Sunday, August 17th 2008

AMD Athlon 64 2000+ for Immediate Competition with Intel Atom

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
Add your own comment

75 Comments on AMD Athlon 64 2000+ for Immediate Competition with Intel Atom

#1
Mussels
Moderprator
zaqwsx said:
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.
i think the concern there is expense, and that a quad would be wasted on a ULPC - dont forget that a quad at 500MHz would be next to useless for apps that cant utilise more than one core.
Posted on Reply
#2
zaqwsx
Mussels said:
i think the concern there is expense, and that a quad would be wasted on a ULPC - dont forget that a quad at 500MHz would be next to useless for apps that cant utilise more than one core.
Your right but it would be funny to see!
Posted on Reply
#3
Mussels
Moderprator
zaqwsx said:
Your right but it would be funny to see!
lol i actually run my quads at 200x6 (1.2GHz 1.15v) sometimes when i know i'll just be watching media and not gaming. barely makes a difference to windows/2D use, and some games barely even change.
Posted on Reply
#4
PP Mguire
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
AXPs run hot as hell though. What ever happend to Nvidias Targa (sp)? That thing looked to be teh p00nage.
Posted on Reply
#5
candle_86
why can't intel die shrink the i945G though?
Posted on Reply
#6
candle_86
PP Mguire said:
AXPs run hot as hell though. What ever happend to Nvidias Targa (sp)? That thing looked to be teh p00nage.
yes it did, but the volts where 1.65 and 130nm. Now voltage goes down with die size, the A64 is more complex than AXP is for one thing, while being very similar to AXP with IMC. Now then shrink the Barton from 130nm to 65nm. That drops the die size and voltage alot, and id bet an XP 3000 @ 65nm would run with about .07V be insanely small also, its only 51.3m transistors remember
Posted on Reply
#8
TheGuruStud
[I.R.A]_FBi said:
0.7 volts you mean?
No, the chip is bond, athlon bond 0.07








Is that a horrible joke or what :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#9
candle_86
TheGuruStud said:
No, the chip is bond, athlon bond 0.07








Is that a horrible joke or what :laugh:
I sig that
Posted on Reply
#11
candle_86
In truth im glad to see AMD fighting back, the new Deneb looks great, and this could hurt ATOM badly. Now if they would advertise it they would have a chance of retaking the market
Posted on Reply
#13
DarkMatter
lemonadesoda said:
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
BOBCAT is going to be released next year, AND because of that AMD has released this Lima NOW to compete until Bobcat is ready.

Judging by the benches at Tom's there's only one descriptive IMO: epic WIN.
Posted on Reply
#14
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
This is not a big deal, and not any real achievement by AMD. Intel could release a 1GHz Celeron 400 and it would achieve the same thing AMD has done here. This isn't going to compete with Atom, it is way to big to do it.

The thing about Atom is it's size, it has a tiny die, and a very tiny footprint. The Atom processor is smaller than a Penny, this is a standard AM2 processor, there is a huge difference.
Posted on Reply
#15
DarkMatter
I'm not so sure about that: 1.2 Ghz Celeron consumes a lot more than the Atom and this 2000+. 200 mhz won't make a big difference. And Intel will not release a Celeron that would compete with Atom and the problem with Atom is the platform anyway. It is too big and power hungry (the whole platform) to have an edge in UMPCs and ULPCs, and too underpowered for use it in desktop low-cost PCs. They are using it anyway, but I don't see the point except for marketing purposes. Overall Celeron based Eee was better than the new one IMO.

TBH I don't know what Intel was thinking when they designed the Atom. Designing a chip like Atom just to put it to waste by pairing it up with that chipset...

EDIT: Oh and the size of the CPU means nothing until you have a chipset that can fit in really small devices. RIght now none can be used into them, that's the point.
Posted on Reply
#16
Mussels
Moderprator
atoms problem is entirely the chipset, i agree with you darkmatter.
Posted on Reply
#17
xfire
Any one considering the price?
The eeepc with its Atom processor(1000H) costs 29,000INR compared to a compaq with a dual core AMD 1.9 ghz(the newer puma) and an Nvidia 8200 Graphics card and 160Gb hdd for 30,000INR. Even the Dell vostro's are less expensive.
Posted on Reply
#18
[I.R.A]_FBi
yous getting robbed .. you can get an atom board for less tahn an A64 2000+
Posted on Reply
#21
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
[I.R.A]_FBi said:
True dat
You can game on a ULPC :)
Posted on Reply
#22
tkpenalty
AMD are making me cry by holding its release back. God damn it the 4850e + 780G was impressive, now that amount of power for a UMPC would be awesome! (As well as sub-desktop computers...these systems have more than enough power for internet cafes, etc).
Posted on Reply
#23
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
[I.R.A]_FBi said:
amd, advertise? yeh right!
askvishy.com apparently they spent lots of money in India. Indian buyers seem to love AMD and adore Vishy
Posted on Reply
#25
Hayder_Master
i see all tests , amd 64+ below intel away , that's good for amd laptop's i hope see same in desktop
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment