backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 130 comment(s) - last by flipsu5.. on Aug 18 at 1:45 AM
Intel says Atom is doing very well in the marketplace

When Intel launched its tiny Atom processor, it intended for the small, low-cost CPU to find its way into many cheaper consumer electronic devices like the new class of netbooks, mobile phones, and Mobile Internet Devices (MIDs). Intel's Atom has found its way into a number of small, lower-cost devices so far since its launch including the Asus Eee PC, MSI Wind, and Acer Aspire One.

Intel is looking to the low-cost Atom processor to help it grow its business and profits in the face of a slowing trend in the PC market. According to Intel Chief Financial Officer Stacy Smith, the Atom CPU is doing very well. Reuters quotes Smith as saying in an interview, "Atom is off to a very, very rapid start, far exceeding our expectations when we started the year. It's the perfect recession product to have in the marketplace."

According to Intel, the Atom processor is well placed for the mobile market and emerging markets. The low-cost nature the processor makes it desirable as the CPU to be used in low-cost secondary computers or in low-cost systems aimed at children. Smith does maintain that Intel won't know the complete size of the market for the Atom processor for about six months. Smith also says that the Atom processor seems to be growing the market rather than cannibalizing existing PC sales.

The much lower price and lower performance of the Atom CPU compared to Intel's more common Core 2 processors has Intel saying that it is not worried that the Atom processor will cannibalize existing CPU sales, with the possible exception of low-end Celeron sales. However, Smith told Reuters that the Atom could cannibalize low-end Celeron sales and that he was all for that.

Smith said, "If it's [the Atom] cannibalizing from the Celeron part of the market, I'll take that any day." Reuters also reports that Smith maintains Intel would be able to meet its third-quarter predictions of $10 billion to $10.6 billion in overall revenue.

Intel has offered no insight into its profitability from the Atom processor, but Smith did say Intel is able to get 2,500 Atom processors per silicon wafer. According to Reuters that should mean Intel makes a healthy profit on its Atom processors. Intel is also looking at the embedded market is a serious marketplace for its Atom processor.

Smith says that interest among embedded customers for the Atom processor has been very strong. He does point out though that it could take years for Intel realize revenue for the embedded market because of longer design cycles. Intel does say that once the Atom has been designed into a car or cable box the processor would remain there for years.

Intel has been aggressively introducing new models in its Atom CPU line since the initial introduction. In April, Intel announced five new Atom models and more models are on the way.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Hmm.
By Diosjenin on 8/13/2008 3:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't it, oh, let's say July 22nd when this very site ran a piece explaining how "many of the industry's largest players are fearful that in undoing the tradition high-profit-margin, high power hardware model that the industry has operated on for years; they may be put out of business"?

That sure did seem to be the impression Intel and AMD and every notebook OEM out there were giving off. Now all of a sudden Atom is Intel's savior?

Did something special happen in the last three weeks that I was totally unaware of? What gives here?




RE: Hmm.
By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2008 4:03:13 PM , Rating: 5
There's no dichotomy in the two statements. The high-power, high-profit industry is dying a slow death, and that does worry many players. So what can they do about it, other than push low-power chips like the Atom?

Such a strategy allows Intel to salvage as much as it can from the industry's evolution.


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Hmm.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/13/2008 5:12:15 PM , Rating: 3
No worries, AMD lacks an Atom competitor.
High End. Intel Core 2 Series.
Mid Range. Intel Core 2 Series.
Low End. Intel Core 2 Series.
Sub-Notebook. Intel Atom Series.

Looks to me like AMD still needs to play catch up.


RE: Hmm.
By Mitch101 on 8/13/2008 5:56:17 PM , Rating: 5
There is still the Via Nano to take on Atom.

HTPC End - AMD Dual Core + 780G or 790GX Mobo


RE: Hmm.
By Chadder007 on 8/13/2008 6:48:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but who has signed up to use the Nano yet?


RE: Hmm.
By TomZ on 8/13/2008 7:21:10 PM , Rating: 3
Good point. On the one hand, you have Intel, a company with large resources available for developing product, manufacturing product, and working for design wins.

On the other hand, you have VIA, which has really never been anything more than a niche player in the low end of the CPU market.

Even if the Nano was very superior technically (which it isn't), there are still a lot of reasons an OEM/ODM would prefer to go with Intel.


RE: Hmm.
By Mitch101 on 8/15/2008 2:54:52 PM , Rating: 2
The ATOM Splitter
Athlon 64 2000+
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Atom-Athlon-Ef...

Didn't see this coming either.


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/15/2008 10:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
Hahaha, I wonder if TomZ got a heart attack after reading this article and realizing who's gonna "wipe the floor" as he said :))) Reality is a dangerous thing, Tom, you better stop reading this thread NOW! Or else... ;))


RE: Hmm.
By Mitch101 on 8/16/2008 11:53:03 AM , Rating: 2
Cant call it a win yet. Lima isn't released yet and Dual Core Atoms arrive in September. But its good to see AMD isn't completely blind sided by this. One can only hope that this isn't another outlet for AMD cash bleeding. I suspect AMD's plan isn't to make money on the CPU's as much as it is to make the money on the chipsets.


RE: Hmm.
By flipsu5 on 8/18/2008 1:45:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the other hand, you have VIA, which has really never been anything more than a niche player in the low end of the CPU market.


Nano is actually positioned in between Atom and Celeron. Quite successfully I might add. HP has already placed the order.

It is true it is a niche player, but believe it or not, Atom will only fill a niche in the near future. It may even be an empty niche.

Intel probably didn't need to put up the Atom. Now it risks cannibalization from Nehalem at high end and Atom at low end. In past generations, it has only been high-end where cannibalization took place. The enthusiasts wait for the newer better product. Now there is added opportunity for abandonment of product lines, as non-enthusiasts wait for the cheapest possible product.


RE: Hmm.
By flipsu5 on 8/18/2008 1:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
HP


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Hmm.
By TomZ on 8/13/2008 6:15:21 PM , Rating: 3
Wake up! The E8500 consumes about 33W active and 3W idle, and probably blows the doors off your X2.


RE: Hmm.
By rudolphna on 8/13/2008 7:38:39 PM , Rating: 1
and yet its still marketed as a 65w CPU.. hmmmm.... makes me wonder, dont ya think maybe the "45 watt" AMD CPUs consume less than the E8500? :)


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Hmm.
By TomZ on 8/13/2008 8:29:10 PM , Rating: 1
You asked for an Intel chip less than 45W, and I provided one. Now you call me a fanboy. Get a life!

I don't give a rats @ss about the AMD side, since we know that right now Intel has (a) better overall performance across the board, and (b) better performance per watt across the board. This is shown in tons of articles and benchmarks across the 'net.

When/if AMD turns the tables again in the future, I'll be back with AMD, but only a fool would buy AMD right now and claim anything other than lowest cost.


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Hmm.
By Khato on 8/13/2008 9:40:46 PM , Rating: 3
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

Yes, it's about a year old, but have fun trying to convince anyone that the newest version, the 2.5 GHz 4850e, is going to win out on either performance or power compared to Intel. And if you want to continue using the TDP quoted in design spreadsheets, then why don't you include the same footnote as exists in those spreadsheets - "Thermal Design Power (TDP) should be used for processor thermal solution design targets. The TDP is not the maximum power that the processor can dissipate."

You do have a perfectly valid argument if you go for the performance per dollar metric. After all, unlike AMD, Intel actually makes a profit.


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Hmm.
By maroon1 on 8/14/2008 12:22:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I asked for an Intel chip rated at 45W, and you gave me one rated at 65W


It is rated at 65W, but it consume just 33W at full load

http://xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/intel-wolfdale/pcon...

Most (if not all) of intel core 2 chips consume less power that their rated TDP

quote:
Maybe AMD chip rated at 45W consumes about 25W, how about that?


Did you say "maybe" ?

Please show us a proof

Furthermore, E8500 performs much better than those AMD chips that are rated at 45W. So, I believe E8500 is an easy winner in performance per watt


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hmm.
By maroon1 on 8/14/2008 4:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Only after you, sir.


Why ?

You come here to attack Intel because it doesn't have 45W rated CPU, and you make an assumptions that AMD 45W consume less power than Intel 65W rated CPUs. Yet you ask others to show you a proof !!

Why you don't show us any proof for any of your claims ?

At least we showed you that E8500 which is one of the fastest Wolfdale consume just 33W at load, even though it is rated at 65W

TDP is a poor measure of power consumption, its not actual power consumption.


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/14/2008 6:26:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
At least we showed you that E8500 which is one of the fastest Wolfdale consume just 33W at load, even though it is rated at 65W
Are you going to show me that 45W rated AMD X2 consumes more power than E8500 ON THE SAME CHIPSET, or are you going to keep the same old blabber going?

There's no sense to continue discussion if you're out of arguments.

Everybody boasts that 33W number for Intel but noone can prove this is actually LESS than 45W AMD X2 chip. Why don't you stop repeating yoursef if you can't add any substance/new facts/numbers to the discussion?


RE: Hmm.
By FaceMaster on 8/14/2008 8:30:32 PM , Rating: 2
AMD = 45W, Intel = 33 Watt under load, despite being rated at 65 W. Now, prove to me that the AMD 445 W under load consumes less than 33 watts. Don't change the subject, just find the facts! (This will make a change for Pirks...)


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/14/2008 9:15:56 PM , Rating: 1
If you wanna prove that AMD consumes more power despite the lower rating - the burden of proof is on you. I have lower power rating on my side, hence if Intel typically consumes 50% of its TDP rating - same must be true for AMD, meaning that AMD X2 must be consuming 25W - which is LESS than Intel CPU's consumption.


RE: Hmm.
By Lightnix on 8/15/2008 12:33:39 AM , Rating: 2
TDP ratings mean very little as the way that companies gauge them is not done by a set standard, but by their own proprietary methods which may not be the same as another manufacturer, or even their own previous methods. Trying to prove that a CPU is more energy efficient based on TDP rating, which by the way is not a measure of power consumption - but a guide toward roughly how much heat a CPU cooler will need to deal with, is futile. I mean for one thing, AMD and Intel don't use the same microfabrication techinques - one might be more efficient and not put out so much waste heat (which, we remember is what the TDP rating is about).

I turn your attention once again to the xbitlabs.com article,

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel...

The E8200 processor not only consumes WAY under its TDP, but also outperforms the Athlon X2 6400+ by a fair margin in most tests. It might not be hard, concrete proof, but it's fairly rational reasoning. The AMD CPU pretty much cannot draw a significantly smaller amount of power than the Intel CPU, as the E8200 isn't really drawing a significant amount of power itself (in a desktop rig anyway).

Even if the 4850e only, theoretically speaking, drew 15W, that's only 12W less than the E8200, which in reality is a tiny fraction of a system's overall power consumption, and wouldn't become noticeable unless you were running off a battery or something.


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/15/2008 4:27:49 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
outperforms the Athlon X2 6400+
I don't care about 125W AMD chip, we're discussing 45W chips here. Well, if there's no proof then there's no proof, and I suggest everyone should keep their own beliefs until said proof eventually pops up on the Net. I mean some detailed analysis written by Anand himself that really makes the picture clear with regard to 45W AMD chips. Or something similar.


RE: Hmm.
By FaceMaster on 8/15/2008 5:47:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
if Intel typically consumes 50% of its TDP rating - same must be true for AMD


You have no logic. Prove that AMD consumes less than its TDP. Please.


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/15/2008 2:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
Prove that AMD consumes not less than its TDP, please.


RE: Hmm.
By FaceMaster on 8/15/2008 8:01:01 PM , Rating: 2
AMD says that its TDP- 45 Watts- that's the point of a TDP. It's up to you to help AMD out of this one, fanboy!


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/15/2008 10:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
It's up to you to prove that 65W Intel CPUs consume less power than 45W AMD CPUs, fanboy!


RE: Hmm.
By FaceMaster on 8/16/2008 6:17:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wake up! The E8500 consumes about 33W active and 3W idle, and probably blows the doors off your X2.


There. 33 W is lower than 45 W. I assume you're going to keep ignoring this evidence because you can't come up with any of your own, because you're a blatant fanboy. I am going to terminate this arguement as there is no way you are being serious. Anybody with at least a bit of sense would have looked at the facts and have realised that Intel are superior to AMD at the moment. I am not going to reply any more because you are childish and don't understand obvious facts, have a nice day and feel free to buy AMD processors, I want them to continue... but I'm going to stick with Intel for now, which seem superior in every way. *Expects 'hahahahahahha you lose and are running away!' reply, proving that Pirks is just here to flame*


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/16/2008 1:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
I assume you're going to keep ignoring the fact that noone has posted 45W AMD CPU consumption numbers on the same chipset, because you're a blatant Intel fanboy


RE: Hmm.
By mindless1 on 8/13/2008 8:51:20 PM , Rating: 5
Actually it's been well known for quite a while that at any given performance level, Intel CPUs uses less power. Been that way for quite a while now, actually was always nearly equal or less but for the exception of higher clocked P4s and early P3s.

Getting a Core2Duo to run at 45W or less is easy as pie, and for desktop use it'll still outperform. It's not that I'm an Intel fan, actually I root for AMD since they're the underdog that's needed to keep CPU market prices sane and competition moving along to faster models sooner.


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Hmm.
By TheSpaniard on 8/14/2008 3:02:46 AM , Rating: 2
why do you keep saying maybe?

listen, the Intel ones can be UNDERCLOCKED to match the AMDs performance level and will be using less power. if you underclock the AMDs chip we might as well start comparing it to an overclocked ATOM*

*Disclaimer: I do not know if any amount of overclocking will make an ATOM perform on par with the previously mentioned AMD processor


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hmm.
By mindless1 on 8/14/2008 2:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have a burden to prove something you can't be bothered to research on your own, what do I really care if you have the Intel alternative when you seem perfectly happy with what you already have instead?

Yes, some Intel processors are more expensive than your AMD CPU would cost today (I have no idea when you bought it so that makes it fairly hard to do price comparisons but we were talking power and performance not price).

The funny thing is, I was talking about power and performance without even considering C1E or EIST. Without those, giving AMD an advantage by keeping it's native power reduction features, it might actually come out ahead if a system were left sitting idle but we were talking performance and in that regard it's no contest.

Did you bother to look at benchmarks then compare Intel's spec sheets? They don't exactly hide this info. THAT is a lot of numbers so go ahead and look it up since you seem to want to argue with a 3rd party instead of learning it for yourself.


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/14/2008 3:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you bother to look at benchmarks then compare Intel's spec sheets?
Have you seen benchmarks comparing latest 45W AMD X2s with 65W Intel CPUs _ON THE SAME CHIPSET_?


RE: Hmm.
By TheWay64 on 8/14/2008 7:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because Intel fanboys.


Funny

You accuse others of being an Intel fanboy, yet all your posts clearly show that you are an AMD fanboy !

quote:
can't prove their beliefs with numbers


So, what ?

Maybe because there is no review that compares 45nm Core 2 Duo directly to an 45W AMD procossor !

It seems that you can't prove that 45W AMD consume less power either.

Furthmore, you are one who started to make those claims not us


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/14/2008 7:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I said that 45W AMD CPUs are rated less than 65W Intel CPUs, hence they must be consuming less. Lower rating ==>> lower power consumption, got it? Intel fanboys here searched across the whole Internet and still could not prove the opposite. I guess we can close the discussion now.

Intel fanboys, come back with numbers, otherwise don't bother to post your beliefs and assumptions here, everybody knows them already.


RE: Hmm.
By Oregonian2 on 8/14/2008 8:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
Less if they're being rated using the same measurement methods and assumptions (which I know their standard methods aren't). Difference could be even bigger or it could not exist at all. Are the 65 and 45 numbers you mention measured the same way with the same assumptions?


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/15/2008 9:55:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's hard to believe Intel or AMD would severely overestimate power requirement of their chips. Intel would never rate their chips 65W if in reality they would never cross for example the 35W mark. Same's true for AMD, hence there's usually a simple logic behing CPU power ratings. A power rating says: this CPU may consume UP TO XXX WATTS, meaning that usually it'll consume less. So it's totally logical to assume that lower maximum power rating also means lower typical power consumption. So far I have seen absolutely NO proof of the opposite. There are only a few Intel fanatics spilling their usual BS around here, but no concrete hard facts/numbers proving my common sense logic wrong.


RE: Hmm.
By mindless1 on 8/15/2008 4:12:26 AM , Rating: 2
I already told you how to come up with numbers, hard engineering data on spec sheets. Oops, even then we'd have to ignore the higher performane so basically you have to do a little bit of math to see that if the Intel CPU is underclocked enough to be performing equally, then that former 65W CPU obviously isn't 65W anymore.

I think that's where you went wrong, not understanding that once you degrade the performance of an Intel CPU enough to seem equal, you have also decreased it's power consumption quite a lot.


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/15/2008 10:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
once you degrade the performance of an Intel CPU enough to seem equal, you have also decreased it's power consumption quite a lot
I already said that I'm not discussing underclocking, as none in their sane mind would do that.


RE: Hmm.
By mindless1 on 8/17/2008 12:16:13 AM , Rating: 2
None in their sane mind would only look at power/heat without a consideration of the performance and that you can have the same or lower power/heat with higher performance.

It's like you picked the losing horse in every respect except price? Cheap and low power is good, but there's not a large price difference for Intel's lower end at this point either. It's really easy to have what you claim is important except you want to narrowly enough define something as to make it pretty much non-applicable to anyone's needs.


RE: Hmm.
By TheWay64 on 8/15/2008 12:32:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, I said that 45W AMD CPUs are rated less than 65W Intel CPUs, hence they must be consuming less. Lower rating ==>> lower power consumption, got it?


No, I didn't get it because

You are ingnoring that fact that the TDP is not the actual power consumption

Some processors consume much less power that their rated TDP (like the 45nm Core 2 Duo)

Some processors consume the same or close to their rated TDP


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/15/2008 10:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some processors consume much less power that their rated TDP (like the 45nm Core 2 Duo). Some processors consume the same or close to their rated TDP
But you don't know what the numbers are for Intel 65W CPUs and AMD 45W CPUs on the same chipset, so what's your point then?


RE: Hmm.
By William Gaatjes on 8/14/2008 1:51:50 AM , Rating: 2
When Nehalem comes, it will be a more apples to apples comparison.

The IMC from AMD needs power too. In reality part of the power consumption of the Intel northbridge needs to be added to the power an Intel cpu uses to make some comparison.
But There is no way an AMD cpu on 65nm can match Intel on 45nm. Now hypothetical speaking, let's say we could have an phenom on Intels 45nm process. Then the penryn would not be that special anymore.

Intel has a good design but they have an even better process. Intel's biggest problem was leakcurrents and they solved that problem with the 45nm hafnium gate process.

That's why idle power is so incredibly low now on intel cpu's. But when put to full load, 40-50W increase is not that strange.


RE: Hmm.
By omnicronx on 8/14/2008 10:27:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In reality part of the power consumption of the Intel northbridge needs to be added to the power an Intel cpu uses to make some comparison.
People always forget this, but it must be taken into consideration as AMD chips have the onboard memory controller. You are exactly right on the Nehalem front too, as both sides will be using an onboard controller.


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/15/2008 2:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
Also the local Intel fanboys always forget that it's the platform that matters, not just the CPU. When you take 45W AMD X2 and 780G as a platform together - how much power is going to be consumed by competing Intel platform having same level of CPU and GPU performance? I won't be surprised if Intel loses on both the power and price points. That's why Intel fanboys are so vitriolic about my posts here and downrate me furiously whenever they can. They just can't stand that Intel turned out to be pretty sucky as a platform, so what can they do besides downrating me and repeating the same unproven assumptions like "AMD chips always consume as much as their TDP rating says"? There you go, a concise and simple explanation of what is going on in this thread.


RE: Hmm.
By boogle on 8/14/2008 4:30:55 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel...

Intel uses less power.

Basically Intel gives an entire family a single TDP for the simple reason that OEMs are likely to offer one computer with the entire range of CPUs in that family at different price points. So the fastest CPU in the range dictates the TDP for that series - not the slowest.

TDP is a poor measure of power consumption, its not actual power consumption and never will be. Especially since AMD recently changed the definition of TDP with Phenom to be 'typical power consumption' rather than 'absolute max heat dissipation' so some of AMD's official figures are actually below the real power consumption of the CPU.

Either way - with most PCs you need to compare idle power consumption since the CPU will be doing that most of the time. You also need to look at performance too - if one CPU uses 100W for 10 seconds, is that not better than a CPU that uses 10W for 2 minutes? Especially if the idle power consumption of the two is comparable. Incidentally Intel CPUs use less power in idle than AMD CPUs, so, yeah, umm, if the PC is doing very little work and on for long periods of time Intel CPUs are massively more efficient.


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hmm.
By JoshuaBuss on 8/14/2008 1:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
if all you're concerned with is low power, why aren't you running an atom?

you're not listening to anyone here pirks.. yes, you might be using less power, but you're getting less performance for the power you're using than if you'd switch to intel.


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/14/2008 1:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
why aren't you running an atom?
Why would anyone go for Atom on a desktop? Atom is a purely mobile CPU.
quote:
you're getting less performance for the power you're using than if you'd switch to intel
Why noone showed me any proof of that, any decent numbers comparing power consumption of 45W AMD X2s with Intel CPUs _ON THE SAME CHIPSET_? Why only words of blind fanboyish belief and not a single scientific argument? Smells fishy, don't you think?


RE: Hmm.
By boogle on 8/15/2008 5:10:05 AM , Rating: 2
I did have a nice post ready, but having seen the numerous other posts it seems you're really enjoying yourself arguing with all these people. So I'll refrain from feeding your addiction any longer.

I did find a photo of you though: http://www.caveyourtrolls.com/img3.jpg

Uncanny!


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/15/2008 8:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
That's what fanboys start posting when they are out of arguments


RE: Hmm.
By maroon1 on 8/14/2008 12:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
[enjoying total silence of my new 45 watt Athlon X2] Wake me up when Intel introduces 45 watt desktop CPUs :P


My friend Most of the intel Core 2 processors consume much less power that their TDP

E8500 consume less only 33W at load

http://xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/intel-wolfdale/pcon...


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/14/2008 4:05:03 PM , Rating: 2
My friend, most of the AMD processors consume much less power that their TDP too :P How about AMD X2 consuming just 25W at load, huh?


RE: Hmm.
By maroon1 on 8/14/2008 4:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
Talking is easy

Please should as a proof that supports your claim.


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/14/2008 6:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
So you gave up 'cause you can't find any proof that E8500 consumes less power than my 45W rated AMD X2? Or are you just going to keep endlessly repeating that "33W" mantra? That won't help 'cause this mantra is worthless without 45W AMD X2 consumption numbers on the same chipset. Good luck repeating yourself ;-)


RE: Hmm.
By StevoLincolnite on 8/13/2008 6:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
I personally thought low-end was reserved for the Pentium 2xxx series and Celerons were for the Ultra Low-end and not the Core 2 Series.

(Unless you meant the Pentium and Celeron series as part of the Core 2 series because of the similar architecture?)

Personally though, I find the low-end to be a better deal on AMD's side of the fence with the Athlon 64 X2 when you do not introduce the overclocking Potential on the Pentium 2xxx series.


RE: Hmm.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/13/2008 8:26:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the current Pentium and Celerons are nothing more than Core 2's that were cannibalized in various ways to make them "low end chips".


RE: Hmm.
By FaceMaster on 8/13/2008 8:14:39 PM , Rating: 2
Pirks are you insane? It's almost as if you have something against Intel. Not that this is a recurring theme in your posts or anything. Although I love competition, well... I love competition and at the moment AMD may be getting stronger (than they were say, a year ago) but they're still not capable of taking on Intel.

Intel chips overclock better as well. Oh wait, overclocking is pointless because nobody does it.


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hmm.
By FaceMaster on 8/13/2008 9:52:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
just one or two additional FPS in a high-end game like Crysis


Haha wouldn't that be like, a 100% increase?

Okay seriously now

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q930...

9 fps boost on Crysis. Higher resolutions rely on GPU power more in a game like Crysis. Observe the Phenom 9600's scores before you say that CPUs don't matter, mind. I know you'll go 'YEAH ITS FASTER THAN ALL OF THEM' ... yeah, by 1 fps in one of the benchmarks, in the others it SERIOUSLY lags behind, particularly on lower resolutions (Which I assume is what 'non enthusiasts' would run it at)

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q930...

Yum more tasty overclocking scores

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q930...

I rest my case.

Next?


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/13/2008 10:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
9 fps boost on Crysis
1 fps with the resolution I play (1920x1200). Thanks for proving my words with your diagrams. Next?


RE: Hmm.
By EricMartello on 8/14/2008 12:38:25 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
1 fps with the resolution I play (1920x1200). Thanks for proving my words with your diagrams. Next?


In the tests listed on that website at that resolution, the FPS are being limited by the video card (Nvidia 8800GT) and not the CPU...which is why the variance is minimal. It's not a relevant comparison of CPU power...nor does it support your claim that "overclocking doesn't matter anymore". If, in fact, you were to run 8800GT in SLI, you would once again see larger discrepancies in the FPS results, due to the CPU's performance.

quote:
wow [looking again at your diagrams] I had no idea phenoms smash, piss and spit on intel chips at higher resolutions, thanks a LOT for your diagrams AGAIN! [sending them quickly to a few Intel zealots among friends of mine] they will definiely enjoy this, hehehe ;)


If only that were the case...let me break it down for you:

Your AMD X2 is to a low-end Intel C2D as a 1987 Hyundai SCoupe is to a Nissan Maxima.

One is cheaper and gets better fuel economy, but the other one gives you a lot more for the money in terms of performance, efficiency and actual usability - be it for work or play. :)


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/14/2008 10:51:38 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
the FPS are being limited by the video card (Nvidia 8800GT) and not the CPU
If you buy a pair of 4870X2s and your CPU becomes more overclockable then you definitely have money to swap your CPU for faster one, hence your argument is moot - no overclocking is necessary. Who buys $1000 of video hardware and meager budget CPU to match? Only people from your dreams :)
quote:
Your AMD X2 is to a low-end Intel C2D as a 1987 Hyundai SCoupe is to a Nissan Maxima
Besides Intel fanboys, who needs "Maxima" when it's smashed by a cheaper AMD machine at higer gaming resolutions?


RE: Hmm.
By EricMartello on 8/14/2008 3:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you buy a pair of 4870X2s and your CPU becomes more overclockable then you definitely have money to swap your CPU for faster one, hence your argument is moot - no overclocking is necessary. Who buys $1000 of video hardware and meager budget CPU to match? Only people from your dreams :)


Some people buy a cheaper CPU and overclock it to match the performance of a more expensive one...or you can also get a CPU like the Q6600 which is not really a "budget" CPU, but overclocks tremendously...lots of people are able to run it at 2.8-3.0 GHz with air cooling and minimal voltage increase.

Two 8800GTs might cost you $600-$700 tops...so for well under $1,500 total you could have a powerful gaming system that excels in pretty much all categories. Even if you're trying to make a power-efficient system, Intel still gives you more computing power per watt than AMD.

quote:

Besides Intel fanboys, who needs "Maxima" when it's smashed by a cheaper AMD machine at higer gaming resolutions?


Can you show me a link to some objective tests where the AMD system is "smashing" an Intel system at higher resolutions? I'm sure you would have provided a link already, if what you stated was in fact true.


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/14/2008 4:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some people buy a cheaper CPU and overclock it to match the performance of a more expensive one
When you play games in a high resolution, you don't care about CPU, you care only about GPU, so overclocking CPU has a negligible gain, why bother?
quote:
Two 8800GTs might cost you $600-$700
Why buy two 8800GT when you can buy faster 4870 X2 for less?
quote:
Even if you're trying to make a power-efficient system, Intel still gives you more computing power per watt than AMD
Nobody gave me a proof of that with regard to 45W AMD X2s, it's just an urban legend spread around by Intel marketing and happily consumed by numerous Intel fanboys.
quote:
Can you show me a link to some objective tests where the AMD system is "smashing" an Intel system at higher resolutions?
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q930... <- look at 1920x1200 resolution

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q930... <- look at 1680x1050 resolution

Enjoying these graphs now, dontcha, fanboy? ;-)


RE: Hmm.
By EricMartello on 8/14/2008 4:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When you play games in a high resolution, you don't care about CPU, you care only about GPU, so overclocking CPU has a negligible gain, why bother?


Nah. CPU and GPU always matter, it's just that at lower resolutions the CPU is the bottleneck, and as resolutions increase the GPU becomes the bottleneck.

quote:
Why buy two 8800GT when you can buy faster 4870 X2 for less?


Oooh, let's ride your logic train. Why buy a 3D video card at all? You can get onboard video for even less!

quote:
Nobody gave me a proof of that with regard to 45W AMD X2s, it's just an urban legend spread around by Intel marketing and happily consumed by numerous Intel fanboys.


A simple google search for "amd x2 vs intel c2d" will yield pretty much all the proof you need from a variety of sources. An Intel C2D processor will absolutely mop the floor with your X2. Most benchmarks show an average of 40-50% more processing power from the C2D vs an X2, at the cost of using 30% more electricity (20 watts). Let's keep in mind that many CPUs in AMD's line-up are also using much more than 45W.

quote:

look at 1920x1200 resolution
look at 1680x1050 resolution

Enjoying these graphs now, dontcha, fanboy? ;-)


Um, you seem to forget that at those resolutions on the systems in that test, the GPU is the limiting factor. I can attribute the miniscule FPS improvement of the Phenom processor to its HyperTransport - the on-CPU memory controller will give it a slight edge here, and that on-CPU memory has always been a good feature of AMD's architecture.

However, your links do fail to show that AMD has a CPU that can "smash" an Intel CPU, and this is the second time the reason is being explained to you. BTW- the Phenom 9600BE in that test uses 95W and not 45W.

Lastly, YOUR CPU is not a Phenom...so even if the Phenom was faster than its Intel counterparts, it would be irrelevant because your budget box wouldn't even ping the charts at all.


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/14/2008 6:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
as resolutions increase the GPU becomes the bottleneck
Yeah, and since I game on high resolutions I don't care about CPU overclock. With lower resolution even the cheap 2.5 GHz 45W AMD X2 gives you enough horsepower to game comfortably, hence no need to overclock in either case.
quote:
You can get onboard video for even less
But will it be faster? Nope.

You failed at reading comprehension 'cause you missed word "faster" in my previous post. Try to read carefully next time.
quote:
A simple google search for "amd x2 vs intel c2d" will yield pretty much all the proof you need
If that were the case I'd be drowning in a sea of links that local Intel fanboy crowd would pour all over me. Why is this not happening?
quote:
YOUR CPU is not a Phenom
So what? I can stick Phenom in my AM2+ mobo any time I want, IF I WANT TO. The problem is I still can't find any application for which I will truly need fast quad-core. If I wanna get a CPU that smashes Intel quads on higher resolution gaming - I can get it anytime, while Intel fanboys will continue sucking their fingers and gawking desperately at those diagrams I showed you above, with Phenom pissing on Intel quad with high resolution games.


RE: Hmm.
By EricMartello on 8/14/2008 9:41:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, and since I game on high resolutions I don't care about CPU overclock. With lower resolution even the cheap 2.5 GHz 45W AMD X2 gives you enough horsepower to game comfortably, hence no need to overclock in either case.


There is a bit of irony in your claim that you "game at 1920x1200" yet cheaped out and put together a budget system...but simply because you don't want to overclock does not a) make it pointless or b) make CPU power irrelevant. Those Phenom benchmarks you keep linking to are not indicative of YOUR system's performance. Your CPU is probably a bottleneck at 1280x764.

quote:
But will it be faster? Nope.

You failed at reading comprehension 'cause you missed word "faster" in my previous post. Try to read carefully next time.


You're response was pointless. A faster video card is a waste of money if you're using a slow CPU.

quote:
If that were the case I'd be drowning in a sea of links that local Intel fanboy crowd would pour all over me. Why is this not happening?


You're already drowning in a pool of your own stupidity...we're just trying to throw you a line and help you out.

quote:
So what? I can stick Phenom in my AM2+ mobo any time I want, IF I WANT TO. The problem is I still can't find any application for which I will truly need fast quad-core. If I wanna get a CPU that smashes Intel quads on higher resolution gaming - I can get it anytime, while Intel fanboys will continue sucking their fingers and gawking desperately at those diagrams I showed you above, with Phenom pissing on Intel quad with high resolution games.


You mean if you could AFFORD to...and I still haven't seen this mythical "smashing" of Intel by AMD. All I see is a guy who can't afford fast PC components trying to pretend like he can play games at full resolution. :) hahaha


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/15/2008 9:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your CPU is probably a bottleneck at 1280x764
You obviously never played Crysis on high resolution, that's why you sound so funny to me :)
quote:
A faster video card is a waste of money if you're using a slow CPU
Again, try Crysis on high resolutuion before making me laugh yet another time
quote:
we're just trying to throw you a line
So where is it? Why I'm not seeing any relevant links and numbers? Sorry, but I'm drowning in fanboyish bullsh1t poured all over me by the local Intel worshipers.
quote:
I still haven't seen this mythical "smashing" of Intel by AMD
Because you're an Intel fanatic and refuse to look at the diagrams I shown you above. Whatever.


RE: Hmm.
By Pirks on 8/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Hmm.
By FaceMaster on 8/14/2008 5:15:13 AM , Rating: 2
Pirks just shut up for once.