athlon-Efficient,1997-8.html
AMD should have released dual-core 8w cpu directly not single core, then no competion atleast some money will go into AMD's pocket.
by: lemonadesoda
I doubt Intel will be standing still for NINE MONTHS until AMD are ready to launch their competitive product.
AMD Lima is HUGE
...not good for embedded or pica-ITX.
Just applying Moore's law of doubling CPU power every 18 months, we should expect Lima to beat current Atom by at least 100% in order to be a clear winner in 9 months time.
... I'm not seeing it at all. It's going to be about the same performance as Atom is today. The only time Lima beats Atom is when HT is turned off. In fact, being so late to market and no better in performance and being so much bigger, there is only one descriptive: FAIL
PCmark AND tom's hardware bwhahahahahah. Everyone knows that BOTH are paid by intel. They have been for years.
It has to be the worst possible synthetic benchmark. (besides the old sysmark that intel owned, but would never admit to).
At 1 GHz I can get an old turion (like 2 yrs old) to run a lot lower (well a lot relatively haha) than .8v, so I wouldn't be worried about any yields. They could've made these years ago.
This 8W isn't jack with the mem controller on there and w/o a chipset devouring power unlike the atom.
They need to take off the heatspreader and spread out those fins along the MB (a nice new and thin cooler design).
This 8W isn't jack with the mem controller on there and w/o a chipset devouring power unlike the atom.
They need to take off the heatspreader and spread out those fins along the MB (a nice new and thin cooler design).
actully if they really wanted to compete id bring AXP back actully. Its smaller, and lower power, imagine a 65nm Barton and what it would actully do. And as said the A64 2000 is about the speed of an AXP 2400 in reality, so id say bring me a Barton AXP 2ghz chip on a 65nm process, and make it imbedded to save time
@DrPepper :roll: That was too funny.
I say this is a good move by AMD, get in everywhere. the netbook is the "it" thing these days so it may pay off for AMD.
I say this is a good move by AMD, get in everywhere. the netbook is the "it" thing these days so it may pay off for AMD.
by: WhiteLotusThe vid has no issue with blu ray,it's the CPU not able to decrypt the data for processing by the GPU. The upside to the 2000 using mATX is there may some software OCing option that could bump it up just enough to play blu ray and then drop it back. It really does make you wonder how much you could down clock some of todays CPUs.
but even so the 2000 coupled with the 780 chipset is a no brainer surely
I can run my X2 4200 @ 1000mhz with 1v but its an EE chip though its Windsor, im sure the Brisbane could go lower
the big thing about this is the chipset - 945g and its onboard video are damn well antiques, and the AMD chipset uses less power than the intel version which evens up the power usage.
The CPU is faster, but uses more power - the chipset is faster, more modern, and better features - yet it uses less power. Overall the AMD system is as clear winner.
The CPU is faster, but uses more power - the chipset is faster, more modern, and better features - yet it uses less power. Overall the AMD system is as clear winner.
Why don't they take the Phenom and clock down each core to like .5ghz? Lol how would that handle?
Edit: Just messing around with AOD and droped the multi to 5x and the fsb to 100 and got it to .5ghz each core. Didn't apply though.
Edit: Just messing around with AOD and droped the multi to 5x and the fsb to 100 and got it to .5ghz each core. Didn't apply though.