backtop


Print 154 comment(s) - last by Setsunayaki.. on Dec 16 at 6:23 PM

AMD's power consumption figures advertised and republished for customers just don't add up

Those familiar with the processor business will be familiar with the term Thermal Design Power (TDP), which refers to the number of watts that a cooling system must dissipate under a maximum real program load.  AMD, however, has adopted a different power measurement system to rate its processors.

The new system, dubbed Average CPU Power (ACP), was championed by AMD for the first time with the release of its K10 Phenom family.  AMD claims ACP is comparable to TDP measurements in Intel's benchmarks; and is in fact a superior measuring stick for power consumption.  ACP is described as being calculated based on an "average" daily use scenario for desktop users or for a server.

Despite AMD's claims that ACP is directly comparable with TDP, many began to have doubts when AMD struggled to raise the speeds on its Phenom processors. This could indicate, among other things, thermal issues due to high power consumption.

The results are startling.  The story is best explained by two versions of a white paper ironically titled "ACP – The Truth About Power Consumption Starts Here," -- the old version can be found here and the new version here.  The key information in these papers can be seen in the table below.

 K10 Family ACP and TDP
Processor
TDP Whitepaper 1 TDP Whitepaper 2
ACP Whitepaper 1
ACP Whitepaper 2*
Quad-core AMD Opteron SE
120 W 137 W
105 W
105 W*
Quad-core AMD Opteron
95 W
115 W
75 W
75 W*
Quad-core AMD Opteron HE
68 W
79 W
55 W
55 W*

Look at those numbers closely.  The first thing to notice is that TDP measurements are significantly higher than ACP.  When AMD compared its power consumption figures to Intel's TDP, ACP measurements significantly underestimate power consumption.   TDP differed between the two versions of the white paper by as much as 20 W, which is a 21% increase in the case of the quad-core Opteron.   AMD did not increased its ACP estimates, emphasized in bold, despite the TDP increase.

Either the ACP is an arbitrarily measured system, and AMD changed it at will for its convenience, or AMD's document team failed to update the document properly.   There is no other feasible explanation of why a 20 Watt TDP increase would be accompanied by no increase in ACP. 

Whitepapers are a very important tool for an electronics firm to inform the public of its products' performance.  Glaring inaccuracies such as these certainly reflects negatively on AMD.  Furthermore, the admission that ACP can be as much as 20 Watts lower than the TDP on the same processor indicates that AMD is spreading misinformation using these ACP numbers in its advertising.

To put this information in perspective, a 3.16 GHz Xeon X5460 from Intel squeaks in at a still weighty 120 W.  While AMD failed to disclose in the white paper on what frequencies its selected processors operate, it is almost surely 3.0 GHz or lower, as 3.0 GHz is the highest speed K10 processor currently demonstrated.  The best case scenario is that a 166 MHz slower AMD processor consumes 17 more watts.  If this was truly the case, it would not be the end of the world, but it would indicate AMD falling behind further in performance. 

However, if the samples tested were lower than 3.0 GHz, obviously the picture becomes far worse.  And since AMD's 2008 roadmap states that its 2.4 GHz processors are rated at 125 Watts TDP, this is almost certainly the case.  Architecture and design advantages aside, K10 is a chip that is almost a gigahertz slower but with a significantly higher power consumption rating. 

AMD's Phenom processor already underwent  lackluster reception at launch, and the company faces ever-higher-piling losses.   The problems have led AMD to try to focus on expanding its K8 platform offerings, instead of addressing the compounding issues of its K10 platform. 

The ACP/TDP issues are just one of many issues with the K10, but have many ramifications -- everything from increased rate of chip failure, to simple higher energy bills at no additional speed benefit.  Expect AMD to fix its documents soon, but it will take far longer for AMD to salvage the physical hardware of its K10 platform.

Updated 12/10/2007
AMD has clarified its position on ACP and TDP. Read here for further information.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

nothing wrong about this, right?
By cgrecu77 on 12/10/2007 11:53:33 AM , Rating: 5
So what's wrong with AMD adopting a similar policy (with Intel) of measuring power consumption? If Intel is actually quoting average power, then so should AMD - to level the playing field.

Of course, if AMD's way of measuring the average is significantly different than Intel's, that that could be considered "cheating", but I can't tell from this article.

Is it me, or lately there's a slight bias agains AMD at anandtech/dailytech?




RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By Spuke on 12/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By System48 on 12/10/2007 12:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
Intel's TDP isn't an average, it's the max. AMD's ACP is what they think the average server is loaded to not what the max load may produce. To me this almost seems dangerous, if you design your cooling solutions based on the ACP power but then you have your system loaded to 100% for extended periods it's more likely that the processor would overheat and fail.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2007 1:11:03 PM , Rating: 3
Yes I agree. Processor thermal ratings should be measured at max load. You need to design a cooling solution around that, not the average load. That'd be like designing a cars radiator for the average temperature. It would overheat on extremely hot days.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By TomZ on 12/10/2007 1:22:42 PM , Rating: 2
That would be like putting transmission specifications in the spec sheet for an engine. It makes no sense since the engine (or CPU) can be used with any number of transmissions (or chipsets).


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/10/2007 1:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
This is why you only see Analogy used as an argumentative form on Boston Legal. Though FIT's example was a little more relevant than most I've seen.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By theapparition on 12/11/2007 10:37:43 AM , Rating: 4
You just publicly admitted to watching Boston Legal?


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/11/2007 1:03:01 PM , Rating: 4
Damn... Why don't we have an edit button.... :-P


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By TomZ on 12/10/2007 1:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I attached this reply to the wrong post. I'll copy to the correct one. Sorry ahead of time for the duplicate.


By Marty007 on 12/11/2007 12:43:13 AM , Rating: 1
all true, your cooling should be able to take the max load under any circumstance,
however.... especially with liquid cooling systems,
you dont want to go TOO cool if your cpu is idling/average(amd power estimate)
you might get condensation and all the troubles with that,
and fact is, some cpu's have serious issues with sub-zero temperatures,

i think intel's way of measuring is the more usefull for designing,
but i think amd's measuring will be more accurate over a normal day of usage .. but its strange that the difference is so much however..

they should really just create 3 stats for new cpu's
- idle power drain
- average power drain
- max power drain

and also, inform at wich voltages/speeds these values are benched (so they have to make these stats for every single product they release.. )

its not like you got your cpu working at full power 24/7
and an few hours of labor shouldnt be a real problem for proper cooling, as most cooling is semi-intelligent by default they will spin up when things get warm


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By Dactyl on 12/10/2007 1:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
You're not supposed to design cooling systems based on the average.

But:

1 - the average can tell you about power costs of running the system

2 - in a place with lots and lots of CPUs, that needs to be air conditioned, the average power use can tell you something about how much cooling capacity the entire room normally needs (it's unlikely that all CPUs would be running at max capacity).


By Proteusza on 12/10/2007 2:33:17 PM , Rating: 5
If you are running a server room, the average is little to no use to you, because it is so imprecise.

If you plan to have your CPU's on average of 75% load, what kind of cooling would you need to install? Difficult to tell with this "average" figure. Most server rooms would have quite high CPU loads, so this average isnt much use to them.

Besides, I dont like the use of the word "average" here. It implies they did statistical research of real world Barcelona chips and discovered that the mean, or average, TDP was a certain wattage, and then termed this new figure ACP. I dont think they could have done that, so a better term would be estimated.

But hey, when your products are inferior, use marketing, it worked for Intel for so many years.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By mars777 on 12/10/2007 7:53:01 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Intel's TDP isn't an average, it's the max. AMD's ACP is what they think the average server is loaded


While you are correct regarding AMD, you are just partially correct about Intel.

Intel declared TDP as the maximum power drawn from 100% usage of the CPU through standard application load (defined by Intel).

AMD TDP stands for the maximum power draw a processor can handle before it burns out (basically every gate on the CPU drawing power - which is never achieved).

And there is more to this:

If ACP is, say 80% load, then there can exists processors with different TDP with the same frequency and the same ACP. But only if using AMD representation of TDP. Those processors would be better in overclocking under 80% load because they produce less leakage under 80% than the other one. But it would mean that the manufacturing process is producing more leakage on 100% load while the silicon is able to sustain it without producing calculation errors. Of course overclocking on 100% usage would produce system crashes... and nobody wants to overclock the CPU to use only 80% of it...

Sorry for the language, i'm not anglo-saxon / english.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By lemonadesoda on 12/10/2007 8:14:48 PM , Rating: 1
This brings us back to the "old" AMD... the days of fried CPUs. Happened to two of my K6-III's. And they were nasty expensive in thier day. After that experience I switched away from AMD.


By bryanW1995 on 12/10/2007 11:06:31 PM , Rating: 3
good switch. you moved to intel just in time to take advantage of that great p4 feeling.


By PrinceGaz on 12/15/2007 7:31:03 AM , Rating: 2
If you fried two K6-III's, you were either careless or didn't know what you were doing.

I had a K6-III/400 which ran prefectly stable at 450MHz (which for a K6-III wasn't a bad overclock) pretty much 24x7 for three years, then a further three or so years as a second box used a few days a week. A friend now has it and it continues to serve his needs fine to this day, though I clocked it back to stock speeds for him.

Run CPUs at stock speeds, or be careful and watch the temperatures when overclocking, and your CPUs will last many many years.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By StevoLincolnite on 12/10/2007 12:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say they're line is crap, I think the Athlon 64 X2 processors are still good value for you're money in the low-end segment and can run anything demanding still with decent speed.
I just recently built an Athlon 64 X2 4000+ system to replace my old Athlon XP 3200+ and it is surely enough power for all my gaming needs for a few years to come.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By Adonlude on 12/10/2007 2:28:14 PM , Rating: 1
Why aren't people tearing AMD a new one over this? Does everyone love poor little underdog AMD so much that you will even put up with them lieing to stay competitive?

TDP is an industry standard specification. AMD invented a new term to purposely misrepresent their product as equal to Intel's. There is no way to dress this up as something more than a pathetic lie on AMD's part.

There really is no market segment where it would be wise to purchase AMD over Intel and if you think otherwise then you are fooling yourself with wishful thinking. Apparently AMD is now trying to fool you to!


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By TomZ on 12/10/2007 2:39:18 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
There really is no market segment where it would be wise to purchase AMD over Intel and if you think otherwise then you are fooling yourself with wishful thinking.

I disagree - for lower-cost systems where performance is not critical, I think buying a computer with an AMD processor is just fine. They are slightly cheaper than the equivalent Intel systems, and for most people they have more performance then they'll ever need for many years to come.

For example, compare a laptop with a Turion to one with a Core 2 Duo. Sure, the Intel version is going to run a bit faster and cooler, but the Turion model will probably cost $50-100 less. So that's the tradeoff.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By mathew7 on 12/12/2007 4:13:18 AM , Rating: 2
Although I am in Intel fan, I still use an AMD x2 for my home linux router. The reason is that I use my router full power only a few times a week, but it stays up 24-7. And the choice was because I saw that my 1.8GHz C2D scales back to 1.6GHz at idle, while the 2.1GHz Athlon scales back to 1GHz. However, I made this choice 6 months ago, and if I had to choose again, I really don't know what I would get.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By Viditor on 12/11/2007 12:10:25 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
TDP is an industry standard specification


That's the problem...it most certainly is NOT an industry standard!
TDP is whatever the manufacturer wants to say it is...

A Thermal Design Point is a guideline by the chip manufacturer for system builders.
If you set the TDP too high, it means that systems are more expensive to manufacture, which cuts into sales.
If you set the TDP too low, then you end up with a lot of underperforming systems or numerous part returns.

The real problem is when review sites and customers start to believe that TDP is actually representative of power draw.
I can assure you that server farms and facilities don't fall into this trap...they test the actual systems they intend to install and design around that.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By Regs on 12/10/2007 12:53:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
CPU's now their entire line is crap and not worth buying at all


What line up? How many more times can AmD shuffle X2's for sale when there is a newer and stronger product out?

Like I said elsewhere, when I buy an X2 sometime next year, I'll just go ahead and get a VCR too.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By Spuke on 12/10/2007 1:58:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
What line up? How many more times can AmD shuffle X2's for sale when there is a newer and stronger product out?
Which are you? Fanboi or bandwagon?


By Adonlude on 12/10/2007 2:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
He sounds like a smart consumer to me, kinda funny to. I think you should ask yourself your question.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By TITAN1080 on 12/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2007 12:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
So the fact that AMD is the better choice for 4p and 8p servers makes Intel superior in every way.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By defter on 12/10/2007 1:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
You mean that 2.93GHz Tigetron is worse choice than a non-existant 2GHz Barcelona?

"AMD is better choice for 4-8p servers" was true last year, but isn't true anymore.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By drebo on 12/10/2007 3:23:32 PM , Rating: 3
Considering that you cannot at present get the 1600mhz FSB Xeons, the saying still holds true. AMD scales better to 4- or 8-way servers, and when you're looking at a server of that magnitude, that's what's important.


By Accord99 on 12/10/2007 6:38:43 PM , Rating: 1
Tigerton doesn't need the 1600MHz FSB to be the fastest x86 MP server, scaling well from 4S to 16S.

Meanwhile, AMD even after nearly 3 months after launch has yet to release a single major enterprise benchmark of Barcelona. Or have any Barcelona based servers from a Tier 1 OEM for that matter.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By Adonlude on 12/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By Spuke on 12/10/2007 7:13:27 PM , Rating: 1
These Intel fanboys are amazing. They actually think that having the fastest processor on the market is what keeps a CPU manufacturer in business.


By Adonlude on 12/11/2007 2:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
I have a pretty good idea of what keeps CPU manufacturers in buisness. I own a bunch of Intel stock and I am making some good money off of it. Had I owned AMD stock I would be swimming in a pool of my own tears right now.

And yes, the fastest processor helps keep them in business... power users influencing other users and all that stuff. Im not going to give you a lesson right now, sorry. Intel dominates much much more than the high end at this point anyway.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By bryanW1995 on 12/10/2007 11:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
how old are you? it's lying, and earlier you should have used too instead of to. are you in high school yet?


By rebturtle on 12/11/2007 1:22:23 AM , Rating: 2
Hahahahahaha! Are you seriously going to correct spelling and attack people's education without capitalizing the first letters of your sentences? And to think this board even makes you preview before posting.....


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By mrdelldude on 12/10/2007 12:02:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course, if AMD's way of measuring the average is significantly different than Intel's, that that could be considered "cheating", but I can't tell from this article.


quote:
Look at those numbers closely. The first thing you'll notice is that TDP is significantly higher than ACP. So when AMD has been comparing its power numbers to Intel chips, using ACP is actually significantly underestimating power consumption . Secondly, note that TDP differed between the two versions of the white paper by as much as 20 W, which is a 21% increase in the case of the Quad-Core Opteron. Thirdly, note that AMD has not increased its ACP estimates , which it emphasizes in bold, despite the TDP clearly rising


How could one measurement rise so dramatically, but not the other measured stat?

If AMD is changing it's methodology on the fly to hide thermal issues, then it's cheating (not to say the Intel hasn't done underhanded things like this over the years).


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/10/2007 1:37:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How could one measurement rise so dramatically, but not the other measured stat?

The only way this would possibly be correct is if AMD also decreased the minimum scenario in its testing. Of course, reading the whitepapers and AMD public documentation makes no mention of this, so it would be pretty sane to infer that datapoint has not changed.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By Trisagion on 12/10/2007 12:02:33 PM , Rating: 4
There is obviously something wrong with what they are reporting. No matter what sort of index they choose, it has to very in some way with the reference index (in this case TDP as AMD claims). Does a 20W difference in TDP with no difference in ACP mean that ACP cannot track a power consumption increase of 20W? Then it's useless as a measure of power consumption. Somehow I don't think that's what AMD intended.


By Adonlude on 12/10/2007 2:36:00 PM , Rating: 1
Why even discuss this? In the world of engineering there are well established methods of specification, TDP is one of them. You can't just invent a new term like ACP to cover up your shortcomings.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By Masterrer on 12/10/2007 12:20:30 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Is it me, or lately there's a slight bias agains AMD at anandtech/dailytech?
Well, to tell you the truth, I too feel that some articles are a bit "suspicious".
Either that or it's the inner Intel fanboy in reviewers/posters wispering when they write their articles... ;]

But seriously, quality journalism, to me anyway, is when the point of view is not imposed on the reader, but rather when the reader is presented with information revealing the flaws of the product relative to the oposition...

In this case I agree with cgrecu77 that it should be noted in the article that Intel doesn't quote the maximum power draw of their products either, so there is no white horse here...

P.S. Sorry english is not my first tongue


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By System48 on 12/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By Moishe on 12/10/2007 1:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
I think the "D" is for "dissipation"


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/10/2007 1:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
Thermal Design Power


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By Moishe on 12/10/2007 1:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
lol.. thanks :) I should have googled.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By Moishe on 12/10/2007 1:22:53 PM , Rating: 2
The article is very specific. I'm not saying you didn't read it, but maybe you missed a few points.

The ACP is not in question really. It's the difference in the white paper versions that raised the red flag. In Ver. 2 they raised the TDP but did not raise the ACP. What this tells you is that the white paper is probably being used to fudge the numbers a little (or it's a mistake). Basically, AMD has been claiming that their new CPUs are very efficient and it turns out that it's not the case. Add to that the white paper changes and it certainly appears that AMD is trying to gloss over the fact that Phenom isn't quite as "green" as it was originally thought to be.

Personally, I'm not opposed to having ACP over TDP as a method of determining the power usage, but I think most of us would prefer to have one method, not two. More than one just adds confusion. If ACP is lower it makes me think it's at least partially marketing. But it may truly be a more accurate measurement. If so, then that same measurement should be applied to Intel's CPUs as well. We really only get a true picture of the differences by comparing two products using the same methods.

As far as Dailytech being anti-AMD... I think you're smoking crack. So many here have been die-hard AMD fans for years. For this go around though, AMD is really sucking hard. Thats AMD's fault and it's unreasonable to expect anyone to not call a spade a spade just because we like them. Intel on the other hand has always been the one to get bashed (and rightfully so). But they have pulled out all the stops and produced an amazing generation of CPUs. If anything, we're being fair by admitting that Intel has outdone itself.


By Screwballl on 12/10/2007 3:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
so under load it uses 125W TDP but idle it consumes 55W... so whats the big deal?
Average daily use for most people is around 2% of CPU power since MS Office and email are their biggest CPU consumers. It is only when you step into the gamers arena that you see a higher usage and the need for a higher TDP... so these companies need a low TDP and high TDP with each of their products so we get an idea of its power consumption.


RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By slickr on 12/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: nothing wrong about this, right?
By vignyan on 12/13/2007 4:58:20 AM , Rating: 2
Why do you want to take an industry guidance standard that the OEMs and channel partners are using to develop their designs since a long time now and change it to something less meaningful??? It does not even fetch money for either companies.
TDP is a cooling system guidance for max load... Obviously that is a correct thing to do as you see from a customer point of view. Now if not for deceiving the customers, why on earth will you give them the average cpu consumption power - to let the machines go bad when you run some CPU intense programs where the cooling system does not take care of the heat generated!


BS
By Sahrin on 12/10/2007 1:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
There is no other feasible explanation of why a 20 W TDP increase would be accompanied by no increase in ACP.

Bull. AMD has historically defined TDP's for entire models in ONE number. This is why all parts of type X will be released at 95W, or 105, or 135W - when there's no way in heck the lowest-end part has the same power usage as the highest-end part. Every part gets released in the same envelope, because AMD plays the power game conservatively.

Maybe, they increased the TDP figure to raise the power envelope? Maybe it's to make room in the spec for FUTURE parts, that haven't been released? This would mean that the TDP would change - but the ACP wouldn't because the the ACP is based on ACTUAL POWER PERFORMANCE - not a design spec, like TDP. TDP is the maximum envelope in which any chip may run - ACP is the power that the typical user can expect to see. The only difference between AMD and Intel on this score is that Intel was already telling this lie.

Furthermore - if you can't conceive of a change in maximum power not affecting the average, then you've never sat in a statistics class before.

I won't deny it's possible DT may be right here - but 10 seconds of testing would verify this information. It's so circumstantial and anecdotal as to make even the most ignorant of deductive reasoning squirm.

This is FUD, from Dailytech itself. Congratulations, DT - you're today's Elmer.




RE: BS
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/10/2007 1:13:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I won't deny it's possible DT may be right here - but 10 seconds of testing would verify this information. It's so circumstantial and anecdotal as to make even the most ignorant of deductive reasoning squirm.

So if you're a corporate customer planning to buy many thousands of these chips, your thinking is to disregard AMD's material specifically designed for this purpose, instead opting to do validation yourself?

Circumstantial would indicate this is some corner case: it's not. Anecdotal would indicate there is some testing going on period. There is not.

These are white papers produced for corporate clients. If there is a large mathematical / logical mistake, that's not ancedotal or circumstantial.

When DailyTech manages to misspell Ballmer's first name on the front page and someone raises issue, that's not circumstantial or anecdotal at all. It's in error, just like these whitepapers.


RE: BS
By Amiga500 on 12/10/2007 1:25:34 PM , Rating: 3
I think he is hinting at you guys getting some chips and verifying the numbers.


RE: BS
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/10/2007 1:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
That seems a likely possibility. However, you and I have already seen half a dozen Phenom reviews detailing this explicitly but not in context of these whitepapers (Tech Report and AnandTech come to mind)


RE: BS
By Sahrin on 12/10/2007 2:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
So if you're a corporate customer planning to buy many thousands of these chips, your thinking is to disregard AMD's material specifically designed for this purpose, instead opting to do validation yourself?

No, I'm going to look for hard information before coming to a misinformed conclusion. First I'll apply fundamental understanding of the concepts (AMD's definition of TDP v. AMD's definition of ACP v. Intel's definition of TDP v. a middle school-level understanding of statistics) and then go out a see if others (those that get these documents and publicize their opinions of them (READ: Hardware Review Sites) have had the opportunity to test the chips against the information (like when AMD claimed they were seeing 40% performance improvement with K10 - it was unclear to what exactly they were comparing K8, so DT (or someone, I believe it was you guys) took an engineering sample and tested their claims - and it turned out they were wrong, or that the claim was being misinterpereted in AMD's favor by the community at large) to see if there is a discrepancy.

Circumstantial would indicate this is some corner case: it's not. Anecdotal would indicate there is some testing going on period. There is not.

Circumstantial = derived from circumstance. You have no basis in fact (that is, no empirical evidence, just a document from AMD that you are inductively using as a basis for your conclusion; without the circumstance of the document you would have no case - imperfect usage, I grant you, but not fundamentally incorrect).

Anecdotal = based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation. That exactly describes the point I'm trying to make - that DailyTech is using a piece of evidence that is questionable, a synthesis that is questionable, and no additional evidence beyond it. It's like reading Fudzilla, only with a better layout.

These are white papers produced for corporate clients. If there is a large mathematical / logical mistake, that's not ancedotal or circumstantial.

If there's anything other than exactly what DT's implying, then it's absolutely anecdotal and circumstantial.

When DailyTech manages to misspell Ballmer's first name on the front page and someone raises issue, that's not circumstantial or anecdotal at all. It's in error, just like these whitepapers.

It is - but I don't think it merits the full force and fury of a front-page DT article alleging that a (relatively) upstanding company is "lying" to its customers. Certainly, when DT makes a spelling error there are no front-page headlines saying "Kubicki is t3h stooopid" and then tying the misspelling inductively to that rather poorly formed conclusion.


RE: BS
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/10/2007 3:01:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
a middle school-level understanding of statistics

I finished my undergrad work with BS in math, statistics and computer science. My MS program is in industrial math. Tread lightly here.

quote:
It is - but I don't think it merits the full force and fury of a front-page DT article alleging that a (relatively) upstanding company is "lying" to its customers.

When the NYT omits a counterpoint, I see all sorts of headlines. Criticism is certainly part of the journalistic process.

quote:
... and then tying the misspelling inductively to that rather poorly formed conclusion.

If a multi-billion dollar company pushes a whitepaper with gross inaccuracies (which even you agree exist) there's absolutely nothing wrong with asking why. Either there has been a failure of the process (something billion dollar companies are not supposed to do) or there is an agenda (something else billion dollar companies are not supposed to do).

I have no problem with your arguments if you indeed believe there is nothing wrong here and this story is completely un-newsworthy. I do take issue with your claim that these conclusions were not drawn soundly, which I have yet to see anyone contest rationally.


RE: BS
By Sahrin on 12/10/2007 3:18:44 PM , Rating: 3
If a multi-billion dollar company pushes a whitepaper with gross inaccuracies (which even you agree exist) there's absolutely nothing wrong with asking why. Either there has been a failure of the process (something billion dollar companies are not supposed to do) or there is an agenda (something else billion dollar companies are not supposed to do).

This is fear-mongering, so I hesitate to respond to it (you're assigning an identity to a qualitative judgement - it doesn't matter whether it's Satan or Mother Theresa, Inc - either what DT alleges is wrong or right; you're trying to bring your point into relief by illustrating it with the pejorativ use of "multi-billion dollar company," but it's not needed if you expect your point to be accepted as anything other than hyperbole.

That aside, you've yet to produce any demonstrable proof that AMD has done what you claim they've done (LIED about thermal dissipation numbers for K10). You've produced a white paper that's got a change you can't (and AMD hasn't) explain. This is interesting, but I've already provided serveal other (also inductive) justifications for what's happened. My point is that it doesn't NECESSARILY follow - not that it can't, but that's it's not necessary.

I have no problem with your arguments if you indeed believe there is nothing wrong here and this story is completely un-newsworthy. I do take issue with your claim that these conclusions were not drawn soundly, which I have yet to see anyone contest rationally.

You can nit-pick the basis and definition of what "soundly" means - but if a "Standard of Proof" is assumed, and there is a requirement of deductive reasoning to a logical conclusion - they the conclusions this piece draws are by their very form unsound. As I have said, this doesn't mean the piece is wrong - but that is the standard I apply to any argument before it can be considered sound. It is also the only accepted scientific standard of proof.

This piece is suspicion and intrigue, which is fine - that is the business of the news media. However, The conclusions drawn and the force with which they are presented is flawed. This is my point and assertion, and I have yet to see the it rationally contested.


RE: BS
By jtemplin on 12/10/2007 4:03:33 PM , Rating: 2
Sahrin, basically what you are saying is that this is yellow journalism. I too found it a bit suspicious that such a strong word was used: "lying". As Kubicki said, it COULD have been an error, or perhaps they changed their datapoints.

He (Kris) is a smart guy and knows there are other possible explanations. I don't really have a problem with sensationalism, because I trust my ability to tell the "what it is from the what it aint". But I do think Sahrin has a point here.

Although, I don't really disagree with most of what Kubicki has said either...If it takes DT to say that AMD lied for AMD to come forward and rectify or address this discrepancy, than I am all for the sensationalism. If sensational journalism produces a positive result, without harming the trust of the readers or repute of DT , then I am all for it.


RE: BS
By lopri on 12/10/2007 5:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with Sahrin here (not to his theory why AMD has changed the value of TDP, but to his rationale in pointing out DailyTech's fallacy).

What we have are two different white papers from AMD, published in different time points. Why the TDP values have changed? We don't know. AMD could be lying, or could have made a mistake, or have changed the data point, or maybe new stepping/SKU are more power-demanding.. there could be many possibilities and with all the hooplas they're doing these days I'd think it's very possible that AMD might as well be lying.

However, a journalist saying so in public is a different story. For example, 'Is AMD lying?' would be a justifiable question, or a conclusion itself (in the form of a question) of the article. However, 'AMD is lying', isn't.


RE: BS
By psychmike on 12/10/2007 2:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
Just as an aside, I wonder what you meant when you said that a maximal value doesn't have to affect the average.

I've sat in on a few statistics courses and I can think of a few situations but I don't know which ones apply in this kind of measurement. The ones that come to mind include using other measures of central tendency (modal or median values would not be affected by an increase in a max value) and trimmed means (excluding the top and bottom 5% as outliers).

Mike


RE: BS
By Sahrin on 12/10/2007 2:37:35 PM , Rating: 3
Statistics is the science of predicting the behaviour of a large group based on the measurement of a smaller/different group. (Well, as I mean to apply it in my post, that's the definition).

In order for the average to be affected, there has to be a representative of that value in the population - it's possible for AMD to raise the "measurement ceiling" of the population (increase TDP) without there actually being any representative member of the population with that measurement.

Think of it in terms of the US census. Say the Census Beaureu (sp) want to determine the average age of the population. In 2000 they used a form that put a check box by every age up to say...110 years old. In 2010, they use a form that has a check box for every age up to 200 years old. If no one checks the box for "200" - then the average age isn't affected.

My point wasn't that it's IMPOSSIBLE for the age to be affected, it was that it doesn't necessarily follow for the average age to be affected just because the measuring threshold increased (which is ... *kind of* what AMD defines TDP as).


RE: BS
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/10/2007 3:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
This is the only theory I've seen that explains AMD's lack of movement on the ACP. And I thank you for it.

Unfortunately though, the TDP is hardly a measurement ceiling. This has been empirically demonstrated by both The Tech Report and AnandTech. Both of these outlets tested TDP and power draw. The unanimous conclusion, even from other media that use different testing methods, is that K10 has increased thermal envelopes.


RE: BS
By Sahrin on 12/10/2007 3:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what you're saying here - K10 has a larger thermal envelope than K8, yes. But AMD has a history (correct me if I am recalling incorrectly) of (1) exgerrating the thermal envelope and (2) Releasing multiple processors under the same envelope. My theory is that AMD is exapnding the envelope in anticipation of 1) processors that can spike above the old value without dramatically affecting the average and/or 2) processors that will eventually exceed the envelope, even though there are none in the market now.

In this case, I believe, the TDP could be raised bu the ACP would not be affected.


RE: BS
By TomZ on 12/10/2007 4:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In order for the average to be affected, there has to be a representative of that value in the population - it's possible for AMD to raise the "measurement ceiling" of the population (increase TDP) without there actually being any representative member of the population with that measurement.

That's theoretically true, but it makes no sense. Why would AMD raise the TDP if there are no samples that would ever consume more power than the "old" TDP? No, I think there is a strong incentive to keep the TDP figures to the lowest reasonable value they can be sure will never be exceeded.


RE: BS
By psychmike on 12/10/2007 4:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're confusing a couple of terms. Inferential statistics does involve generalization from a sample but this just appears to be discriptive statistical data, simply reporting the numbers without hypothesis testing. People seem concerned (and rightfully so) that the numbers aren't adding up. I've already offered possible methodological reasons why maximum values can change without affecting an average (other measures of central tendency, trimmed means) but it doesn't appear that AMD has confirmed or disconfirmed their reasons and methods.

AMD isn't just arbitrarily creating a new measurement ceiling as you suggest. There are real subject chips that are producing that data. One has to have specific and preferably a priori reasons for excluding that information. It's as if all of a sudden people were reporting that there living to be 200 years old and yet the census data said that the average age has not changed. SOMETHING's got to give - either there's been a change in the range or distribution that coincidentally cancels out the increased age or the data is being excluded.

Mike


Is this where Daily Tech is heading?
By Lifted on 12/10/2007 1:02:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
AMD: The Lies About Power Consumption Start Here


With a headline like this, I was expecting something with a lot more substance and not so many assumptions and opinions. Lies is a strong word.

quote:
indicates that AMD is being spreading misinformation in using these ACP numbers


Does it? Did you bother to ask AMD for a comment on this as you didn't mention so in the article? It seems to me this is just an assumption on yoru part as you do not appear to be aware of how they came up with these numbers, and did no testing of your own to PROVE they are spreading misinformation.

quote:
as Intel uses TDP numbers


Really? I thought Intel was using ACP for ages now. When did they start using TDP?

quote:
The problems have led AMD to try to focus on expanding its K8 platform offerings, instead of addressing the compounding issues of its K10 platform .


Wow. You asked AMD if they were working on correcting the current issues with the K10, and they said no. Thanks, I would have thought they'd be working on them. Now this is news!

Some of the above posters mention all of the Intel ads on this site, and I have to say I am rather suspicious after reading this "article".




By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/10/2007 2:05:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Some of the above posters mention all of the Intel ads on this site, and I have to say I am rather suspicious after reading this "article".

Intel ads? It seems like I would have noticed that...


RE: Is this where Daily Tech is heading?
By superflex on 12/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: Is this where Daily Tech is heading?
By TomZ on 12/10/2007 2:44:51 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you read or understood the article. The point is real simple - somehow the TDP values of these processors went up even thought the ADP values didn't. If one changes, the other must, unless the definition changes. Whether you call it a "mistake" or a "lie" depends on your view of whether it was accidental or intentional. In either case, AMD's whitepaper is almost certainly wrong.


RE: Is this where Daily Tech is heading?
By superflex on 12/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: Is this where Daily Tech is heading?
By TomZ on 12/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: Is this where Daily Tech is heading?
By bpwilldo on 12/10/2007 5:16:33 PM , Rating: 2
I read them. Version a is what AMD links from their Opteron page. There are differences in the charts from a to b but I didn't detect any difference in the text. Under the scenario presented in the papers, it is very believable that the ACP wouldn't change even if there was a change to the TDP. Heck, there may be versions c, d and f. But if AMD is only publicly releasing a, then where is the lie? This whole thing is bull and you know it.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/14/2007 2:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But if AMD is only publicly releasing a, then where is the lie? This whole thing is bull and you know it.

I hope you read our follow up article, which verified exactly what we published.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/10/2007 3:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Daily tech has not been heading here. It's been a twisted mess for a long time. Anand hates ATI, AMD buys ATI, Now Anand hates AMD. Real professional guys.

Interesting theory, but I'd missed the part where Anand works for DailyTech. Last I checked he runs a different website?


RE: Is this where Daily Tech is heading?
By Lifted on 12/10/2007 4:37:33 PM , Rating: 1
As Editor In Chief you should be able to answer my question about AMD being contacted about the white paper before publishing this article. You reponded to my post and replies to it three times now, yet haven't answered anything of any relevance.

BTW, I never say Intel had ads all over the site. All I said was that another poster mentioned something about Intel ad revenue for this site, which I believe was a guess, and way too high. I never see AMD ads on the site though, so if any articles were going to have assumptions, it's likely to be those about the company that doesn't put money in your pocket.

You could clear all this up by letting us know if you contacted AMD. If so, you could then say how they conviently forgot to update part of their whitepaper, and we'd all be more likely to believe it. Until then, it's just sensationalist reporting.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/10/2007 4:39:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As Editor In Chief you should be able to answer my question about AMD being contacted about the white paper before publishing this article. You reponded to my post and replies to it three times now, yet haven't answered anything of any relevance.

My apologies. I did not notice your question.

Yes we contact AMD. No it did not respond. Will we publish an update when they contact us? Certainly.


RE: Is this where Daily Tech is heading?
By bpwilldo on 12/10/2007 8:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
If I were an employee of AMD, I wouldn't reply to you either. Sort of like "not deserving a reply". Read both white papers! There is no story there. Go look on AMD's site about the difference between TDP and ACP. Makes perfect sense. I've read some silly stuff on DT, but this is beyond silly.

Though, it did get me to post. Perhaps that was JM's goal. To maximize reader involvement.


By crystal clear on 12/10/2007 9:39:14 PM , Rating: 1
Do some research maybe then you will not make such comments,


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/10/2007 4:44:23 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
BTW, I never say Intel had ads all over the site. All I said was that another poster mentioned something about Intel ad revenue for this site, which I believe was a guess, and way too high. I never see AMD ads on the site though, so if any articles were going to have assumptions, it's likely to be those about the company that doesn't put money in your pocket.

Intel and AMD both advertise in Google Adsense, of which the publisher (DailyTech) has no control.

Intel has done media buys on DailyTech in the past, though we've been passed over pretty consistently since mid-2006 for new buys. AMD runs cobrand advertising with some of the merchants that advertise on DailyTech, like Newegg and ZipZoomFly.

Not that any of this matters, since DailyTech uses a third-party sales group for advertisers. Editorial and sales are strictly forbidden from influencing each other in the slightest bit.


RE: Is this where Daily Tech is heading?
By TheJian on 12/10/2007 9:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
Since you brought up Techreport earlier here's a quote on power stuff -
"AMD is introducing another innovation of sorts with Barcelona in the form of a new power rating, dubbed ACP for "average CPU power." Differences in describing a processor's maximum power and thermal envelope, known as Thermal Design Power, have long been a source of contention between Intel and AMD. For ages, AMD has argued that its TDP ratings are an absolute maximum while Intel's are something less than that, and—hey, not fair! At the same time, AMD hasn't had the same class of dynamic thermal throttling that Intel's chips have, so it's had to make do with more conservative estimates. The problem, according to AMD, is that its numbers were being compared directly to Intel's, which could be misleading—particularly since its processors incorporate a north bridge, as well.

At long last, AMD is looking to sidestep this issue by creating a new power rating for its CPUs. Despite the name, ACP is not so much about "average" power use but about power use during high-utilization workloads. AMD has a methodology for defining a processor's ACP that involves real-world testing with such workloads, and the company will apparently be using ACP as the primary way to talk about its CPUs' power use going forward, though it will still disclose max power, as well. To give you a sense of things, standard Opterons with a 95W max power rating will have a 75W ACP. This move may be controversial, but personally, I think it's probably justifiable given the power draw profiles we've seen from Opterons. I'm not especially excited about it one way or another since we spend hours measuring CPU power use around here. We'll show you numbers shortly, and you can decide what to think about them.

Now that you know what ACP means, here's a look at the initial Opteron 2300 lineup, complete with ACP and TDP numbers for each part."

http://techreport.com/articles.x/13176

I'm sure I could find the same stuff on tons of sites. Intel doesn't quote MAX TDP either. AMD is just basically copying them. So where's the other side of your AMD rant? Techreport things it's valid and you title your story AMD lied. As I see the other story it appears YOU lied. Also conveniently forgot to tell the world Intel has done the same crap for ages. Intel did this with all P4's not a "few architectures ago"...I'm not sure they have stopped with Core2 either. However all articles on various websites compare AMD's ratings to Intel's even when they are MAX on AMD's side and for the entire product series (even chips not out yet). It seems they're just correcting this finally with their latest gen barcy's. This is just plain BAD (accidental stupidity) reporting or FUD. Also you can't make it seem like you're not part of anandtech. You share the same servers and are half of the front page every day on anands. No way around that. It's like saying Intel doesn't influence sysmark etc when they OWN the land they live on...LOL. They also OWNED the domain until word got out and they proceeded to bury it...ROFL. No slanting going on in that benchmark...Puhleeze. Can you say conflict of interest? Intel even wrote some of their scripts and help with coding the benchmark ages ago. Vanshardware is probably still cached on google for those wondering. There are many ways to pay someone and hide it. Early review samples etc. I'd say everyone engages in this to at least some degree period. No I'm not saying YOU are guilty of it. I'm saying you ALL are...ROFL. I read "AMD LIES" and thought, you must have been passed over for Intel ads since mid 2006 :) This is the perfect way to rectify that problem. Can't say I blame you, money pays the bills. AMD certainly isn't going to pay up.


By z3R0C00L on 12/11/2007 8:29:24 AM , Rating: 2
Intel's TDP is not an average but rather the max load based on testing methods decided by them.
AMD's TDP is not an average but rather the max load based on testing methods decided by them.

AMD's ACP is an Average power consumption number based on an average power load decided by them.

BIG difference.


By crystal clear on 12/10/2007 3:45:51 PM , Rating: 2
Hey you are talking nonsense-so childish.

Commonsense says NO website accuses AMD of lieing without evidence.

D.T is a responsible site & does its research before posting its articles.

You should do your research before you post your comment.


RE: Is this where Daily Tech is heading?
By jlanders646 on 12/10/07, Rating: 0
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/11/2007 1:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks this way, take for instance when DT got invited to check out Amd's new processor, that article was so hateful.

We were invited to look at AMD processors (and Intel processors), but we turn down junket events.


By z3R0C00L on 12/11/2007 8:17:28 AM , Rating: 2
Ahhh Partisanship.

You do realize Lifted that you sound like a Partisan Hack. First of all Journalism is about researching evidence, formulating possibilities and then presenting them in a non-bias fashion if such a fashion is warrantied.

In this particular case the only conclusions one can come up with is that either AMD are lying/misleading us purposely or that their calculations for ACP are lies and misleading estimates.

It could be that AMD pre-empted the TDP changes and as such revised their ACP before hand. I bet you AMD will claim this sooner or later (well AMD's PR will). On the simple premise that one can predict the future.

Sounds a lot like other groups of liars we've encountered. nVIDIA, Intel and well the Bush and Clinton administrations.

Tell me Lifted.. do you still believe there were WMD's in Iraq? How's about Clinton not having an affair with Lewinski? How's about that the earth is flat?

I do understand that the average IQ in the United States of America is dropping rapidly and now placing America's educational system and IQ bellow Uruguay.. but it's no reason for believing Corporate FUD.

My 2 Cents. Give Daily Tech a break.. they have the balls to report on this stuff.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/14/2007 2:21:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With a headline like this, I was expecting something with a lot more substance and not so many assumptions and opinions. Lies is a strong word.


Lifted: I didn't point this out before, because I thought it was obvious, and then I realized you probably didn't read the whitepapers.

It's a play on words from the Whitepaper titles. Even the AMD guys thought it was clever.


Who Cares?
By Goty on 12/10/2007 12:16:36 PM , Rating: 4
Who cares what a white paper says about power consumption? Since when has a white paper been indicative of the real world anyways?

Just get the damn chip and test it yourself or look elsewhere for reports by people who did!




RE: Who Cares?
By Masterrer on 12/10/2007 12:37:48 PM , Rating: 3
Spot on!

Like I said earlyer: it's like beieving manufacturers claims on display viewing angles and car fuel consumption...


RE: Who Cares?
By TomZ on 12/10/2007 1:06:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who cares what a white paper says about power consumption? Since when has a white paper been indicative of the real world anyways? Just get the damn chip and test it yourself or look elsewhere for reports by people who did!

Exactly wrong. If you go out and test a chip, you get only one data point. Maybe you'll get a hot one, maybe a cool one, who knows?

When a computer or motherboard OEM designs a chip into a system, they want to instead know what performance parameters the chip manufacturer is guaranteeing, by design and/or testing. In other words, they want a characterization of all chips that are produced.

Also, from our perspective as enthusiasts, we also want a characterization of the chip prior to purchase.


RE: Who Cares?
By Spuke on 12/10/2007 2:07:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, from our perspective as enthusiasts, we also want a characterization of the chip prior to purchase.
For your perspective maybe but these figures are irrelevant to me. The power draw of any computer is negligible on my electric bill. I would save more money by turning off the lights in the rooms I am not using. All this squabbling over an insignificant amount of power usage and money is ridiculous.


RE: Who Cares?
By System48 on 12/10/2007 2:23:50 PM , Rating: 2
For the home user or even a small business, power usage is rather pointless. For large corporation these issues are definitely worth looking into. Take a company with say 2,000 employees and each one has a desktop unit. If a given platform from company A uses 5W less than company B's platform, the numbers can add up quickly. That 5W becomes a savings of 10,000W or about 85A. Now that was only 5W and only desktop units. Now look at a server room, you have the power that the systems consumes as well as the power consumption of the cooling units. If you can get comparable performance from server A or B and server A saves you 15W and runs a little cooler, it might be the better option. Like I said though, for the home user there's really no need to worry. On a side note though, I do wish GPU's would be a bit more power friendly, I hate the idea of upgrading a PSU because a new card needs another 100W.


