The launch of Intel Atom processors is expected to stimulate the MID/netbook market growth dramatically. It would be surprising if Intel rivals would pass on the opportunity to compete with them in this new market. There appeared a slide today revealing an upcoming AMD processor that is claimed to be the No.1 competitor to Intel Atom and VIA Nano.
This single-core 64-bit processor features 128KB (64KB + 64KB) L1 cache, 256KB L2 cache, features an integrated memory controller supporting one DDR2-400 SDRAM DIMM or SO-DIMM module. The CPU features a HyperTransport bus working at 800MHz frequency. The CPU runs at 1GHz clock speed and boasts 8W TDP. The CPU is designed in BGA packaging with 812 pins that measures 27 x 27mm.
In fact it is a simpler modification of the good old Athlon 64 adapted for the mobile and integrated solutions segment. Overall, this scheme reminds us of the AMD Geode NX processor family originating from the Athlon cores. However, if Geode NX used to be based on K7 micro-architecture, now the new processors have every chance to get a 64-bit K8 core.
It is evident that while AMD may be having problems tackling Intel in the high-end desktop and notebook markets, the company is looking to go toe-to-toe with Intel in the emerging Mobile Internet Device (MID) and netbooks/nettop market. AMD solution differs from Intel Atom processors by 64-bit extensions support and an integrated memory controller.
Nevertheless, we doubt that the CPU on the slide is that competitive, because the TDP of 8W is too high. Atom’s TDP is only 2.5W and even if we add the 4W TDP of Intel i945GSE chipset, which, by the way, has an integrated graphics core absent in the upcoming AMD processor, the total number will still be only 6.5W.
I would like to remind you that so far AMD hasn’t been very successful in the budget markets. Their PIC (Personal Internet Communicator) initiative based on the “integrated” AMD Geode GX processor resulted in significant financial losses for the company. The OLPC XO student laptop project (AMD Geode LX processor) was late to launch and right from the start yielded to ASUS Eee PC. Will the new solution be a success? It all depends on its performance and price.
Comments currently:
17
Discussion started: 06/18/08 08:59:15 PM
Latest comment: 06/25/08 10:45:57 AM
Expand all threads |
Collapse all threads
[1-8]
1.
Please, AMD, no "synthetic" benchmarks this time around, ok?
If your CPU doesn't have any balls, scrap it, and never speak of it agian. Otherwise, your gona get the press (bad) and its going to be pre-release and early pheanom all over agian.
[
Posted by: Joz
|
Date: 06/18/08 08:59:15 PM]
+ expand thread (6 answers)
- collapse thread
I don't think that a K8 core--even one clocked at 1GHz--will have any difficulty outperforming the current Atom CPUs. Atom's a slow little bugger; the 1.6GHz version is only a tad faster than the old 900MHz Pentium M.
[
Posted by: steve
|
Date: 06/18/08 11:14:11 PM]
And a 900 MHz Pentium M should be pretty damn competitive to a 1.0GHz cut down A64. It will be a close match, but it looks Atom will be the victor.
[
Posted by: joefriday
|
Date: 06/19/08 09:29:11 AM]
the pentium M is no match for A64 in a clock for clock basis, let alone with a 10% higher clocked amd part...
[
Posted by: abw
|
Date: 06/19/08 01:06:02 PM]
You're out of your mind if you think that. There's benchmarks out there that prove you wrong.
[
Posted by: joefriday
|
Date: 06/21/08 05:00:01 PM]
Joefriday, do post the link to enlighten us all, if you say it's out there. It's good for everyone, especially yourself.
[
Posted by: rollakid
|
Date: 06/21/08 06:04:59 PM]
here you go
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2129&am p;p=10
Keep in mind, this Pentium M was going against fully fledged Athlon64s, not cut down Semprons with 256kb L2 cache and single channel memory controllers.
The 1.6 GHz Atom performs anywhere between an 800 MHz Pentium M and a 1200 MHz Pentium M, depending on the application. It should be more than enough to compete and surpass this 1.0 GHz Sempron, while consuming only half the power (4 watts).
[
Posted by: joefriday
|
Date: 06/25/08 10:45:57 AM]
2.
whos interested in performance itself? most important thing is the energy efficency and there is amd obvisously behind the competition. let's see, what amd's going to do in the next few months...
