Monday, January 12th 2009

Intel to Take on Athlon Neo with New Low-Power Mobile CPUs

Currently leading AMD in every market-segment of CPUs, Intel is planning to take on the Athlon Neo series CPUs, a set of low-wattage CPUs specifically designed for the ultrathin form-factor notebooks. Intel's Athlon Neo competitor would take shape from its current ultra low-voltage (ULV) processors that feature in products such as the Apple Macbook Air.

The processors will use the 22 sq mm packaging. Intel's lineup is expected to include ULV chips with rated TDPs as low as 10W, against AMD's Athlon Neo chips offering rated TDPs as low as 15W. There is no word on the availability of these chips, although with Athlon Neo based products coming out only in Q2 2009, that still leaves Intel at least three months to prepare its new ULV chips.Source: TechConnect Magazine
Add your own comment

18 Comments on Intel to Take on Athlon Neo with New Low-Power Mobile CPUs

#1
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
It shouldn't be that hard for Intel. The Athlon Neo are just desktop Athlon/Semprons underclocked and undervolted to lower the TDP, and put in an embedded package. Intel could do the same with a few Core 2 processors, and outperform AMD in every way easily.
Posted on Reply
#3
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: newtekie1
It shouldn't be that hard for Intel. The Athlon Neo are just desktop Athlon/Semprons underclocked and undervolted to lower the TDP, and put in an embedded package. Intel could do the same with a few Core 2 processors, and outperform AMD in every way easily.
now if they could only get a matching chipset for them that didn't suck 740G smokes anything in the graphics department from intel
Posted on Reply
#4
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
If that is the case I wouldnt think Intel would need to be worried about AMDs chips then. Hell if thats what they really are doing Intels Atom could trounce it.
Posted on Reply
#5
TheGuruStud
by: newtekie1
It shouldn't be that hard for Intel. The Athlon Neo are just desktop Athlon/Semprons underclocked and undervolted to lower the TDP, and put in an embedded package. Intel could do the same with a few Core 2 processors, and outperform AMD in every way easily.
If you have even looked at C2D laptop CPUs, you'd see that low cache and clock severely penalizes them. The old K8s are decently faster.
Posted on Reply
#6
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: cdawall
now if they could only get a matching chipset for them that didn't suck 740G smokes anything in the graphics department from intel
If only AMD was actually using 740G in the Neo platform instead of the 690T and its x1250.:shadedshu

Intel could easily use one of the newer G31 or G41 chipests if they wanted and match the 690T. Or leave it up to the manufacturer, possibly using the nVidia 730 chipset.

by: TheGuruStud
If you have even looked at C2D laptop CPUs, you'd see that low cache and clock severely penalizes them. The old K8s are decently faster.
If you even looked at the C2D laptop CPUs, you would see that they have the same amount of cache as their desktop counterparts(Merom=Conroe=4MB, Penryn=Wolfdale=6MB). Lower clocks are all expected with the mobile game, and clock for clock a moble C2D will still be faster than a mobile K8. The Neo processors aren't exactly clocked high, in fact their clock speeds are kind of a joke. A single core K8 at 1.6GHz isn't exactly a huge powerhouse, and the 1.0GHz single core K8 with 256KB cache is certainly packing a huge punch.:laugh:
Posted on Reply
#7
R_1
Don't know about Intel new mobile CPU, but Intel 945 Chipset is a typical BS. Don't recommend it even to my worst enemy.
Posted on Reply
#8
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: newtekie1
If only AMD was actually using 740G in the Neo platform instead of the 690T and its x1250.:shadedshu

Intel could easily use one of the newer G31 or G41 chipests if they wanted and match the 690T. Or leave it up to the manufacturer, possibly using the nVidia 730 chipset.



If you even looked at the C2D laptop CPUs, you would see that they have the same amount of cache as their desktop counterparts(Merom=Conroe=4MB, Penryn=Wolfdale=6MB). Lower clocks are all expected with the mobile game, and clock for clock a moble C2D will still be faster than a mobile K8. The Neo processors aren't exactly clocked high, in fact their clock speeds are kind of a joke. A single core K8 at 1.6GHz isn't exactly a huge powerhouse, and the 1.0GHz single core K8 with 256KB cache is certainly packing a huge punch.:laugh:
any idea if they plan on switching over to the 740G? i mean i understand starting with 690T to clear out old stock but not as a permanent design plan...
Posted on Reply
#9
Rebo&Zooty
by: newtekie1
If only AMD was actually using 740G in the Neo platform instead of the 690T and its x1250.:shadedshu

Intel could easily use one of the newer G31 or G41 chipests if they wanted and match the 690T. Or leave it up to the manufacturer, possibly using the nVidia 730 chipset.



If you even looked at the C2D laptop CPUs, you would see that they have the same amount of cache as their desktop counterparts(Merom=Conroe=4MB, Penryn=Wolfdale=6MB). Lower clocks are all expected with the mobile game, and clock for clock a moble C2D will still be faster than a mobile K8. The Neo processors aren't exactly clocked high, in fact their clock speeds are kind of a joke. A single core K8 at 1.6GHz isn't exactly a huge powerhouse, and the 1.0GHz single core K8 with 256KB cache is certainly packing a huge punch.:laugh:
um the 740g is the 690 chipset with a few bug fixes.......do some research, and the 1200 onboard is still better then anything intel has, Hell the x300 onboard was better then anything intel has put out.

a little background info on the intel gma chipsets, they are all at the core based on the intel i740, a chipset from the 90's, the new GMA that intel is working on should beable to compete but any current GMA is TOTAL ASS, stop being a IFB and just accpet that AMD may not be "the best" but they arent utter crap like you constantly imply.

Oh and 1-1.6gz k8 is plenty powerfull for most people, Oh and it can play 720p h264 video, I HAVE DONE IT, i have gotten my duron 1.2gz (spitfire not applebread) to play 720p h264 video+5.1ch aac audio studder free, trick=coreavc with deblocking dissabled(not needed at those resolutions)
oh and the duron has 768mb of pc133 ram ;)
Posted on Reply
#10
TheGuruStud
by: newtekie1
If only AMD was actually using 740G in the Neo platform instead of the 690T and its x1250.:shadedshu

Intel could easily use one of the newer G31 or G41 chipests if they wanted and match the 690T. Or leave it up to the manufacturer, possibly using the nVidia 730 chipset.



If you even looked at the C2D laptop CPUs, you would see that they have the same amount of cache as their desktop counterparts(Merom=Conroe=4MB, Penryn=Wolfdale=6MB). Lower clocks are all expected with the mobile game, and clock for clock a moble C2D will still be faster than a mobile K8. The Neo processors aren't exactly clocked high, in fact their clock speeds are kind of a joke. A single core K8 at 1.6GHz isn't exactly a huge powerhouse, and the 1.0GHz single core K8 with 256KB cache is certainly packing a huge punch.:laugh:
Those CPUs are not that budget/mainstream and obviously not what I'm talking about. Quit spinning shit like intel does. Most of the laptops sold are the cut down 2 MB cache ones and even some 1 MB.

And how much cache are these ULV chips going to have? 2 if they're lucky. Do you have some more BS to try to feed me.

edit: I see they actually upgraded the C2D to 3 MB cache, now. Still pricey for a budget laptop, though (2 MB ones are cheap). I saw tons of the pentium branded ones with 1 MB, what a joke.
Posted on Reply
#11
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Rebo&Zooty
um the 740g is the 690 chipset with a few bug fixes.......do some research, and the 1200 onboard is still better then anything intel has, Hell the x300 onboard was better then anything intel has put out.

a little background info on the intel gma chipsets, they are all at the core based on the intel i740, a chipset from the 90's, the new GMA that intel is working on should beable to compete but any current GMA is TOTAL ASS, stop being a IFB and just accpet that AMD may not be "the best" but they arent utter crap like you constantly imply.

Oh and 1-1.6gz k8 is plenty powerfull for most people, Oh and it can play 720p h264 video, I HAVE DONE IT, i have gotten my duron 1.2gz (spitfire not applebread) to play 720p h264 video+5.1ch aac audio studder free, trick=coreavc with deblocking dissabled(not needed at those resolutions)
oh and the duron has 768mb of pc133 ram ;)
I will agree that Intels onboard graphics are not as good as AMDs. However, they are good enough. Your defense for AMD's offering is that it is "good enough" yet Intel's graphics solution is "good enough", so that is just as good of a defense. And despite that, I have already mentioned that the better solution to an Intel chipset would be an nVidia, as their onboard destroys Intel's with the same power and heat envolope.

I never imply that AMD is total crap. You just hear it that way because you are an AMD fanboy. Whenver anyone even suggests that Intel might be equal to AMD, you take it as them saying AMD is crap. Sorry, but that isn't how it works. We don't all have to bow down to AMD as a god, and anyone that doesn't bow isn't an Intel Fanboy.

Oh, and I never said the K8 wouldn't be enough. I just said that Intel could do the same thing with a low clocked C2D based processor if they wanted a quick way to compete with AMD. My 1.6GHz Atom and GMA950 is enough to play 720p H.264 video... These low powered processors don't have to be power houses, which is why a 1.6GHz K8 is more than enough.

by: TheGuruStud
Those CPUs are not that budget/mainstream and obviously not what I'm talking about. Quit spinning shit like intel does. Most of the laptops sold are the cut down 2 MB cache ones and even some 1 MB.

And how much cache are these ULV chips going to have? 2 if they're lucky. Do you have some more BS to try to feed me.

edit: I see they actually upgraded the C2D to 3 MB cache, now. Still pricey for a budget laptop, though (2 MB ones are cheap). I saw tons of the pentium branded ones with 1 MB, what a joke.
Yes, I know it is such a surprise to you that lower priced processors have cut down amounts of cache. A C2D w/ 2MB still outperforms a K8 w/ 512KB, and the C2D with 1MB outperforms the K8 w/ 256KB. And with only a single core, the L2 cache becomes even less important as it is no longer shared with a second core.

The laptop prices themselve might be high, but that doesn't reflect the prices of the processors. The manufactures of the laptops decide what the laptops will sell for. I can find K8 based notebooks right up there with the high end C2D based notebooks.
Posted on Reply
#12
TheGuruStud
by: newtekie1
Yes, I know it is such a surprise to you that lower priced processors have cut down amounts of cache. A C2D w/ 2MB still outperforms a K8 w/ 512KB, and the C2D with 1MB outperforms the K8 w/ 256KB. And with only a single core, the L2 cache becomes even less important as it is no longer shared with a second core.
:wtf:

See, here's the problem. We're talking about ULV, not high performance chips.
:shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#13
R_1
Remember, the goal is "MAC Air for rest of us". If Intel is to be the winer it have to beat Nvidia 9300 mGPU. I simply can't imagine such thing to happen. All Intel mGPUs are total crap and they are 3 chip solution.
Posted on Reply
#14
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: newtekie1
I will agree that Intels onboard graphics are not as good as AMDs. However, they are good enough. Your defense for AMD's offering is that it is "good enough" yet Intel's graphics solution is "good enough", so that is just as good of a defense. And despite that, I have already mentioned that the better solution to an Intel chipset would be an nVidia, as their onboard destroys Intel's with the same power and heat envolope.

I never imply that AMD is total crap. You just hear it that way because you are an AMD fanboy. Whenver anyone even suggests that Intel might be equal to AMD, you take it as them saying AMD is crap. Sorry, but that isn't how it works. We don't all have to bow down to AMD as a god, and anyone that doesn't bow isn't an Intel Fanboy.

Oh, and I never said the K8 wouldn't be enough. I just said that Intel could do the same thing with a low clocked C2D based processor if they wanted a quick way to compete with AMD. My 1.6GHz Atom and GMA950 is enough to play 720p H.264 video... These low powered processors don't have to be power houses, which is why a 1.6GHz K8 is more than enough.
i can vouch for this as my atom has no issues running 720p a 1.6ghz K8 smokes the atom in every task this has already been proven on XS and uses a very similar heat envelope as the atom
Posted on Reply
#15
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: TheGuruStud
:wtf:

See, here's the problem. We're talking about ULV, not high performance chips.
:shadedshu
Correct, my statement applies to ULV processors. Lower the clock speed, lower the voltage. Your argument seems to imply that a K8 at 1.6GHz would outperform a Core 2 at the same clock speed. It is pretty well know that a Core 2 should be able to achieve this clock speed at a lower voltage than the K8, and clock for clock a Core 2 is faster. So I guess I am really just confused about your point.:laugh:

by: R_1
Remember, the goal is "MAC Air for rest of us". If Intel is to be the winer it have to beat Nvidia 9300 mGPU. I simply can't imagine such thing to happen. All Intel mGPUs are total crap and they are 3 chip solution.
Intel doesn't have to make the chipset, there is no reason a manufacturer couldn't use the nVidia chipset, infact that would be the ideal solution.
Posted on Reply
#16
Rebo&Zooty
by: newtekie1
I will agree that Intels onboard graphics are not as good as AMDs. However, they are good enough. Your defense for AMD's offering is that it is "good enough" yet Intel's graphics solution is "good enough", so that is just as good of a defense. And despite that, I have already mentioned that the better solution to an Intel chipset would be an nVidia, as their onboard destroys Intel's with the same power and heat envolope.
good enough for what? watching prOn on redtube and some document/spredsheet work?

sure as hell cant game on them, and sure as hell arent gonna choose them for a serious media playback system.....
I never imply that AMD is total crap.
sure you do, anything AMD puts out, nvidia or intel is better, read ur own posts........

Your posts alwase COME OFF as saying amd sucks and that everybody else is a better option, just admit you dont like amd and that you do like intel and nvidia.
Posted on Reply
#17
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Rebo&Zooty
good enough for what? watching prOn on redtube and some document/spredsheet work?

sure as hell cant game on them, and sure as hell arent gonna choose them for a serious media playback system.....
Serious media playback system and gaming? With a single core Sempron...:laugh:

It will play 1080p content, it is good enough.

by: Rebo&Zooty
sure you do, anything AMD puts out, nvidia or intel is better, read ur own posts........

Your posts alwase COME OFF as saying amd sucks and that everybody else is a better option, just admit you dont like amd and that you do like intel and nvidia.
See, here is the key. I don't say that Intel or nVidia is better. I say they are equal, you being an AMD fanboy, read that as me implying that AMD is crap. If we don't say AMD is the best, and no one else can compete, and bow down to the AMD God, we must be Intel/nVidia fanboys and bashing AMD.:shadedshu Perhaps you are the one that should be reading your own post.
Posted on Reply
#18
R_1
by: newtekie1

It is pretty well know that a Core 2 should be able to achieve this clock speed at a lower voltage than the K8, and clock for clock a Core 2 is faster.
I have different personal experience with desktop C2D. Mine was 1.87GHz ORTOS stable at 1.00V. It is funny that even on this low voltage , it's power management is still working and reduces voltage even further to 0.94V at 1.6 GHz. It's original 65 Watt TDP is measured at 1.23V /1.86GHz. A friend of mine had Athlon-LE on 1.80 GHz ORTOS stable at 0.8V. At these reduced voltage/speed TDP is around 30 Watt - a typical mobile CPU Consumption.
Basically a Intel mobile CPU is an ordinary one picked form the center of a silicon wafer. AMD has the same approach, but its SOI technology is more power efficient at low voltage.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment