Make Home Page
Add to Favorites
Print article
Send link to friend
Digg this
Post to del.icio.us
Post to SlashdotBesides, the guys also shared some very informative details about AMD CPUs, which look much more credible than the May 2 announcement:
| Athlon XP | Frequency, MHz | Palomino Vcore, V | Max. Palomino core temp., oC | Palomino power consumption, W | T-bred Vcore, V | Max. T-bred core temp., oC | T-bred power consumption, W |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1700+ | 1467 | 1.75 | 90 | 64 | 1.5 | 90 | 49.4 |
| 1800+ | 1533 | 1.75 | 90 | 66 | 1.5 | 90 | 51 |
| 1900+ | 1600 | 1.75 | 90 | 68 | 1.5 | 90 | 52.5 |
| 2000+ | 1667 | 1.75 | 90 | 70 | 1.6 | 90 | 60.3 |
| 2100+ | 1733 | 1.75 | 90 | 72 | 1.6 | 90 | 62.1 |
| 2200+ | 1800 | ? | ? | ? | 1.65 | 85 | 67.9 |
So, there is actually one major conclusion that we can draw from this table: Athlon XP processors on 0.13micron core will have no unified Vcore, like Palomino does: slower models will work at lower Vcore, which will allow reducing the power consumption quite significantly (it has to do with the three slowest models in the first place). The rest is not so interesting. We could only mention some negative emotions aroused by the relatively small difference in the power consumption of the 0.13micron Athlon XP 2200+ and 0.18micron Athlon XP 2100+ (and the reason lies with the high Vcore, I suppose, as I have already mentioned here).
