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
btarunr said:
askvishy.com apparently they spent lots of money in India. Indian buyers seem to love AMD and adore Vishy
i asked the indians here and they say they've never heard of it
Posted on Reply
#2
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Mussels said:
i asked the indians here and they say they've never heard of it
What are they, tourists? Immigrants? AMD is quite a brand here. Storekeepers "recommend" AMD + GeForce IGP boards over Intel + Intel IGP.
Posted on Reply
#3
PP Mguire
Maybe they are just like, total n00bs? *in Jeremy voice*
Posted on Reply
#4
Mussels
Moderprator
btarunr said:
What are they, tourists? Immigrants? AMD is quite a brand here. Storekeepers "recommend" AMD + GeForce IGP boards over Intel + Intel IGP.
theres just two indians who live where i'm staying right now, and their friends. They cook really bad tasting curry all the time :P

I guess they've been in aus for a few years now, is this vishy thing new?
Posted on Reply
#5
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Mussels said:
theres just two indians who live where i'm staying right now, and their friends. They cook really bad tasting curry all the time :P

I guess they've been in aus for a few years now, is this vishy thing new?
Vishy's career is pretty old. Ask your friends about him, they'll know - Vishwanathan Anand (Chess Grandmaster) - but this ad campaign isn't, it's a little over 4 months old.
Posted on Reply
#6
xfire
Most people in India say AMD heats up a lot.
AMD does advertise decently enough much more than what Intel does over here. They even have
"Technology partner AMD" at the end of some of the popular TV serials.
edit-As far as the cooking goes, men don't start learning cooking here until they have to start living by themselves. The mother generally cooks.
Posted on Reply
#7
Hayder_Master
anyone hear about heat weather in iraq , iraq is no1 in temperature so im from iraq and i use amd and my friends use intel , my cpu have a little temp from intel im rest it as real test use my amd6000 and intel pantium D with 2m cash booth of them with stock fan and im turn off amd cool in quit, when room temp are 50c sure this is weather temp without AC in room , so in this test idle amd cpu temp read 63c with full load 74c , intel idle temp read 67c and full load im turn off pc when become 78c
Posted on Reply
#8
xfire
You need to see what speed your fan is running at. Maybe you could try under clocking your CPU.
Pentium D heat up more AFAIK but a C2D and C2Q won't heat up as much as a x2 but the puma seems to be pretty cool.
I saw two laptops side by side in an exhibition which were probably on all day, One was a compaq and the other HP. The Hp with a C2D(T5850 I think) was running Vista with all drivers installed while the compaq a QL-60 running XP with no drivers. The HP was burning hot to touch even in the palm rest area while the compaq was warm even at the bottom.
Posted on Reply
#9
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
btarunr said:
You can game on a ULPC :)
you can pretty much game on ANY pc - so long as it aint from the age where Pentium DX's & SX's with their Windows 3.1 counter parts walked the earth (& if we are talking about the DX & SX then we must choose another game)

A great game that ive had working on almost ANY machine that ive ever touched - Unreal Tournament - software mode anyone???

even if you install it to play by yourself & not on a LAN - its still a good few hours of wreckless stupidity so long as u have tons of mods & maps to burn through.

probably the lowest spec machine ive come across which ive games on is a really really really really really really supremely really really old knakerd IBM thinkpad - I think it was running a PII at 166-200Mhz with 8mb RAM & a build in Trident (II???) 2mb G.card

running a ton of skin mods loads of extra maps & a Dennis Leary sound mod....

I had a fun 12hr shift at work that day lol - I even had a mate pop in & take have a go on the laptop. but the only bad thing was the cooling vents & cooling fan was all clogged up with dust so I didnt need any central heating turned on.

I lacked the tools & the time to take the laptop apart but then again it wasnt my laptop to begin with :toast::toast::toast::toast:
Posted on Reply
#10
xfire
Your forgetting counter strike.
Posted on Reply
#12
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
xfire said:
Your forgetting counter strike.
not really - im not making a list of ALL the games you can run in 'software mode' I just happend to mention U.T because its one of the games i ALWAYS seem to be carrying around a on 4gb USB stick.