RE: Who Cares?
By Spuke on 12/10/2007 4:55:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For large corporation these issues are definitely worth looking into.
I'm not a corporation and neither are most people here. That said, these arguments are pointless as the data presented are not intended for us in the first place. To bicker about its validity is ridiculous.

Say I WAS a corporation, do you really think I would take the OEM's word on their power consumption figures? HELL NO! I would do my own testing in my own lab with my own technicians. There's too much money to be saved or lost to depend on another companies very biased word (remember AMD and Intel don't make money by selling themselves short).


RE: Who Cares?
By TomZ on 12/10/2007 5:07:02 PM , Rating: 1
Most design engineers use parametrics supplied by the device manufacturers themselves, they don't employ armies of technicians to re-measure all important characteristics. There is generally no reason to not trust the manufacturer, since most are trustworthy, and it would probably be against the law for them to publish incorrect numbers.


RE: Who Cares?
By Spuke on 12/10/2007 7:14:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
since most are trustworthy,
Then why is there a debate here about AMD's numbers if these companies are so trustworthy?


RE: Who Cares?
By Goty on 12/10/2007 2:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that you're only going to get one point of reference per article, but this is the Internet, man! There are hundreds of reviews out there already. Now, granted, you're going to have to assess the validity of each article in turn, but you've got to be willing to work for it.

I personally don't care much for statements from either camp about power consumption since they aren't directly comparable. A chip from AMD with a 120W TDP will more than likely have a very different thermal envelope than an Intel chip with the "same" TDP.


RE: Who Cares?
By sviola on 12/10/2007 2:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well, any engineer would care. We use data (temperature, voltage and current curves, operation characteristics, among other data), in white papers to select components that will be used in projects. Of course we do run tests in prototypes (and also project our heatsinks with an error margin) so everything runs as expected. We cannot project a system without knowing exactly what will be used (and not only physical characteristics count, as pricing and availability also are taken into account on any project).


RE: Who Cares?
By teckytech9 on 12/10/2007 2:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
If nobody cared then there’d be a lot more sparks, poofs, smoke, and “Frys Electronics.” Oops, meant to say Fried.


Intel NB TDP?
By dickeywang on 12/10/2007 12:05:26 PM , Rating: 4
IMHO, Intel should also include the TDP for their NorthBridge chipset in their white paper.




RE: Intel NB TDP?
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2007 12:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing. AMD has a lot more on its chip than Intel does (not counting L2 cache). More circuitry = more heat.


RE: Intel NB TDP?
By DeepBlue1975 on 12/10/2007 12:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
Don't remember the figures, but sure thing my Q6600 is one hot beast, regardless of how they measure the TDP.

I think AMD is doing now with power measurements, what Intel used (or still uses to do?) to do not too long ago (that is, quoting figures that are at least a bit of an understatement regarding to real world performance).

I also think that the tone of the article is way too anti AMD.
The picture of pinoccio and the title are way too much...

PS: No AMD fanboy here. As I've said before, my rig has an Intel CPU now, and an Nvidia GPU (they both replace my former AMD cpu and my former ATi GPU)


RE: Intel NB TDP?
By TomZ on 12/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: Intel NB TDP?
By System48 on 12/10/2007 12:44:57 PM , Rating: 5
They do list the TDP for the NB and even the SB. It might supprise you though that it's not in the CPU white papers, it's in the chipset white papers.

x38 http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/designex...
page 14

ich9
ftp://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/designex/...
page 10


RE: Intel NB TDP?
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2007 1:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
He wasn't saying they don't list it at all, just that it should be included in with the processor when comparing to AMDs processors.


RE: Intel NB TDP?
By TomZ on 12/10/2007 1:35:07 PM , Rating: 2
That would be like putting transmission specifications in the spec sheet for an engine. It makes no sense since the engine (or CPU) can be used with any number of transmissions (or chipsets).


RE: Intel NB TDP?
By DeepBlue1975 on 12/10/2007 6:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
Which only tells you that, what really matters, is total system consumption, because an isolated chip doesn't tell you anything about it.

If Intel's chip draws 20w less than an AMD's equivalent one but a similarly featured motherboard for the Intel chip draws 30w more than the one for AMD, both equipped with the same video card, to you the most energy efficient one will be the AMD system regardless of which CPU is less power hungry.

You can have the greatest engine, but if the transmission you're using is pure crap, your car's performance will be crap, too.
When someone tells you the acceleration of a car, he's not only talkgin about engine performance and car weight, he's also implicitly talking about its transmission and the transmission's efficiency on driving the power to the road.

AMD systems need one less chip because they have "the transmission" embedded into the core, while Intel won't sport something like that till Nehalem. (PS: I doubt Nehalem will see the light of the day in late 2008 if AMD continues to be this clumsy)


RE: Intel NB TDP?
By System48 on 12/10/2007 1:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
It wouldn't be accurate to lump it in with the CPU on an Intel platform. Each MCH has its own TDP, the 5400 is 38W(1600FSB,Quad Channel),the x38 is 26.5W and the P35's TDP is only 16W. This "Standard" isn't a standard, it's average and AMD is defining what it thinks average is. When it comes to system design average doesn't cut, I want worst case. I want to know what would happen if ran the system at 100% load for 7 days, what is the maximum heat dissipation I would need.


Agree
By jpmeaney on 12/10/2007 12:09:21 PM , Rating: 3
I'm pro competition - neither pro AMD nor Pro Intel. I do have to admit however, that it does seem like everyone is slamming AMD these days.

If there is a bias, its probably because AMD ticked off Anand by failing to allow an early review of Phenom and then trying to stage a review of the hardware under controlled circumstances.

For the sake of competition, I really hope AMD pulls out of the slump and starts taking it to Intel again. Otherwise, we're all going to be paying bookoo bucks for CPU's from the blue camp.




RE: Agree
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/10/2007 1:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If there is a bias, its probably because AMD ticked off Anand by failing to allow an early review of Phenom and then trying to stage a review of the hardware under controlled circumstances.

I can assure you there is no bias. Phenom, and K10 in general, has been a pretty big disaster on just about every front.

Furthermore, any issues Anand has with AMD would never be reflected here on DailyTech. He does his thing over there, and we do our thing over here.


RE: Agree
By TomZ on 12/10/2007 1:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I do have to admit however, that it does seem like everyone is slamming AMD these days.

Think about it for a moment. If "everyone," which I interpret to mean all the web sites you're reading, is slamming AMD, then maybe it is because AMD is doing a crap job right now in some areas.

And then you slam DT for being biased? Even though all the other web sites are basically reporting the same situation as DT? That doesn't make sense.

Despite your implication that you don't want bias, I think it is clearly the case that you do want bias towards AMD. You are looking for DT to portray AMD's current string of problems with some positive spin. That my friend would be bias.


RE: Agree
By jpmeaney on 12/10/2007 3:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
Woah....calm down chief....

Not slamming anyone. Don't any of you notice that I said IF THERE is a bias?

I have no bias...none. Owned an X24800 and now its a C2Q6600.


RE: Agree
By Spuke on 12/10/2007 5:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are looking for DT to portray AMD's current string of problems with some positive spin.
I think you are placing too much importance where it doesn't matter at all. I could care less if AMD is making the best processors on the market. The reality is that Intel and AMD make processors that work and work well for ANYTHING we have to throw at them.

Too choose between which one you want to use is personal preference. Neither is a bad choice as they both work. I picked AMD this time around because it's just cheaper and I never plan to OC. If you look at the benchmark an X2 3800 play Crysis perfectly with the right video card. Why should I spend anymore money than that? I personally kicked myself in the ass for buying a X2 6000 when I could've put that extra money on a video card.

If CPU speed really made a difference in todays games I would've gone with Intel because quite frankly they have the edge in speed but it's just not the case. ALL of the CPU's on the market are high end performers now. Because of that, I chose the cheap route.


RE: Agree
By TomZ on 12/10/2007 5:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
Each person's needs will be different. I need to have the fastest processor possible because of the work I do, and so I would buy Intel right now. My father-in-law, however, who will be using the computer to check e-mail and browse the Internet, probably will be happier to save a few bucks and get a computer with an AMD processor. This makes sense for him, because he's in the group of people where really any modern processor will do. But not everyone is in that group.


RE: Agree
By rcc on 12/10/2007 1:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
If there is a bias, it's probably because AMD has been promising a lot lately, and collectively stumbling as reality sets in.

And people/websites report that, as they should. As they did when Intel couldn't stop stepping on their collective cranks.

Gotta love the whole attitude that if someone is reporting bad things about brand X it must be because the competition over at Brand Y is paying them to do so. It couldn't possibly be because it's little Johnny that's out of step. : )


Correct me if I'm wrong...
By Amiga500 on 12/10/2007 11:59:47 AM , Rating: 4
But, doesn't Intel use a similar system of obtaining its "TDP"?

As far as I was aware, Intel measured average power consumption for a series of synthetic benchmarks over a fixed time period. This was then designated as the TDP of the chip.

AMD had designated TDP as the maximum possible power draw of the CPU when running flat out.

Now, they have changed to this ACP, where they use the average power consumption when running "real-world intensive applications" (or similar wording). Thus, the AMD approach is now much more in-line with Intel's - except one uses benchmarking software, the other practical.

As you have pointed out, the maximum TDP of the CPU has risen between papers - possibly a result of the revision. However, the averaged power draw when running the "real-world intensive applications" may not have changed.

One does not necessarily tie in with the other (particularly if this is related to specific sections of the CPU that are not used by the "real-world intensive applications"), thus it is possible AMD is being consistent - a better term would be "being efficient with the truth".




RE: Correct me if I'm wrong...
By drebo on 12/10/2007 12:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. It's hard to call foul on AMD for doing what Intel has been doing for years. Of course, probably not if you're Dailytech with probably 50% ad revenue paid for by Intel.

AMD has traditionally reported maximum power disipation, where Intel had done average. Now AMD's doing average and you call foul. That makes about as much sense as a frog in a monkey suit.

As for a change in TDP, perhaps AMD realized that TDP went up when they moved from synthetic benchmarks to real-world benchmarks, yet average power doesn't necessarily have to change.

This is just more FUD from Dailytech as far as I'm concerned.


RE: Correct me if I'm wrong...
By rcc on 12/10/2007 1:35:33 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Indeed. It's hard to call foul on AMD for doing what Intel has been doing for years


Why? It is or it isn't. It doesn't matter who it is. We hollered foul on Intel, and what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander.


RE: Correct me if I'm wrong...
By Moishe on 12/10/2007 1:29:33 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think the issue is that ACP is somehow wrong... or even that the paper is wrong. There was simply a red-flag raised and brought to attention. This is what journalism is for.

ACP is just another method of measurement. For all we know the measurements are both accurate in their own way. For all we know Ver. 2 is still accurate. But the fact that the TDP changed and the ACP didn't is odd.


DT trying to get Max comments?
By bpwilldo on 12/10/2007 4:18:59 PM , Rating: 2
I read both white papers. Nothing here. If anything, version a was showing maximum theoretical power as TDP. That appears to be corrected/resolved in version b. Pretty good explanation of ACP. I vote for ACP to become the industry standard.




RE: DT trying to get Max comments?
By TomZ on 12/10/2007 4:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
ADP might be useful to computer enthusiasts comparing different processors, but it is totally useless to design engineers, unless all customers would be willing to guarantee to never use their computers with above-average CPU loads.

Would you ever buy a computer whose cooling subsystem will properly handle "average" CPU load? Or would you prefer one that is designed to handle "maximum" load?


RE: DT trying to get Max comments?
By bpwilldo on 12/10/2007 4:39:54 PM , Rating: 2
Did you read the white papers defining ACP (Average CPU Power)? It has nothing to do with designing a HSF unit or even the whole system cooling.

Also, AMD links to version a on their web site, so maybe b is for future processors.


RE: DT trying to get Max comments?
By TomZ on 12/10/2007 4:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
The main purpose of TDP is to give information to system designers about system thermal design requirements. Therefore, I was reacting to your suggestion of ACP becoming an "industry standard" as your meaning that it should replace TDP, which is the current "industry standard" used to measure and compare heat dissipation, which I believe wouldn't be helpful. Maybe that wasn't what you meant.


RE: DT trying to get Max comments?
By bpwilldo on 12/10/2007 4:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
No, I wasn't. TDP is an engineering design goal. ACP is an actual measurement. If ACP would be accepted by some standards body and was used by system builders, it could be quite useful when looking to upgrade servers. I don't know about your shop, but we don't run our servers at 100%. Our target is somewhat lower.


*sigh*
By Sungpooz on 12/10/2007 11:39:57 AM , Rating: 3
So what would make them want to do this?

Is it just desperation?
I really have no clue now.




RE: *sigh*
By Masterrer on 12/10/2007 11:59:37 AM , Rating: 2
It's called "Marketing"

They're losing out to intel's offerings bigtime, so they need anything to help boost sales.

Believing manufacturers claims today is like believing that current lcd displays really have 175/175 viewing angles, and that Toyota Prius realy achieves claimed MPG.

It's not big news to me anyway, as various hardware review sites (behardware.com for example) have measured the actual Phenom power consumption plus looses in the regulator circuit, and it was clear that K10 are a power hog, the implemented power saving features do help in idling mode...


RE: *sigh*
By defter on 12/10/2007 1:34:52 PM , Rating: 4
Apparently they realized that 120W TDP isn't high enough to achieve even half-decent clockspeeds with Barcelona. That's why they deciced to raise TDP. Then they also want to look good against Intel, that's why they didn't bother raising ACP value...

I wonder how this affect AMD's "stable platform initiative". If I have an Opteron server specified for 120W Socket-F Opterons, can I just upgrade CPUs to 137W Barcelonas?


Confused and Misled.
By teckytech9 on 12/10/2007 1:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
Its time that CPU manufactures start publishing detailed graphs or charts detailing the TDP based on CPU USAGE, as a function of percent (0~100%) and temperature (0~70ºC).

Their goal should be to eliminate ambiguity in this data by clearly publishing the results in graphical (picture) form.

It appears that AMD's "green" efforts to publish this ACP data for the Quad-Core Opteron is confusing and let alone “very misleading.”




RE: Confused and Misled.
By TomZ on 12/10/2007 1:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
Why would TDP vary as a function of temperature? Delta temperature is the result of power consumed by the processor.


RE: Confused and Misled.
By teckytech9 on 12/10/2007 2:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
I see you’re not familiar with idle temps and max load temps when building PC's. This data is always discussed in forums, specific to the CPU/Motherboard combination. This data is helpful when building systems, as getting the lowest temperatures at max load is always the goal.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t a CPU at higher usage, draw more power and get hotter at the same time?


RE: Confused and Misled.
By TomZ on 12/10/2007 4:01:29 PM , Rating: 3
My point is that temperature is not an "input" to the process, it is an "output." In other words, plotting it as a function of TDP makes no sense.


RE: Confused and Misled.
By bpwilldo on 12/10/07, Rating: 0
ACP != n% x TDP
By xdrol on 12/10/2007 1:09:51 PM , Rating: 2
TDP is a maximum measured thermal power. ACP is the average. Why should they revaluate the average, when they revaluated the maximum?

Will the average CPU usage - and thus the average thermal power - change (so the CPU will produce more heat), when they "found" some code that makes the CPU consume more?




RE: ACP != n% x TDP
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: ACP != n% x TDP
By xdrol on 12/10/2007 1:25:58 PM , Rating: 1
You sir need serious studies about how CPUs work.


RE: ACP != n% x TDP
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/10/2007 1:29:35 PM , Rating: 1
Please feel free to enlighten me...


RE: ACP != n% x TDP
By ChronoReverse on 12/10/2007 6:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
With that said, two sets of 100% load aren't equal either.

For instance, Prime95 Large FFTs would generate less heat than Prime95 Small FFTs which would in turn generate less heat compared with the Intel Thermal Analysis Tool.


Wait a second
By ChronoReverse on 12/10/2007 1:13:16 PM , Rating: 5
Wasn't Intel's "TDP" historically not the maximum power draw? I thought this was common knowledge already since it was much hullaboo'd in the days of the A64 and Pentium 4 that AMD used the absolute maximum draw while Intel used the typical maximum draw.

AMD went out and called it ACP since that's what it is, average. Isn't that MORE honest? Why hasn't Intel been called out formally on this while AMD is getting flak for it?




RE: Wait a second
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: Wait a second
By ChronoReverse on 12/10/2007 6:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
The issue is the strong (journalistic) language used in the title. Lie. It shouldn't be used so lightly until more information is known about the issue. Especially when there's still significant possibility that it wasn't a lie (mistake, testing circumstances, etc.).

That's what I meant by "called out formally".


Maximum != average
By Polynikes on 12/10/2007 12:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
How can AMD claim that their method of measuring thermal output is comparable to Intel's when Intel's is a maximum, and AMD's is more of an average? Nice try, guys.




RE: Maximum != average
By TomZ on 12/10/2007 1:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
They're "comparable" because AMD wants you to compare Intel's TDP to AMD's ADP and see the same numbers for similarly-priced processors. At least that seems like the plan to me.

It's all about presenting the product in the best possible light. It doesn't matter to AMD that it is comparing apples to oranges, as long as consumers can't tell the difference.


One small thing
By imperator3733 on 12/10/2007 12:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The best case scenario is that a 160MHz slower AMD processor consumes 17 more watts.


That should really read 166MHz since 3.16GHz = 3166.666666 MHz.




RE: One small thing
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/10/2007 1:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
Fixed.


Was it a lie or a mistake?
By dbigers on 12/10/2007 7:51:25 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps I didnt read the article well enough, I am tired at the moment. However, the term "Lie" implies intent to deceive. I saw nowhere in the article where DT contacted AMD and asked for an explanation of why the numbers are different.

Regardless of the argument of how TDP and ACP compare or how they are calculated, wouldnt it be a good idea to contact AMD and perhaps ask them why the change was made?

Like I said, I am very tired and perhaps I missed it in the article. If I did I apologise up front. But if I didnt, then shame on DT. Saying that the numbers dont agree would have been a start. Then go from there. But, to say "Lie" from the start implies "Guilty until proven innocent".

I am not implying that AMD has a good explanation, just wondering if that avenue was pursued prior to posting this article.

For the record I am running a 4200-X2 at the moment, soon to be replaced by a Q6600.




RE: Was it a lie or a mistake?
By dbigers on 12/10/2007 7:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, I see from a reply to another post that you did contact AMD and they did not reply. I stand partically corrected.

In the article you say this

"Either the ACP is an arbitrarily measured system, and AMD changed it at will for its convenience, or AMD's document team failed to update the document properly. There is no other feasible explanation of why a 20 Watt TDP increase would be accompanied by no increase in ACP."

So you are suggesting that there is a chance that the team failed to update the document properly. But, a headline that includes the word "Lie" in it says just the opposite.

AMD didnt get back to you, so that was evidence enough to dismiss the possibility mentioned above?


what is going on?
By sharlauc on 12/10/2007 8:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
Okay power consumption is really something to talk about? regardless of whether Intel method or Amd methods counts, I have another topic in mind. I have been a follower of amd/intel (war) sometime now (7 years). I noticed a nice something lately. About 5 month aho i noticed that www.tomshardware.com which was a AMD pro site (whether rightfully or not) stopped talking AMD and started talking about Intel peocessors ALOT. U can see that just browse through articles dated 4 month ago. At the same time i noticed that AnandTech (which is a pretty nice site) started talking AMD (Extensively) discussing their future plans and having meetings with AMD representitives. During Phenom release i ntoiced the following. Tomshardware was pretty neutral about the release showing only its positive sides (if there are any) while anadtech received the release like a war invitation. Throughout all articles i noticed that not a single article contained any information that can be phenom pro (rightfully or not). WHAT IS GOING ON




RE: what is going on?
By DLeRium on 12/11/2007 3:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
I thought Toms was biased TOWARDS Intel and not AMD. Then again I stopped reading them after 2006 entirely. I always saw their articles of overclocked Pentiums thrown against AMD chips. Even the Core 2 Duos had a bunch of OCed C2Ds. They never put the overclocks on a separate page and did a clear apples to apples comparison. Maybe they changed in 2007, or you got your facts wrong. Re-read Tom's articles and you will see the Intel bias.


joules/calculation?
By Rovemelt on 12/10/2007 11:56:53 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe it's time for the processor companies to break down their power consumption to joules/specific calculation to eliminate the uncertainty. Perhaps something like microjules/longint division or calculate pi to 1000 digits.

Sounds like AMD is twisting their data a bit.




Blown out of Proportion
By MatthiasF on 12/10/2007 12:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
Considering that the changes between the two reports are nearly the percentage of power the memory controllers are listed as taking, I think the title of this article (specifically the "lies" portion) and the overall tone are completely unnecessary.

I'm pretty sure this was a Marketing snafu. They probably took the information from only one column of a table when they should have added a few together to get the correct information.

Meanwhile, I've always found it suspiciously odd that Intel CPU's have such tidy TDP numbers (nearly always ending in 0 or 5). I'd be interested in more details on the benchmark differences between AMD's ACP and Intel's TDP.

Maybe it would be a good time for us, the public at large, to create our own open source form of synthetic benchmarks to generate non-bias thermal and power consumption information.




By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/10/2007 1:07:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm pretty sure this was a Marketing snafu. They probably took the information from only one column of a table when they should have added a few together to get the correct information.

Why is it then that AMD is pushing the new whitepaper. It's not like this was a subtle error -- someone had to have noticed that the ACP measurements did not change even though everything else did.

I agree, it's likely just a mistake. When you're a multi-billion dollar company though, making mistakes garners the attention of the media.

quote:
Maybe it would be a good time for us, the public at large, to create our own open source form of synthetic benchmarks to generate non-bias thermal and power consumption information.

I agree entirely. If nothing else, I think I'd like to see SPEC or some company put a standard method out for everyone.


By elegault on 12/10/2007 3:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't read all the posts. But, for the ones that I read...it seems like people don't understand the difference between thermal dissipation and power consumption.

AMD's 65nm process has a leakage problem like P4's. This make heat.

However, AMD's Barcelona has many power saving features that make them more POWER efficient.

This is why AMD has released a new method to differentiate between TDP and ACP.




By kilkennycat on 12/10/2007 10:51:42 PM , Rating: 2
Anand and other sites will be conducting a full set of side-by-side test-suite comparisons between Phenom and Penryn processors when they are in full production ( and after the B3 Phenom re-masking ). No doubt these comparisons will include power-consumption. So we shall get a very good idea of the performance/power ratings within the next three months. No point in blowing a lot of HOT AIR about suspect power-consumption figures from both the Intel and AMD camps. Er, pardon the bad pun... :-) :-)




By sharlauc on 12/11/2007 5:28:05 AM , Rating: 2
Crystal Clear i have no doubt that AMD is screwing up it self lately and if this is so it is not only because AMD is bad but also because Intel is releasing excellent processors after years of pathetic processors. This is not the point whether AMD releases good or bad processors or whether it is performing as bad as it gets. The point is when a product or a technology is released people deserve to read its pros and cons in an objective way. For example, Extremetech is a website that handles AMD/Intel (war) in a less enthusiastic way. However, when i read their articles i feel that it is objective. For instance, all agree even AMD fans themselves that Phenom is a disaoppointment. However, when extremetech handled the topic is showed how and why the platform is so underperforming showing however the one positive side of (their must be at least one). About AMD lieing about their press releases. No doubt that AMD sometimes lie like the benchmark releases of Opteron processor which all sites handled the same way. However, when i talking i am discussing something like "The lie about AMD ADP TDP" when i read the article i found the following "AMD's Phenom processor already underwent lackluster reception at launch, and the company faces ever-higher-piling losses. The problems have led AMD to try to focus on expanding its K8 platform offerings, instead of addressing the compounding issues of its K10 platform" how is related by any means to the article itself. Besides, inside the article i found no mention of the article header itslef which is " AMD: The Lies About Power Consumption Start Here". All i am saying is anandtech is a great site, and it would be greater if the site isolates itself from marketing wheels of companies (either AMD or Intel) and take the side of the readers and the mass market. I am not saying that it is all i am saying is that i would accept that a site is Intel pro or AMD pro but when i find that a site fluctuates the way it handles even biases like suddenly writing about how AMD futue is bright and how AMD "become open about their technologies and heading for the future" then after few month i find the same site pouring oil on the head of the same company it was praising days ago i become confused. SO AM I or ARE you?




The most important thing....
By Setsunayaki on 12/16/2007 6:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
I believe in the TDP over ACP.

Engineers, Computer Builders and the IT personel who will upgrade commerical and industrial computers perform better with "Thermal Design Power" ratings. While it is nice to know the Average Power Draw of a processor, we need to be logical and plan to dissipate the maximum heat possible.

This leads us to more efficient cooling solutions and better precautions. If a system has a ACP of 100w and we ignore that its TDP equivalent is 120w, we may end up purchasing inadaquate cooling, that while at Average Loads will work, but the system will be in danger at full load. This becomes even more dangerous if we get a ACP rating of 100w and we overclock and require 160 - 180w dissipation. The average alone will never be enough.

IT companies and heavy businesses have a higher to near-maximum load on a system working on multiple databases. When Engineers create a Continiency plan, we have to avert disaster and that always comes by knowing and siding with maximum numbers to give us overhead when faced with average numbers.

Remember that one can derive an Average from TDP from standart computing terminology and guidelines. ACP has its place as a comparison to TDP, but it is not a better system. I personally would love to know the difference between Average and Full Load heat and test outcomes from a fully equipped lab. Such information would benefit everyone.




I've become confused
By jlanders646 on 12/10/07, Rating: 0
"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins

Related Articles
AMD Clarifies ACP, TDP Enigma
December 10, 2007, 6:45 PM
AMD Phenom 2008 Roadmap
December 5, 2007, 10:08 AM
Pricing Phenom: AMD's 2.4 GHz Almost Here
November 6, 2007, 7:54 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki