AMD's Answer to Intel Atom or AMD UVC

[metro.cl]

Just posted this news on CHW.net

Resume:

AMD will fight Atom with 2 low power CPUs and chipset AMD 740 or AMD 690, this wont have a TDP as low as Atom, but AMD states that it will give normal PC user experience.




Google Translate of the souce

[gOJDO]

Very nice. Are those Griffins?

[anubis]

Power draw for the whole system would still be lower than Atoms, the terrible chipset intel insist on using it with is killing Atoms great TDP.
This would make a great ITX FF HTPC.

[metro.cl]

Very nice. Are those Griffins?

Acordgin to my last week info they arent.




Source

Power draw for the whole system would still be lower than Atoms, the terrible chipset intel insist on using it with is killing Atoms great TDP.
This would make a great ITX FF HTPC.

The TDP in the slides is actually only the CPU TDP so overall Atoms platform should still consume less, not a lot less, but AMD solution has way better performance.

[gOJDO]

10x for info Metro Can you tell us more please?

[Rammsteiner]

Whoa, Athlon X2 only using 22W. Pretty nice.

I think it's a nice market spot as well. Those low power CPU's are nice but some of them might eventually have a few hic ups. With just a tad more power and Mhz you counter this, pretty nice. Curious what the price would be though.

[xlink]

needs more 1.0Ghz dual core version.

[Shintai]

Its abit like combating a 95W CPU with a 500W.

It would be nice to know the price to see where it fits. Atom or Core/Core2.

[Gogeta]

3250e + 780G = Ideal for HTPC.

I wouldn't even feel bad about leaving it on 24/7.

[Calmatory]

Nice, TDP more than what my whole system consumes 90% of the time. (I am aware that my whole systems combined TDP is more like 40-50W, but still, not fun.)

[Jaivan]

Its abit like combating a 95W CPU with a 500W.

WTF?

The 945 chipset that the atom is combined with consumes up to 22W of power at full load.

While the AMD 780G (not even the more energy efficient740G chipset, couldn't find power consumption figures) consumes 11.4W at full load and .94W idle.

When you take into account the northbridges the power consumptions are more or less equal:

Single Core:
Intel N270+945= 2.4W+22W= 24.4W
AMD 2650e+780G = 15W+11.4W= 26.4W

Dual Core:
Intel 330+945= 8W+22W= 30W
AMD 3250e+780G= 22W+11.4W= 33.4W

AMD seems to have the advantage here with better performance over the intel counterparts. Intel should pair their atoms with better northbridges to see a "real" low power solution.

[zerazax]

How dare you use facts to counter the great Shintai!

[Shintai]

WTF?

The 945 chipset that the atom is combined with consumes up to 22W of power at full load.

While the AMD 780G (not even the more energy efficient740G chipset, couldn't find power consumption figures) consumes 11.4W at full load and .94W idle.

When you take into account the northbridges the power consumptions are more or less equal:

Single Core:
Intel N270+945= 2.4W+22W= 24.4W
AMD 2650e+780G = 15W+11.4W= 26.4W

Dual Core:
Intel 330+945= 8W+22W= 30W
AMD 3250e+780G= 22W+11.4W= 33.4W

AMD seems to have the advantage here with better performance over the intel counterparts. Intel should pair their atoms with better northbridges to see a "real" low power solution.

I think you got confused somewhere...

http://ark.intel.com/chipset.aspx?familyID=35553

Max TDP 6 Watts. And 11.8W for the entire platform with 1.6Ghz CPU for a total price of 79$

Maybe you used some generic 945 one? So ye...WTF?

[v_rr]

There's no mistaking that Intel's Atom is where the ultra-portable action is, and VIA's impressive Nano has done little to impact Intel's netbook dominance.

Intel's other big-name rival, AMD, may have more luck with the launch of its Ultra-Value Client (UVC) solutions. According to the following leaked slides from CHW.net, AMD is lining up its Atom-offensive with a series of low-power, low-cost chips aimed at delivering a desktop-like experience in an el-cheapo system.



The two UVC processors revealed are the 22W 1.5GHz AMD Athlon X2 3250e and the 15W 1.6GHz AMD Athlon 2650e. The chips use the familiar AM2 socket for desktop use, but the slide reveals that similar models for AMD's mobile S1G1 socket are also available.

The chips will be OEM-only, and reports suggest that they'll reach the market as soon as December in systems from ASUS, Acer and Shuttle.

According to the slide, the chips will be paired with AMD's 65nm 740 chipset - so we can expect a single PCI-E slot in desktop configurations, or a DirectX 9 IGP in portable systems.



A second slide hints at AMD's marketing strategy; Intel's Atom provides a sub-traditional PC experience, and AMD hopes to rectify that with its more-capable UVC solutions.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=15400


AMD Roadmap Sheds Light on Cheap UVC Processors

AMD is aiming for markets looking for more performance than the Intel Atom

AMD is hard at work introducing new processors to try to capture market share from Intel. Earlier this week, slides showing some new AMD processors coming this year surfaced. Among the new processors on the slide was a line AMD is calling Ultra-Value Client (UVC).

The UVC processors will be available through OEMs only. More information on the line of UVC processors has now surfaced at CHW.net. The new slides show that the UVC processors are intended to allow OEMs to produce new computers in form factors optimized for emerging markets and basic PC usage.

AMD does specify that the UVC products are aimed at more than the netbook market and can deliver traditional PC performance. The UVC processors are intended to be paired with AMD's 690 and 740 chipsets for high-quality visuals.

All UVC parts will use AMD's standard socket AM2 and S1g1 notebook infrastructures. The UVC processors include the AMD Athlon X2 3250e with a 22W TDP and operating at 1.5GHz. It features a 1MB L2 cache and is planned to be available in Q4 2008.

The AMD Athlon 2650e has a 15W TDP and operates at 1.6GHz with 512MB cache. The 2650e is available now. According to AMD slides, it is positioning both the Athlon X2 3250e and Athlon 2650e above the Intel Atom DT 230 processor in performance.

These processors may become attractive to netbook makers looking for an alternative to Intel's Atom parts because of the current shortages of Atom parts from Intel. It is important to note that the AMD processors use more power than Intel's Atom. AMD is betting some users and OEMs will be willing to sacrifice battery life for improved performance.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12917


Cheap Athlons, 740 chipset to fight Atom in desktops

We've learned much about AMD's low-cost PC strategy these past few days. A leaked roadmap gave us a glimpse at a pair of "Ultra-Value Client" Athlon processors last week, then a couple of days later, DigiTimes reported that those CPUs would soon hit Acer, Asus, and Shuttle systems.

Now, Chile Hardware has posted a couple of new slides that shed even more light on the subject. The slides mention the same Athlon X2 3250e and Athlon 2650e chips we already heard about, and they quote the same specs: 1.5GHz and a 22W TDP for the former, 1.6GHz and 15W for the latter. To that information, they add two new tidbits: cache sizes will be 1MB and 512KB, respectively, and AMD will pair both CPUs with its low-end 740 chipset.

The 740G already exists, and it's a lot less stripped-down than the Intel 945GC that powers desktop Atom systems. AMD outfits the 740G with Radeon 2100 graphics, DVI and DisplayPort support, PCI Express, RAID capabilities, and accommodation for plenty of USB and Serial ATA devices. Couple that with a proper, out-of-order CPU, and AMD could outrun Atom platforms from both the processing and graphics standpoints.

That said, Intel offers an all-in-one Mini-ITX motherboard and Atom CPU bundle for just $70, whereas the cheapest 740G mobo on Newegg today costs around $50. To really give Intel a run for its money, AMD might need some even cheaper 740G mobos with Mini-ITX form factors, and it may have to price the Athlon 2650e in the $30-40 range. Feasible? Probably so: the cheapest single-core Athlon at Newegg costs only $24.99 right now. (Thanks to TR reader Phil for the link.)

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/15486

[anubis]

I think you got confused somewhere...

http://ark.intel.com/chipset.aspx?familyID=35553

Max TDP 6 Watts. And 11.8W for the entire platform with 1.6Ghz CPU for a total price of 79$

Maybe you used some generic 945 one? So ye...WTF?

linky

So, these new cpus are about 22W TDP, but way more powerful than Atom. If you look at the tests you will see, that a dualcore 4850e (45W TDP) consumes at idle 4W more than Atom, but at full load 50W - should be a pretty good indicator that the 945 chipset is the main reason Atom uses so much power (at full load atom draws only 3,7W more).
A low power dualcore should then be about 60-65W full load. If you then make a energy efficient ITX motherboard based on 740 chipset i think you could cut 10W from it. And then you should have a ITX based system with full load draw of about 50-55W and that can play all the movies (DivX,x264,720p,1080p,BR) in the world AND be silent.

[zanzabar]

MD dont rate TDP they rate advrage use TDP so its not the same as intels, add 30% to amds number, but if it offers full speed thats great, but via will still have it beat in TDP and speed

[Shintai]

linky

So, these new cpus are about 22W TDP, but way more powerful than Atom. If you look at the tests you will see, that a dualcore 4850e (45W TDP) consumes at idle 4W more than Atom, but at full load 50W - should be a pretty good indicator that the 945 chipset is the main reason Atom uses so much power (at full load atom draws only 3,7W more).
A low power dualcore should then be about 60-65W full load. If you then make a energy efficient ITX motherboard based on 740 chipset i think you could cut 10W from it. And then you should have a ITX based system with full load draw of about 50-55W and that can play all the movies (DivX,x264,720p,1080p,BR) in the world AND be silent.

If you note the Toms link. They use another chipset than specified on the ECS board. Most likely to save a few $. Secondly its also about price. Else you could pair it with a G45M and a 1.33ghz Core 2 Duo at 10W.

Cut 10W? So the 740G would use what...1-2W?

And I also have a feeling Toms is using a rather large PSU that is massively different efficiency at small loads.(Coolermaster RS850-EMBA, ATX 2.2, 850 W)

[informal]

MD dont rate TDP they rate advrage use TDP so its not the same as intels, add 30% to amds number, but if it offers full speed thats great, but via will still have it beat in TDP and speed

I think you got confused somewhere in the TDP numbers man..AMD rates its desktop chips as maximum TDP,unlike intel(not to say that 45nm 65W consumes 65W though,it is just for cooling reference).Next time more facts,less imagination,please

[savantu]

I think you got confused somewhere...

http://ark.intel.com/chipset.aspx?familyID=35553

Max TDP 6 Watts. And 11.8W for the entire platform with 1.6Ghz CPU for a total price of 79$

Maybe you used some generic 945 one? So ye...WTF?

Shintai , sorry but I have to add a few things :P

What you're describing is the desktop Atom.

For embedded and mobile they use the System Controller Hub ( which integrated the NB and SB ) with a TDP of 1.6 to 2.3w .

Page 423 http://download.intel.com/design/chi...hts/319537.pdf

and page 2 here http://download.intel.com/design/chi...brf/319545.pdf

[Jaivan]

I think you got confused somewhere...

http://ark.intel.com/chipset.aspx?familyID=35553

Max TDP 6 Watts. And 11.8W for the entire platform with 1.6Ghz CPU for a total price of 79$

Maybe you used some generic 945 one? So ye...WTF?

Umm..

Okay so I did a little research and turns out that both of us are right kinda.
There are two chipsets that intel use with the atom the 945GSE which you posted and the 945CG which is the one with the 22W TDP.

http://ark.intel.com/chipset.aspx?fa...994&code=945gc

Turns out the the 945gse is the ones in the eeePC and other such nettops while the 945GC is used for the Mini ITX motherboard that is available through places like newegg.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...21342&Tpk=atom

[v_rr]

ATOM spend less energy.

But with AMD you can make a laptop with strong performance, low price, and good batery. Not so good as Atom, but AMD platform is better in other ways.
In the end both are diferent and both have their strenghs.

The chips will be OEM-only, and reports suggest that they'll reach the market as soon as December in systems from ASUS, Acer and Shuttle.

We can only hope that more builders bring this toy from AMD.

[ToTTenTranz]

Get a 3250e X2 + 780G + 10600mAh battery on a 9" netbook and I'll fap to it.







Ok, I won't fap to it, but I'll still think it's cool.

And heeeeere comes the "oh noes, the TDP is so higher, they can't compare!!!" crew.

[Shintai]

I think you got confused somewhere in the TDP numbers man..AMD rates its desktop chips as maximum TDP,unlike intel(not to say that 45nm 65W consumes 65W though,it is just for cooling reference).Next time more facts,less imagination,please

Ehm...no. And its been proven wrong over and over again. So many times its not even funny.

ATOM spend less energy.

But with AMD you can make a laptop with strong performance, low price, and good batery. Not so good as Atom, but AMD platform is better in other ways.
In the end both are diferent and both have their strenghs.

We can only hope that more builders bring this toy from AMD.

Then you are up in some Celeron M range. They should have stayed in the first rumoured 8W range.

[Cooper]

Ehm...no. And its been proven wrong over and over again. So many times its not even funny.

well if it was you might as well post any prove here too. Cos it's a surprise for me.

Then you are up in some Celeron M range. They should have stayed in the first rumoured 8W range.

CeleronM + 945G - now that's a performance king

[Shintai]

well if it was you might as well post any prove here too. Cos it's a surprise for me.



CeleronM + 945G - now that's a performance king

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...lfdale_11.html

SURPRISE SURPRISE COOPER! Abit far from 65W aint it? Both 65 and 45nm.

Oh, and compared to teh above. Yes a Celeron M would be a performance king. But then again, so would a 1.33Ghz 10W C2D.