backtop


Print 42 comment(s) - last by GoatMonkey.. on Jun 30 at 11:01 AM


Performance-per-watt results, Revision "G" quad-core detailed

Performance results for dual-core Opterons

Memo containing the details on how to decode the new model numbers
Death to single core!

AMD is set introduce Next-Generation AMD Opteron processors on August 1st, 2006. The Next-Generation AMD Opteron processors were previously known as AMD Opteron revision F CPUs. Following the release of socket AM2 processors the Next-Generation AMD Opteron comes in a new socket -- Socket F. Socket F sports 1,207 pins in a land-grid array similar to Intel’s LGA775 and LGA771 sockets. The new Socket F will be used for dual, quad and eight way processor configurations with up to 16 cores at launch.

AMD and Intel are both pushing efficiency this year, and AMD is already taking a shot at Intel with its dual and quad-core systems.  AMD claims its quad-core Socket F processor, scheduled for launch in 2007, will use the exact same power efficiency as the dual-core processors available today.  According to AMD's documentation (right), 90nm 95W dual-core Opterons (scheduled for launch this August) will have the same power draw as 65nm quad-core processors. 

Socket F AMD Opteron processors add support for DDR2 and AMD Virtualization. DDR2 with speeds up to 667MHz is supported while the AM2 Athlon 64 X2 and FX chips support DDR2 800MHz. FB-DIMM memory will not initially be supported by Socket F processors. AMD intends to add FB-DIMM support to its processors in the 2008 with the K8L architecture -- nearly two years after Intel launched support. Upcoming revision "G" quad-core processors will also support the Socket F. Previous features such as the integrated memory controller, HyperTransport Technology and AMD64 Execution will continue to be standard features on Socket F processor. With a new socket comes a new naming system too.

This time around AMD has moved to a four digit model number system. Three AMD Opteron families will be available at launch: 1000, 2000 and 8000. 1000 series processors will be Socket AM2 based and replace the existing AMD Opteron 100 series. 2000 series will be Socket F based and aimed towards dual processor systems. 8000 series will be available for four and eight way processor configurations. All three AMD Opteron series will be available as dual-core only. Socket F marks the death of single-core AMD Opteron processors.

Decoding the new model numbers is not too different from the existing system. The addition of a fourth digit simply adds generation designation. The first digit coincides to the series while the second digit coincides with the processor generation. Clock speeds are determined by the last two digits of the model number starting with 10 and increasing in increments of 2. An example of how the new model number works would be the "AMD Opteron 8218" -- which is an eight-way capable processor that’s a second generation Opteron design and clocked at 2.6GHz.

AMD is expected to introduce a full lineup of Socket F processors similar to what it’s done with socket AM2 processors. Socket F processors will be available in models x210, x212, x214, x216, x218 and x220 which are 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6 and 2.8GHz parts, respectively. Regular, HE and SE AMD Opteron models will be available, though clock speeds will vary depending on the Opteron model. Thermal data power for regular AMD Opteron processors will be around 95 watts and 55 watts for AMD Opteron HE processors. Flagship AMD Opteron Model 2220 SE and 8220 SE have a 120 watt TDP while the Socket AM2 AMD Opteron Model 1220 SE has a slightly higher 125 watt TDP. All Opteron processors will have a 1MB of L2 dedicated to each processor core.

Availability is expected July 17th, 2006 under embargo from approved distributors while retail availability is expected August 1st, 2006.


Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Something is wrong here...
By hstewarth on 6/21/2006 11:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
agree - this is very missing leading information, no references to exact models. Where to they get 83Watt's for Woodcrest - the 3Ghz is 80Watt, the others are 65W and the low one is 40Watt.

It sounds like information to delay people purchasing the Woodcrests. It likely the same cpu in new socket and ddr2 - but same old technology.


RE: Something is wrong here...
By PrinceGaz on 6/22/2006 1:03:55 AM , Rating: 2
It clearly shows that 83 watts is for the memory for Woodcrest and other Intel CPUs, the two Woodcrest processors together use 180 watts (so 90 watts each). We all know Intel use a considerably more optimistic maximum power-consumption figure than AMD so they probably got the 90 watts for each Woodcrest bt taking Intel's "usual maximum" figure and converted it to AMD's "absolute maximum".

When both processors are using the same power-measurement methodology, it would seem Woodcrest is only marginally (~5%) more efficient than next-gen AM2 Opterons, and that the Opterons are actually more efficient once the additional power draw of the necessarily more complicated northbridge for Intel CPUs is taken into account. I'm not sure why the memory power consumption figures are so different between Intel and AMD as they're both using DDR2, but even excluding that it's clear AMD offers more performance per watt.

Looking further ahead the picture is even more bleak for Intel as their quad-core Clovertown is less efficient than the dual-core Woodcrest, probably in part because of the FSB bottleneck whereas AMD's quad-core Opterons are just as efficient as their dual-core models. It looks like AMD's future in the highly profitable server market will remain bright for the next few years whereas Intel will have to rely on marketing to minimise their fall in market share.

Intel may have a temporary lead in raw desktop performance with the fastest C2D models, but it's clear that AMD will continue to lead the way in servers and high-end workstations.


RE: Something is wrong here...
By coldpower27 on 6/22/2006 3:33:12 AM , Rating: 2

This are slides made by AMD to show AMD in the best light. Who knows what kind of FUD they are spreading...

Form TechReport's numbers a Woodcrest 3.0GHZ at full load consumes 59W, a far cry from the 80W TDP intel specifies for this model.


RE: Something is wrong here...
By coldpower27 on 6/22/2006 3:42:54 AM , Rating: 2

And somehow here AMD is saying that Woodcrest has a 90W TDP...ok....

Not to mention they are claiming 83W for the FB-DIMM's Intel uses, and I assume the 35W is for generic Registered ECC DDR2.

Very Very fishy to say the least.


RE: Something is wrong here...
By Viditor on 6/22/2006 4:17:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Form TechReport's numbers a Woodcrest 3.0GHZ at full load consumes 59W, a far cry from the 80W TDP intel specifies for this model

This is why you shouldn't use TDP to guage power use...
What AMD is probably doing here is leveling the playing field and transposing TDP numbers...
For example, the A64 Venice 3800 has a TDP of 89w, but runs at 30w under full load.
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_venice/8.shtml

AMD appears to be trying to display a comparitive TDP, which I grant you is a mistake, but understandable in this case. TDP means nothing for actual power use, but most people just don't get that...so AMD needs to 'splain it to them.


RE: Something is wrong here...
By Viditor on 6/22/2006 4:28:18 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, if you read down to the bottom of the slice, it says it's based on max wattage, NOT on TDP.
Based on that, it seems to be correct.


RE: Something is wrong here...
By coldpower27 on 6/22/2006 5:11:23 AM , Rating: 2

So it's an unrealistic comparison. Hence of very limited use.


RE: Something is wrong here...
By Viditor on 6/23/2006 9:43:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So it's an unrealistic comparison. Hence of very limited use

Actually, it's a better comparison than TDP is...
At least this way, the TDP is measured on the same scale (Max CPU Voltage).


RE: Something is wrong here...
By coldpower27 on 6/22/2006 5:24:51 AM , Rating: 2

Lost Circuits numbers are seriously in question.

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/intel_p4-955/11.sh...

They put a Presler XE as hot as the Smithfield XE. That is completely not the case.

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

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/fx60-vs-955xe...

Go to the tab with power consumption figures.
http://hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=...



RE: Something is wrong here...
By Viditor on 6/23/2006 9:39:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lost Circuits numbers are seriously in question

Actually, they are the only reviewers to actually test the chips directly by probing the rails themselves. The other reviews are overall guestimates...
BTW, those are power draw numbers, not temperatures.


RE: Something is wrong here...
By MartinT on 6/22/2006 2:21:41 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the whole first slide is idiotic to the extreme, bogus (estimated = made up) power numbers for the Intel systems and not a single f'in performance number on a slide explaining "A new standard in performance-per-Watt".

That is repulsive marketing BS from a company deeply in trouble.


RE: Something is wrong here...
By MDme on 6/22/2006 10:41:32 AM , Rating: 2
actually, they post the source of their numbers at the bottom.

Also, it is right for AMD to use the northbridge and the corrected memory power consumption because the platforms are different. Intel's systems use FB-DIMMS which are hotter and consume more power than DDR2 systems. Also, the northbridge on intel's systems have power consumption too. AMD's northbridge is integrated into the CPU.

The TDP numbers of intel are actually based on "usual usage scenarios, while AMD's TDP numbers are based on "maximum load" secenarios.

I'm not saying these numbers are accurate but you should look at them in the right context.


RE: Something is wrong here...
By ShapeGSX on 6/22/2006 10:44:57 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder how many DIMMs they gave each machine. I seem to remember previous AMD comparisons giving Woodcrest twice as many DIMMs as their opteron system. And why doesn't the Opteron have any chipset power listed? Despite having an onboard memory controller, Opteron still needs to use a chipset.


RE: Something is wrong here...
By Viditor on 6/23/2006 11:47:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Despite having an onboard memory controller, Opteron still needs to use a chipset

But not a complete chipset...
The Northbridge for the Woodcrest includes the dual FSB, and the transmitter to the southbridge. Those are included in the Opteron already (cHT, HT). The power they're listing is for all of that combined at max power...


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

Related Articles
LGA Opteron F Spy Shots
June 9, 2006, 8:02 PM
Introducing AMD's AM2 Platform
May 22, 2006, 11:41 AM













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