but yeah if we were to start someplace - Lemmings - Worms - Quake - Strike (I loved that game on my DX II)

omg...quake - damn i had fun running that across the college network along with U.T & having campus Vs. campus tournaments (even though we were told we werent allowed to run games across the network) but for both U.T & Quake i was either 1st or 2nd place out of 10+ people. then i would start getting hungry & my scores would plummet... :confused:


its happend at LAN parties too where id be godlike one moment then fall 3 places because im hungry :eek::eek:

never game on an empty stomach
Posted on Reply
#13
PP Mguire
I actualy have that same problem myself.
Makes me remember the days of gaming UT04 in high school.
Posted on Reply
#14
[I.R.A]_FBi
btarunr said:
askvishy.com apparently they spent lots of money in India. Indian buyers seem to love AMD and adore Vishy
:|


what about the rest of the world? id love to be in india though, intels must sell for cheep
Posted on Reply
#15
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
DarkMatter said:
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.
The 1.2GHz Celeron L only consumed 19w at 1.3v, and remember, it was a desktop aimed product. Considering the scalability of the Core architecture, dropping the speed to 1GHz, and binning them to find the ones that can do that speed at 1v or below and you have a processor that easily competes with Atom and the Athlon 2000+.

I agree, that Intel won't do this, but my point wasn't that Intel should do it, it was that essentially, that is all AMD did. They took a single core processor that already exists, dropped the clock speed down to pathetic levels, and binned them to find the ones that would do that low clock speed at an extremely low voltage. That isn't anything special, IMO. When they get something that is actually new, then we can make a big deal out of it.

As for the chipset, I totally agree, right now the chipset is the downfall of Atom. The 780G is definitely better than the i945. Though you don't have to use a i945 with Atom.
Posted on Reply
#16
DarkMatter
What other option you have right now besides i945?

On the rest I kind of agree. Probably Intel could make what you said, but in the end the result would be similar to what Atom offers. That's the reason why I don't see the point of Atom. If a downclocked desktop processor can match your energy efficient processor, what's the point of designing it?

If they were matching the Atom with a sub 10W chipset, then those extra 4w of the 2000+ would mean something. But right now we don't need Atom as it is. Atom+i945 is not a lot smaller than AMD's solution, you can't implement it in smaller devices, so you are left with a crippled in-order CPU with no advantages in the segment where you can implement it. Sure, whenever Intel makes a proper chipset Atom will shine. If AMD, Via or even maybe Nvidia doesn't come up with something better by then, that is. I never saw a market segment where Atom could fit anyway. It is too big and too power hungry for portable devices (Tegra is a lot better suited for that, for example) and you can have faster "normal" desktop or mobile CPUs that only consume 5w more for larger devices. You want some graphics power in the bigger ones anyway, so your full system will not consume less than 50w. 50w, 55w what's the difference?

Yet I must admit that I neither see the point of the Eee, at least the smaller one. That's probably because I don't like middle ground products. For me there's no place for anything between a laptop (bigger Eee counts here) and a full featured cellphone. I don't see the need for anything between the two, and it's there where Atom could make sense IMO. But that's only how I see it.
Posted on Reply
#17
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
DarkMatter said:
Yet I must admit that I neither see the point of the Eee, at least the smaller one. That's probably because I don't like middle ground products. For me there's no place for anything between a laptop (bigger Eee counts here) and a full featured cellphone. I don't see the need for anything between the two, and it's there where Atom could make sense IMO. But that's only how I see it.
Eee - Cheap, small & more enviromentally friendly?

though I kinda agree - its nothing more then just a Micro/Baby ATX (Or ITX???)

tightly packed into an incredibally small case made of recycled plastic.


Personally I think if they really wanted to they could influence the industry & bring down the overall price of the 'mobile' hardware market so you can walk into your local hardware store & order an MxM g.card or Mobile CPU, Mini PCi cards etc - & have them stick it in a bag for you at the RIGHT prices & also because they ACTUALLY stock them

not many high street shops will stock cpus & other upgrades asside from RAM for laptops. I swear if they cut down the price & stocked them - everyone would be running an much more efficient PC

take a look at the Pentium M cpu they used in laptops - some online retailers sold Mini/Baby ATX's for them & the CPU's overclocked & performed like mad while also retaining their energy saving abilities.

like i said - if mobility parts were cheaper im sure everyone would be replacing their Media centers with these low power consumpton components
Posted on Reply
#18
DarkMatter
Agreed. But I suppose desktop parts are cheaper for a reason. If they could make mobile parts as cheap as desktop ones they would simply do it. Mass market is big enough to take the risk if the problem was that, as was the case when the mobile market was on it's infancy. Or maybe they are still trying to exploit the "new" market, making more profits. That's a posibility, of course.
Posted on Reply
#19
xfire
EEE-Pc is not cheap. You can get much better laptops for that price.
Posted on Reply
#20
TheGuruStud
xfire said:
EEE-Pc is not cheap. You can get much better laptops for that price.
Newegg has nice sales if you watch. They had an HP turion x2 1.8, 3gb ram, 250 hdd, nvidia, etc for 650. That's a steal.
Posted on Reply
#22
Mussels
Moderprator
thats a nice little compaq - you could tweak it to play HD media and even light gaming (WoW on minimum settings, CS/CSS on minimum etc)
Posted on Reply
#24
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
DarkMatter said:
What other option you have right now besides i945?
I'm not sure, but I know I just read an article that said manufactures were starting to use other chipsets with them. I thought I read it here...

DarkMatter said:
On the rest I kind of agree. Probably Intel could make what you said, but in the end the result would be similar to what Atom offers. That's the reason why I don't see the point of Atom. If a downclocked desktop processor can match your energy efficient processor, what's the point of designing it?
Size and cost are the major reasons. Getting the die size down as small as possible was one of the main goals. This allows them to fit a huge number on a single wafer(~2500 IIRC), which maximizes profits while still keeping the final costs extremely low. Plus the small die produces very little heat.

DarkMatter said:
If they were matching the Atom with a sub 10W chipset, then those extra 4w of the 2000+ would mean something.
You do know that the 945GSE is a sub-10w chipset, right? The desktop version of the i945 Tom's used is a 22w chipset, but there is nothing really stopping anyone from using the laptop chipset in the desktops.

DarkMatter said:
But right now we don't need Atom as it is.
We don't need it in desktop as it is, in moble devices with the mobile chipset, it is a wonderful addition.

DarkMatter said:
Atom+i945 is not a lot smaller than AMD's solution
I agree, in the desktop environment, but ulta-mobile Atom solutions are much smaller, look at the Eee PC as an example.

DarkMatter said:
you can't implement it in smaller devices
Then how did they get it in an EeePC?

DarkMatter said:
so you are left with a crippled in-order CPU with no advantages in the segment where you can implement it
No, it just has no advantages in the segment Tom's tested it in.

DarkMatter said:
Sure, whenever Intel makes a proper chipset Atom will shine.
They already have made a proper chipset, the i954GSE, it just isn't used with the desktop version, but it could be.

DarkMatter said:
If AMD, Via or even maybe Nvidia doesn't come up with something better by then, that is.
I hope they do, healthy competition is good for the consumer(me).

DarkMatter said:
I never saw a market segment where Atom could fit anyway.
The Ulsub-notebook market, like the EeePC, is really the only market where it fits.

DarkMatter said:
It is too big and too power hungry for portable devices (Tegra is a lot better suited for that, for example) and you can have faster "normal" desktop or mobile CPUs that only consume 5w more for larger devices. You want some graphics power in the bigger ones anyway, so your full system will not consume less than 50w. 50w, 55w what's the difference?
Tegra and Atom shouldn't even be considered in the same legue. Atom is meant for computers, Tegra is meant for portable devices(Cell Phones, PDAs, GPS Units, etc.). The Sub-Notebook market is really the only place Atom fits, and Tegra is way too under-powered for that market, and other solutions are way too power hungy. The difference between 50w and 55w in the sub-notebook market can be about 15 minutes of battery life, something that is definitely important to a lot of people.

DarkMatter said:
Yet I must admit that I neither see the point of the Eee, at least the smaller one. That's probably because I don't like middle ground products. For me there's no place for anything between a laptop (bigger Eee counts here) and a full featured cellphone. I don't see the need for anything between the two, and it's there where Atom could make sense IMO. But that's only how I see it.
It is all a matter of preference. Some people like the Sub-Notebook, ultra-small, super-light notebooks. They like having something that they can fit in their car's glove box, and still have the ability to type on a real keyboard, use the internet at Starbucks. I know when I was in college I would have bought one of the smaller ones in an instant. I had to lug enough crap around campus, I would have gladdly paid for a smaller laptop.
Posted on Reply
#25
DarkMatter
WOW against such a methodical reply what can I say? :D

Well I was asking if there was another chipset as I didn't knew if there was any. Even though after a second read I must admit my question looks rhetorical.

I neither knew the existance of the mobile version, see, I thought they used the same. All my next comments were derived from this, so what can I say...

As of when talking about smaller devices I was refering to smaller ones. That's why I introduced Tegra. As I said it's because I don't like the small EeePC and similars. For me there's no place for anything between a full featured PC and iPhone/Touch-like devices. But that's just me, I recognize that other people want such things, so I withdraw what was said.

Oh and the 50/55 watts was about a desktop/media center PC. Again the lack of knowledge about the mobile chipset, made me think Atom was not really ready (not more than a Celeron) for ultra-mobile devices. I don't know anything about the Eee anyway, just the specs overview.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment