Printable View
Yonah preview over at Anandtech:
Here
It did well considering it's amazing low TDP, but I think some people will be disappointed. Still, I'm sure that Yonah will look amazing when overclocked :cool:
The motherboard Anandtech used was a desktop version, with all the bells and whistles. So, we'll definitely see motherboard manufacturers making special motherboards for those of us who wish to use a mobile in our PCs.
so, benches (spi, 3D) and games are going to be slower and all other things faster?
Un-impressive I was expecting Yonah would do better then then a Dothan. I think when AMD releases the new socket for mobiles Intel will be in trouble in the mobile arena. It looks like AMD will have performance crown for at least another year or even more.
Although yonah is 65microns it might clock very well.
interesting, clock for clock it is slower than the x2 (with 512k cache per core) whereas the dothan is faster clock for clock than an athlon64. i'm disappointed, but it all depends on how well they overclock. dual core is very nice though :)
yonah looks dissapointing, i was expecting at least the same performance as dothan, except with a better floating point unit. do keep in mind that in the direct dothan vs yonah, the dothan had a 133 MHz advantage.
i also noticed that power consumption is pretty high, iirc, dothan has about 40 watts, so i expected yonah to be around 70-80 watts, it being 65nm.
hmmmm under load its 36W less than a dual core a64? and a dual core a64 is putting out how many watts? 80W? 90W? so yonah is at what, 40-50W?
hmmm thats great for a desktop cpu, but for a mobile cpu thats not good...
too bad he didnt compare it to a dothan plattform :/
dothan is clocked 133mhz higher but its single core and has a 133mhz fsb, yonah is dual core and has a 166fsb... yonah should still beat dothan while running 133mhz lower... the fact that it doesnt in some benchmarks is dissapointing me... :/Quote:
Originally Posted by skane
and no, dothan isnt 40W, its 25W!
and yonah looks like around 50W... not good for a mobile cpu, not good at all.. hmmmm maybe the board set a higher than default vcore? i kinda hope so and yonah actually runs cooler... or the yonah board consumed more power than the a64 board for some reason... i cant believe its consuming around 50W at only 2ghz hmmm
its still a very decent cpu... but a single core yonah will probably be slower than a dothan it looks like...
yonah is also 25w. i'm really hoping for 3ghz+ ocs, but i dont know if they can do it.
I'd say 3GHz would be easy, they'll prob do around 3.0 - 3.2 given the ass'd L2 latency. C'mon, 14cc l2, I'm surprised they're even able to compete with the X2 at same clocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by cirthix
One reason for the lower than expected performance is probably the FSB. We don't know what Anand set the FSB at, but I don't think it's over 533, and two cores sharing a 533 FSB will be starved for bandwidth.
So, jacking up the FSB will increase the performance by a great deal, just as with Dothan.
if yonah is supposed to be around 50 watts, why do the power consumption numbers at the last page say the power consumption at load is 108?? Or do i read that graph wrong?
Thats for total system not just processor
guys, you have to remember that dothan was slower then the a64 when it was at stock speeds. (a64 vs dothan) yonah will every bit as powerful as dothan in games, but it will wipe the floor with it in everything else.... not to mention that it should be 3.0 ghz on a standard air oc. (crosses fingers on the ocing results)
I think it performs as one could expect. I would definitely like to see it with 200FSB though.
This Yonah at 200FSBx15 = 3GHz, and 3:5 mem divider could be a nice 24/7 rig :cool:
They only messured total system power usage. remember that the AMD chipset is doing 200mhz while the Intel is only doing 166mhz, and so is the system RAM ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
I'm sure that can make up for another 10-20W. I don't think 30-40W is bad for a dual-core cpu with Yonah's performance.
i remember that, but in the link you provided, dothan is faster clock-for-clock in ut2004 (the only bench that both articles have in common), and yonah is slower than a64 x2 in the yonah article. That is why i think it performs below expectations.Quote:
Originally Posted by rozzyroz
i didnt realize that graph was total system power usage. In that case, i think that is ok for a dual core cpu.
Two questions/thoughts come to my mind -
a) How would things look like at FSB 266, DDR2 800? If 9xx series is anything to go by, we will have 3.2GHz air cooled Yonah cpus..
b) Does the single-core Yonah have the same latency penalties?
says who?Quote:
Originally Posted by cirthix
all the infos ive seen say up to around 55W
all yonahs are 166fsb default, only the ulv ones are 133fsbQuote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
if he ran it at 133fsb he would have made a note about it because it would seriously limit the performence.
the article is called part1, wich sounds like there wil be a part2... but there have been many "previews" on anandtech and the actual "reviews" never got posted... but im pretty sure there will be a part2 this time :D
cant wait :D
and i hope this time he compares dothan to yonah :)
a) no word about ocing yet from anybody yet you are already dreaming of 3.2ghz :D and even on air! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by R101
b) it might be lower since all the cache used will be directly attached to the cpu in use. on the dual core each core can use the cache of the other cpu wich definately icnreases the latencxy at least when it uses the cache of the other cpu.
but i think in the tes they used they only used the cache the no1 core has attached to itself, so i think the single core yonahs will have the same cache latency.
:D Just went overboard for a few moments. I was thinking about single core Yonah, though. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Why does he say in the third paragraph that 479 lags behind p4 and amd in games? :confused:
Because it's another in a long line of retarded "professional" reviews. You can tell right from the open that the reviewer has never actually used a Dothan. When it comes to gaming Dothan is still king clock for clock and an absolute knockout when it comes to performance per watt.Quote:
Originally Posted by 16floz470ml
I'm really disgusted at Intel once again, for no reason, switching pinouts on these chips forcing everyone to use new chipsets and killing any upgrade path for P-M users.
Either way, I don't see any reason to get yonah over Dothan if you already have a Dothan.
me too, i was thinking about going yonah after this, but i think that if i buy another proc within the next year, it will be a dothan.
Once again Intel desapoints me. They have something good going for them and they literary f**k it up... The chip has a shared 2MB L2 cache. Why couldnt they have done two freaking dothans in a 65NM process side by side.
Alex
I do not understand why many so are disappointed.
Doom3:
Dothan(2,13GHz): 95.5 fps
Yonah (2GHz): 93.8 fps
Dothan has 7% higher frequency and only 2% faster than Yonah in Doom3. It points that Yonah will beat Dothan in games.
It also drive less power than Dothan:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2005...ntium4-19.html
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q3...9/index.x?pg=7
i am disappointed because i thought the achilles heel of dothan, media encoding, would be drastically improved, and it hasn't. And , if they have the same clock speed, i expected yonah to be better than a64 x2, just like it is with a64 and dothan.
So unless yonah clocks REALLY good, im not going to trade my dothan for it, something i might have done if it had done the things i mentioned.
btw, it does use more power than dothan, you cant compare anand's data to thgs or techreports. I would be extremely surprised if yonah would consume less than dothan.
if i would conclude based upon this preview, i would say that i am kinda disapointed, I was expecting more, clock to clock should beat X2, but i am not, cause the only real thing is when some of HC guys over here (like macci :D) get this baby in his hands and show us the real potential. Right know we have no idea about real overclocking potential of any 64nm Intel proc, expecially yonahs, if they clock easily to 3.5ghz, we have a winner, none of the upcomming or existing AMD proc could beat that. If it clocks to about same level as dothans, that no real deal here :(.
They're comparing a 133 mhz fsb dothan to a 166mhz fsb yonah. Considering the 133mhz dothan was pretty limited by it's fsb, It's a pretty bad sign.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
I think it's too early to tell how Yonah will be. I mean we're talking engineering sample processors on sample boards with bare beta drivers. Don't be so quick to judge this new processor.
its not only a few pins they changed, yonah needs a new chipset. i think it works with the 945/955/975 chipsets but yeah, they should have come up with a way to make it compatible with existing plattforms :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Bar81
you cant compare those numbers, those are different systems, and no, yonah doesnt consume less power than dothan! it consumes around 2x as much under load.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
and the dothan is clocked 7% higher in that article but has a 25% slower fsb!
this is xs :DQuote:
Originally Posted by B5I8
we see beta boards and engineering samples all day, and there is usually no real difference between those first samples that get sent to reviewers and the final products.
what im confused about i wesleys article on anandtech is this:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2627&p=7
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/2365/100767am.jpg
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2627&p=3
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/9190/huh4de.jpg
so does yonah score 95fps or 93fps? whats the difference between the two numbers?
wha? :confused:Quote:
Intel still needs to improve their video encoding and gaming performance, but it looks like we may have to wait for Conroe and Merom for that.
its performing almost as good as as the x2 dual cores, now show me a laptop with an x2! :D
theres one from alienware, but thats it, and its not really a laptop, x2 cpus run too hot to be used i laptops...
for a laptop cpu thie performence is really nice!
but then again the power consumption of almost double of dothan is not good... :/
for a desktop cpu the performence isnt good enough and below what i expected actually... it looks like a single core yonah is slower than a dothan at the same clockspeed and fsb... and dual core doesnt really help that much yet.
if you ask me yonah is a good mobile chip and a good desktop chip... but its neither a great cpu for either segment of the market...
its not really a mobile chip, nor is ait a desktop chip...
they wanted a new mobile chip but they focussed more on performence than on power consumption, while dothan was all about power consumption...
this made perfect sense imo. you dont realy need a lot of cpu power in your laptop, what people really want is long battery life times.
in that situation yonah is a step back... but we havent see any yonah laptop reviews yet, who knows how its improved speedstep helps to lower power consumption...
so assuming yonahs speed step works well and the battery life stays the same as with dothan if the cpu is not under heavy load, then id say its a great laptop chip. if your not using a lot of cpu power once core shuts down and you basically have a dothan with slightly improved architecture, and if you need a lot of performence theres a second core to power on and give you a nice boost in multithreadded apps :)
but then again, the biggest advantage of dual core is having two cores all the time to work faster in windows, but if both cores run then yonah will consume more power than dothan = less battery life
speedstep will make aor break yonah.
if its unbalanced and the second core is active too mch and sucks extra power without really giving a big performence boost, a boost that isnt really needed on a laptop most of the time anyways, then it will make it a worse chip than dothan. if its implemented nicely and you get dothan power consumption or less with light system usage on youir laptop and the second core jumps o when you really need it, then its a great update for the pentium m family :D
damn i wrote a lot :D
sorry :bows:
Yes, but Yonah's FSB is being shared between TWO cores, unlike Dothan's one.Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
So all else being equal, Yonah has even less bandwidth than Dothan.
*Edit* I just saw over at Aces that someone posted that Yonah was benched using a 533 FSB, because it is a test chip, and not a launch chip.
Launch versions will have 667 FSB.
I just don't share your view - if you look at Anand's power consumption test, it shows only 16W difference between idle and full load. No way it could use 30+W while idling :nono: .Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
it could be that it consumes that, i dont remember where, but i read that eist isnt working in that test.
skane
Here is the same difference for Dothan (16-18W) when EIST and power saving wasn't used:Quote:
it could be that it consumes that, i dont remember where, but i read that eist isnt working in that test.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q3...9/index.x?pg=7
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...ookie%5Ftest=1
It means that Dothan use about 10W power on idle which is typical power usage
in C1-state with max. Vcc attached according to the intel manual (30218907.pdf)
Now you mean that Yonah use 30W+ in C1 state? Impossible...
still, you cant compare anands data with that of others, different systems, different methods.
the engineering samples are 166fsb as well, believe me ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
unles he has a really really old one... and i dont think so :D
if wesles benched 133fsb then only because his board couldt do more or didnt support a higher setting at that time.
actually this could very well be the case if eist isnt working, and this is an engineering sample desktop board, so i wouldnt be surprised at all if eist wasnt working yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by R101
unlikely, true, but not impossible...Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
1. its a different system, 2nd keep in mind that dothan is 70% cache and only 30% logic, and cache consumes very little to no power in c1.
yonah is 2 cores and its 70% logic i think, so there are a LOT more transistors and if eist isnt working corerectly yet the second core is not shut down in idle, wich meansyou have all the logic enabled and consuming power.
and for those who still dont believe yonah wil consume up to 50W and even more:
http://www.computerbase.de/news/hard...-schema_yonah/
and here they report how the 1.5ghz yonah system at idf consumes around 31W under load:
http://www.computerbase.de/news/hard...ossaman_yonah/
and about ocing, according to sam at x86-secret who has always been 100% reliable in my expirience, the first yonah chips only overclock to around 2.5ghz
http://www.x86-secret.com/?option=newsd&nid=907
more proof for 50W power consumption:
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=488561
i was wrong about the cache latency thing btw, its one large block of cache, so the cache latency wil be the same for single and dual core yonahs...
and even yonah celerons with only 1mb cache will have the same increases cache latency :/
so from dothan to yonah we get:
around the same per core performence
double the cores, but they are limited by bad multithreadding implementations and a low fsb, only 83mhz fsb per core!
2x the power consumption under ful load
same power consumption in idle and light load (?)
and again, the last thing will make or break yonah, if the power consumption in idle and light load is the same as dothan or even less, then it will be a great mobile cpu.
but again, in my opinion theres a bigger demand for cpus of the same speed as todays cpus but with lower power consumption for laptops than cpus with the same or higher power consumption and higher performence...
i mean what would you prefer? a laptop you can ripp dvds with quickly but the battery only lasts 4 hours or a laptop wich isnt that fast but has a battery life of6 hours or more?
extra cpu power is always good, but i think what the mobile market wants is longer battery life... if you can increase the cpu resources without shortening the battery lifes or even increasing them, perfect, but a compromise for more pwerformence that isnt really needed at the cost of shorter batter life is a bad decision imo.
thats what yonah was originally supposed to be all about afaik, less power consumption at the same or increased performence. the yonah we are seeing now is a long distance runner on anabolica on its way to become a heavy weight lifter :D
:confused: what is that supposed to mean, i cant figure out what the weight lifter has got to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
well weight lifters like fast cpus and always have the latest hardwae, plus they eat a lot wich means they have a lot of money to spend for a quad core yonah laptop :D
I fail to understand how anyone can be disappointed with Yonah's performance in this very early review. IMO Yonah did very well considering that it was crippled by a low FSB (533 or 667) that can barely feed one core, let alone two cores. The low FSB and subsequent lack of sufficient memory bandwidth is what kills Yonah's performance. Especially in the encoding tests. Also, the increased L2 latency, while hurting performance a little, should permit much higher clock speeds than Dothan can run with it's lower latency L2.
As for Yonah consuming more power than Dothan, should this surprise anyone? Did anyone expect two cores with double the cache of Dothan not to use more power? Instead of comparing a bandwidth-starved dual-core Yonah with a single-core Dothan, we should compare it to the X2 and note that even crippled as it is, it performs just as well clock for clock and consumes far less power. Keep in mind that Yonah is a mobile CPU that matches the best desktop CPU available, clock for clock. Just imagine how Yonah would perform if it wasn't bandwidth starved.
im not really disappointed by the power consumption, the thing i am disappointed at is that i expected it to do better than an x2 at the same clock.
its not 2times the cache of dothan, its half the cache per core compared to dothan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
and 166fsb quad pumped isnt really THAT much of a limiting factor i think...
but im not sure about this one...
and the cahce latency was not increase on purpose to allow higher clockspeeds, that wasnt the target to begin with, yonah was supposed to clock at the same speeds as dothan.
its a higher latency because the cache is shared i think...
id assume that both cores are hooked up to some kind of a switch/request interface wich controls and coordinates the accesses to both cache and to the system, thats where the increased cache latency comes from i think.
and comparing yonah to an x2 is interesting as it lets us guess how well conroe and merom will perform, but yonah is a mobile cpu, so we should compare it to other mobile cpus imo.
maybe it does with a higher fsb?Quote:
Originally Posted by skane
From Intel dev's
I realy dont know how this feature was utilized in that review. Lets wait until we get something more official . I'm realy intrested how high it will clock and what damage will it do with 900+fsb :DQuote:
A single core Dothan would have required 4 clock cycles to perform a read-out when hitting a L2 cache line. With Yonah's Bandwidth Adaptation Buffer, it is possible to perform it in 2 clock cycles. As such, the available bandwidth stays the same, but access time is shortened. Yonah will also feature optimized pre-fetchers and a deeper write output buffer to further increase cache performance
i think the yonah design was changed, it was initially supposed to be a dothan successor but was then changed to perform better as an alternative for netburst on the desktop market... so maybe the cache access was changed to allow more bandwidth at a higher latency now and not at the same bandwidth as dothan with lowe rlöatency as planned originally?
Second that..Quote:
Originally Posted by railer
If "yonah" shows the same behaviour as "dothans" they will most likely easily take 200+ FSB at default VCore.
Then I think they will "destroy" the competition..
Looking forward to the time some of the "extreme" members here gets their hands on a "Yonah".
I think records will fall.. :p:
if...Quote:
Originally Posted by TL1000S
did prescott show the same behaviour as northwood?
did the a64 show the same behaviour as an athlonxp?
all we can do is guess :D
;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TL1000S
saaya, check this out
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26904
thats old news, there have been reports about 50W+ of the extreme edition based on yonah for months :P
check xbitlabs, they reported about this 2 or 3 times during the last months :)
if you ask me intel is running through the door with their head again instead of opening it :D
you have two cores, right? with the latest drivers a dual core cpu performs 10% better than a single core cpu in games, at best!
but having two cores means 2x the power consumption.
so instead of running both cores at a higher speed wouldnt it make 1000 times more sense to shut down the second core and increase the clockspeed of the other core?
that way you would get the same or more performence for less watts... and for laptops watt is king and performence comes second...
well lets wait and see, maybe intel actually does something like this.
Only if they're the same core. Yonah is also on 65nm and the difference between idle power and full load in the anandtech test was only 16w. As long as the leakage isn't bad (and its reputed to be even better than Dothan) than you are looking at 20w chip for the 2GHz Yonah. Which would match the reports of dual, dualcore 2GHz Sossaman system power usage of 80-90w.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
From what i know, it does shut down one of the two cores for power savings. i dont remember fully, but anandtech's idf coverage comes to mind as the source.
what do you mean with only if they are the same core?Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
the difference between idle and load was low because the desktop board never went as low in idle as a laptop will go ;)
20w for the 2ghz yonah?
where did you read that?
did you check the links i posted?
the 2ghz yonah was oprigianlly called t1500 and is now called t2500, the first number is now probably going to indicate the number of cores.
its a T chip, there is no yonah chip at 2ghz in thwe L group.
T= up to 50W and L is up to 25W
now where did a dual dual core sossaman system consume only 80W under load?
the only thing i saw was this:
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/9666/108hy.jpg
and thats a dual dual core sossaman at 1.5ghz for each core!
and its consuming 95W! so thats 47W for each sosaman dual core chip running at only 1.5ghz!
a 4 way dothan system, if possible, would allow you to clock each core to around 2.4ghz if 95W is the limit as an example.
so we have almost 10ghz dothan power vs 6ghz yonah power for the same power consumption. and the preview at anandtech has shown us that yonah is actually quite a bit slower than dothan if you think of the per core performence! so 1 dothan ghz is actually worth more than a yonah ghz.
now where is sossaman/yonah a better performence per watt cpu than dothan? we still have to see final results of final hardware though... but as for now it doesnt look like the uber chip i thougt it would be...
if you look at the graphs on computerbase you can see that you probably need 4! yonah cores (2 dual core chips) clocked to ~1800mhz each to beat a single (dual core) 2.4ghz X2 4800+ ... so power consumption doesnt look that nice (for a mobile chip, for a desktop chip its very nice!) and performence doesnt look that nice either, more than you need on a laptop and not enough on the desktop to beat the X2s...
i never said it wouldnt.Quote:
Originally Posted by cirthix
what i said was it should shut down one core in games and other single threadded apps! not in idle. :)
You are yet to see high FSB low multi Yonah, expect better results from 266/333FSB version.
iirc ULV chips are as low as 16w per core.
Fugger, what's your prediction, will an overclocked Yonah be able to kill an overclocked Dothan (ignoring the multicore benefits)? ;)
FSB wise, yes. With that advantage alone it will beat the dothan. Getting super high clocks will be harder with the lower multiples unless upper multiples are unlocked. This might be an option in the EE version planned.
saaya
95W for entire system not just for procs as was mentioned here:Quote:
and its consuming 95W! so thats 47W for each sosaman dual core chip running at only 1.5ghz!
http://www.computerbase.de/news/hard...ossaman_yonah/
and here:
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=490871
use http://babelfish.altavista.com/ to translate from chinese.
you mean 133/166fsb aka 533/800 quad pumped?Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGGER
so welsey benched at 100fsb aka 400 quad pumped?
and 16w per core for an ulv chip is nothing compared to dothan wich goes down to 5W per core for an ulv chip :D
if 16w per core would be the average power consumption for a 2ghz chip that would be nice, but its a ULV chip... 16W for an ulv chip is a lot!
ulv chips are for handhelds and cooling 16W in a thin handheld pc is not nice unless you want an integrated handwarmer :D
kl0012, yeah, my bad :D
still 20W per core at 1.5ghz is a lot.
that means 40W for a dual core 1.5ghz sossaman/yonah...
performence per power consumption:
80W = 6ghz yonah
80W = 8ghz dothan
and a dothan ghz seems to be faster than a yonah mhz, wich is no surprise as yonah has half the cache and only 75% the fsb bandwidth...
so in the end things dont really change, dothan still beats yonah when it comes to performence per watt... and performence per watt is what intel said is their top priority now... so thats why im a little dissapointed of yonah.
i gotta admit that for beeing smaller than 2 dothans its performing pretty good.
but you have to admit, nobody was really "wow´ed" by the yonah benchmarks and specs we saw until now... its a nice cpu, but nothing that makes me start saving money to buy one and get excited over if you know what i mean...
Um, no
266FSB and 333FSB parts 1066 and 1333 bus speed
That's 20W per dualcore at 2GGz. There were 2 2GHz dualcore Sossamans in the HKEPC system. And the maximum power usage was 80W.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Those must be those stock 50W parts that the Inq was talking about..Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGGER
Too bad Yonah will be 32-bit only :(
With such a high FSB, Yonah's IPC should be higher than the K8s.
on computerbase they said the 1.5ghz dual dual core system consumed 90W.Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
hkepc says 31W for the 2ghz dual core chip.
the screen shows 80W but you can see that the system isnt fully loaded at the moment the pic was taken, shows 29% cpu usage in the task manager.
30W for 2ghz dual core sounds nice, really nice!
maybe intel is going to use the bad chips on the desktop bumping lots of volts through them so they clock high and using the good ones with low vcore in the thin serverblade market or mobiles?
ah, THATS more like it! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by FUGGER
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-bit labs
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...212171644.html
nice headline there..
if it's slow in sandra, then it must suck...
Me stupid maybe, but how did you get 75%?Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
How are you gonna celebrate your 20000th post?:toast:
Fresh review on Anand's site:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2648
Still no direct comparision of power consumption.
by ordering a set of 1600pros to run crossfire :D heheheQuote:
Originally Posted by Mats
my bad :D
83 is 62.5% of 133 not 75%
thats not true...Quote:
Given the short amount of time we had for benchmarking we were forced to compare to older numbers from previous reviews, which unfortunately lacked updated gaming, encoding and 3D rendering tests.
they were given a short amount of time? by who? how?
other sites were reviewing it and they wanted to be first?
who? theres no other review, not even a preview by anybody else...
they had to return the cpu or mainboard?
obviously not as they ran a load more tests and post them in this second part.
sorry for the rant, but anandtech is posting shorter and less complex articles and reviews all the time and excuse it by saying they didnt have time and will post a second part. a bunch of those second parts have never been made...
anandtech is more and more moving to a preview site instead of a review site.
So the question isn't just how competitive Yonah is at 2.0GHz, but how high can Yonah go? Unfortunately our test platform wouldn't allow us to overclock our chip very far, but thankfully we've got access to a decent amount of Intel's future roadmaps so we can at least see what's going to happen to Yonah over the next year.
wow, that sounds like they didnt even reach 2.3ghz when they tried to oc their yonah cpu :eek:Quote:
While Yonah will make its debut at a maximum speed of 2.16GHz it will actually only receive a single speed bump before Merom's release at the end of the year. That means that we'll see a 2.33GHz Yonah after the middle of the year, but we'll have to turn to Merom to get any higher clock speeds.
if you ask me this clock target thing is bs... dothan ocs just as good as other cpus as its designed for low power...Quote:
Looking back to our initial articles on the Pentium M's architecture you'll remember that one of the important aspects of its design is that all critical paths in the chip were slowed down to meet a maximum clock target. Meaning that Intel set a clock target for the CPU and made sure that the chip ran at that speed or below, and did not optimize any paths that would have allowed the CPU to run higher. Instead, the Pentium M team depended on the manufacturing folks to give them additional clock speed headroom by providing smaller manufacturing processes every 2 years. In other words, the Pentium M was never designed for high clock speeds, which is why it debuted at 1.5GHz and has still not even reached 2.33GHz today.
"intel core duo" what a lame brandname for yonah :/
yonah sounds 10x better...
anyways, the results look good, but again, not as good as i had hoped :D hehehe i know im always expecting a lot and am usually dissapointed in new stuff, but i mean seriously... even with a higher fsb i dont see yonah beating the x2s on the orb...