• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

AMD Athlon 64 2000+ for Immediate Competition with Intel Atom

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Your right but it would be funny to see!
 
zaqwsx said:
Your right but it would be funny to see!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...
AXPs run hot as hell though. What ever happend to Nvidias Targa (sp)? That thing looked to be teh p00nage.
 
why can't intel die shrink the i945G though?
 
PP Mguire said:
AXPs run hot as hell though. What ever happend to Nvidias Targa (sp)? That thing looked to be teh p00nage.
Click to expand...

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
 
0.7 volts you mean?
 
jesus is coming soon, repent!
 
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
 
amd, advertise? yeh right!
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
atoms problem is entirely the chipset, i agree with you darkmatter.
 
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.
 
yous getting robbed .. you can get an atom board for less tahn an A64 2000+
 
:|
 
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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top