[
Posted by: blub
|
Date: 06/18/08 11:50:54 PM]
3.
sure that Intel i945GSE chipset has 4W TDP? i knew TDP was 5.5W
[
Posted by: buale
|
Date: 06/19/08 03:03:54 AM]
4.
Right idea, wrong execution?
[
Posted by: Rhondohslade
|
Date: 06/19/08 11:55:33 AM]
5.
Right concept, wrong execution...again?
[
Posted by: Rhondohslade
|
Date: 06/19/08 11:56:30 AM]
6.
While I cannot really speculate on AMD's rival to Intel, I must say that AMD must not start producing desperate rivals - AMD should really be asking users on what they want out of a CPU, like putting a survay on their website. AMD has made many horrible mistakes, for example scrapping the FASN-8 board was a huge mistake, I was really looking forward to seeing two 8-core systems battling it out, skulltrail, while in my oppinion the D-5400SX is a potentially fantastic board, is let down by using FB-DIMM's (although low latency, high performance FB-DIMMS are coming out from Kingston, meaning the D-5400SX should be re-tested using these, as well as compairing it with the LGA-771 version of the Core2 and different Xeons)
So as said earlyer, AMD should put out a survey on their own website for regular users on what users want out of their CPU's instead of making desperate attempts to rival Intel.
I am deeply saddend from my move from AMD to Intel, my old AMD Athlon XP-2200 recently died, and with the farce that is the K-10, I am having to move to Intel.
[
Posted by: J-Hawke
|
Date: 06/19/08 02:54:49 PM]
+ expand thread (1 answer)
- collapse thread
Asking users what they demand, yeah right. That's not gonna happen in the next six years. But never say never. They just dont want to simply forfeit to intel large market of embedded devices and they're right about that from their POV. But let's be honest Atom will outperform that little bugger just cause it designed that way to be dual-core, or maybe even quad when they went down to next level of 32nm. It's based on parallel processing and doesnt have complex OoO execution so it could scale pretty easy.
Just in this point in time Intel has the old 130nm process for their 945gse chipset (remember that 90nm dissapointment, and 65nm is still reserved for their budget solutions CPUs and possibly for the rampage of their Bloofield chipset. And that make that 945 chipset pretty power thirsty, even more than single core atom, so AMD could be a VERY COMPETITIVE with his single chip 8W solution at the moment. Only way for AMD to stay competitive is to produce 8W or less bugger on 45nm process that could easily work at 2-2,5GHz. or to redesign it like intel did but they dont have will nor power to do this in a next few years.
[
Posted by: agendaFX in obliviance
|
Date: 06/20/08 01:06:49 AM]
7.
Pentium M no match for A64? To which P-M do you refer? Maybe, maybe the original Banias. But not Merom or Penryn..it slaughters anything desktop or laptop AMD. Plus some of those parts are 2.6 (I think even 2.8 Ghz) while being within the 35W TDP for notebooks.
No, Atom has lots of tweaks for low power, only its chipset is holding it back...that will be fixed. AMD's got bupkis.
[
Posted by: mark1
|
Date: 06/19/08 08:13:58 PM]
+ expand thread (1 answer)
- collapse thread
dude, the atom 1.6 performs about the same as the 900mhz celeron M in the eee pc.
That is slower than a 1ghz a64 by a way
[
Posted by: me
|
Date: 06/23/08 07:49:49 AM]
8.
Pentium M no match for A64? To which P-M do you refer? Maybe, maybe the original Banias. But not Merom or Penryn..it slaughters anything desktop or laptop AMD. Plus some of those parts are 2.6 (I think even 2.8 Ghz) while being within the 35W TDP for notebooks.
No, Atom has lots of tweaks for low power, only its chipset is holding it back...that will be fixed. AMD's got jack.
[
Posted by: mark1
|
Date: 06/19/08 08:14:45 PM]
+ expand thread (1 answer)
- collapse thread
Puma is currently much better than Intel offer for notebooks. Platform is important, and I will buy Puma as soon as it comes out. I am using notebooks for years and CPU is not as nearly most important and deciding factor in Notebook selection.
[
Posted by: BorgDrone
|
Date: 06/20/08 03:57:34 PM]
[1-8]
Make Home Page
Add to Favorites
XbitLabs is using Twitter
Windows Live Alerts
