Intel's Response For Q3 '07: Yorkfield

[Helmore]

That's because Intel's TDP right now are much lower than AMD's. Even with the doubling, Kentsfield's power consumption is roughly the same as a FX-62.

There is one thing that you are missing, that is the fact that AMD is much more strict in TDP ratings then Intel. So if AMD would rate a CPU at 125W, then Intel would rate it at 100W. Those figures ought to be taken with a grain of salt, as I do not know how much of a difference there is, but it is quite a well known fact that AMD is stricter in thier ratings.

[vitaminc]

There is one thing that you are missing, that is the fact that AMD is much more strict in TDP ratings then Intel. So if AMD would rate a CPU at 125W, then Intel would rate it at 100W. Those figures ought to be taken with a grain of salt, as I do not know how much of a difference there is, but it is quite a well known fact that AMD is stricter in thier ratings.

Not more strict but different methodology. Intel is using RMS power, AMD is using maximum power.

[nn_step]

Not more strict but different methodology. Intel is using RMS power, AMD is using maximum power.

Tue, as well as AMD includes the Memory controller, Intel on the hand doesn't

[Fred_Pohl]

There is one thing that you are missing, that is the fact that AMD is much more strict in TDP ratings then Intel. So if AMD would rate a CPU at 125W, then Intel would rate it at 100W. Those figures ought to be taken with a grain of salt, as I do not know how much of a difference there is, but it is quite a well known fact that AMD is stricter in thier ratings.

Since when is unsubstantiated conjecture a well known fact? Based on component wattage estimates a Woodcrest system consumes more power on paper than a comparable Opteron system, yet in real world testing the opposite is true.

I think you're confusing manufacturer specific TDP verbage with cpu family TDP ratings and reality. Obviously a 125W TDP FX62 consumes less than 125W just as a 65W TDP E6300 consumes less than 65W since neither cpu is at the top of their respective cpu family TDP ratings. At this time we can be fairly certain that a E6700 does consume 65W TDP but we still don't know if FX74 will be the top model in AMD's 125W family TDP, although it seems very likely.

[arisythila]

I believe the point both of you are trying to make is that AMD and Intel will only keep prices low IF they don't have the absolute best on earth. As LONG as they are both competing performance will always be good and the Prices will always be low

I was trying to make the point of when the FX-57 was out, and around 1000 dollars, They had the 3.7 ghz or 3.8ghz EE chip was also 1000 dollars. Even tho the FX-57 was a bit faster than it. It seems like to AMD if they are not king of the hill they cut prices, to were Intel doesnt really, unless there is a new technology. IE: C2D.

~Mike

[jimmyz]

why would you say that conroe is better than K8L

because you can buy a conroe now!

[nn_step]

because you can buy a conroe now!

the same could have been said about K8 and Conroe about 6 months ago
To claim one company's product is better than another's future product is a blatant flame bait and complete fanboyism.

[arisythila]

LOL, Werd™

~Mike

[jimmyz]

the same could have been said about K8 and Conroe about 6 months ago
To claim one company's product is better than another's future product is a blatant flame bait and complete fanboyism.

not meant as flame bait or fanboyism at all. i am just pointing out that the conroe is available now and therefore it wins. and for the record i hope amds next chips run circles around intel. i own amd and intel pcs

[Absolute_0]

Why is Intel unfair? Like AMD would have done their 50% price cuts without Intel putting the pressure on? . They're both the same, big companies, don't be hatin.

Perkam, Intel doesn't NEED to release a new one to compete with K8L; Conroe with some clock increases would have no problem competing. But since the success of C2D, they've decided on an extremely fast an aggressive course of rapid die shrinks and Mhz increases. Which is exactly what you want to do once you have a base architecture that's extremely sound and efficient.

Right now they've got momentum and they're making the "wheel" on the steamroller even bigger.

As for 45nm quad cores at 3.46-3.73 Ghz, i called this months ago

[accord99]

There is one thing that you are missing, that is the fact that AMD is much more strict in TDP ratings then Intel. So if AMD would rate a CPU at 125W, then Intel would rate it at 100W. Those figures ought to be taken with a grain of salt, as I do not know how much of a difference there is, but it is quite a well known fact that AMD is stricter in thier ratings.

That's no longer the case:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/c...ut/power-2.png


A 31W TDP Yonah uses less power than a 25W Turion MT.

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article313-page5.html

[oijkue]

Is Yorkfield a native quad core chip?
If it's yes,why vr-zone says "2x6M L2" ?

[Absolute_0]

No, it's probably going to be like Kentsfield, 2x4mb, each 4mb shared by 2 cores, except this is 50% increased to 2x6mb. Since Connies love cache this should give a nice performance boost.

[uOpt]

There is one thing that you are missing, that is the fact that AMD is much more strict in TDP ratings then Intel. So if AMD would rate a CPU at 125W, then Intel would rate it at 100W. Those figures ought to be taken with a grain of salt, as I do not know how much of a difference there is, but it is quite a well known fact that AMD is stricter in thier ratings.

The TDP is not the power consumption of the processor.

The TDP is what the mechanical design of the casing can dissipate. It does not take into account what the die inside will actually take. That is why many AMD64 that have drastically different power consumption (same core same volts but at different clockspeeds) have the same TDP. Because it's the casing design and not the core.

Intel socket 775 and 771 CPUs have a lower paper TDP because they don't have as much surface (as much contact to the heatsink). But that doesn't mean the CPUs take more or less in practice.

To find out the actual consumption you have to measure. Neither Intel nor AMD specify that info. And it wouldn't make sense since as every overclocker know every die is different. We have all seen CPUs that take much more or less power at the same volts and frequency. In particular those CPUs that clock very well at low voltage already take a great deal of power more at that voltage that others.

This is why you cannot use TDP as the power consumption. It isn't. This is, BTW, one of the major reasons why the popular extreme PSU calculator is nonsense.

[adamant415]

This thread should have just been info about Yorkfield. Unfortunately since k8l was mentioned in the original title and the original post it seems doomed to turn into a flame bait thread. The die hard amd people need to refrain from posting comments in this thread as far as I'm concerned, you know who you are. That is just my rant, I know it happens both ways but maybe if one side stopped it would eventually quit.

Just my .02

[arisythila]

I know seriously.. I hate it when some people bring up Conroe in K8L threads, or even none K8L threads... Worthless in my opinion. I guess you guys have to live with my frusteration.

~Mike

[thunderstruck!]

or even none K8L threads...

This is a non K8L thread. Should Conroe not be mentioned?

[arisythila]

Was talking about AMD based none K8L conversations.

~Mike

[PetNorth]

That's no longer the case:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/c...ut/power-2.png

It depends on the link http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/low_e/5.shtml

A 31W TDP Yonah uses less power than a 25W Turion MT.

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article313-page5.html

I don't see MT, but ML (TDP 35W).

[vitaminc]

Tue, as well as AMD includes the Memory controller, Intel on the hand doesn't

Memory controller doesn't consume much power or real estate.

If you really want to compare the actual power, you will have to take all CPU, MC, FSB/HT controller, PCIe switchs into account (aka include both CPU andd NB). Or even easier, measure power draw from the wall using the same power supply.

TDP is TDP, its for thermal mechanical design and does not matter where the MC is located. If you are packing 200W of heat on the CPU socket, its a bad thermal design compare to spreading the heat around CPU socket, NB socket, etc.

[vitaminc]

I was trying to make the point of when the FX-57 was out, and around 1000 dollars, They had the 3.7 ghz or 3.8ghz EE chip was also 1000 dollars. Even tho the FX-57 was a bit faster than it. It seems like to AMD if they are not king of the hill they cut prices, to were Intel doesnt really, unless there is a new technology. IE: C2D.

~Mike

I will say it again. The flagship chips are not a good indicator of pricing strategy.

Intel has drastically cut their CPU prices 3 times this year, before C2D is out.

You are just finding a null reason to hate. :p

[nn_step]

Memory controller doesn't consume much power or real estate.

If you really want to compare the actual power, you will have to take all CPU, MC, FSB/HT controller, PCIe switchs into account (aka include both CPU andd NB). Or even easier, measure power draw from the wall using the same power supply.

TDP is TDP, its for thermal mechanical design and does not matter where the MC is located. If you are packing 200W of heat on the CPU socket, its a bad thermal design compare to spreading the heat around CPU socket, NB socket, etc.

and lets us be completely HONEST
intel Does NOT include the chips or the Memory or ANYTHING but the processor its self. Period.
End of discussion

[arisythila]

I will say it again. The flagship chips are not a good indicator of pricing strategy.

Intel has drastically cut their CPU prices 3 times this year, before C2D is out.

You are just finding a null reason to hate. :p

This is defently not the reason i 'hate' intel. I wont bring up how they crushed my way of life back in 1999-2000. I dont want to have to bring up any of that stuff. I could have VERY valid reasons to 'hate' intel. but i choose not too. C2D is currently the fastest chip on the market right now. 100%.

I personally think K8L will beat Yorkfield clock for clock hands down. HANDS down...

~Mike

[onewingedangel]

Power usage should be measured at the mains for the whole system to make fair comparisons.

At the minute intel offers better processor and system level power usage.

When AMD finally get to 65nm maybe this will change, maybe it won't.

Remember nvidia's amd northbridges use more power than intels northbridges even though they dont have a memory controller.

[vitaminc]

and lets us be completely HONEST
intel Does NOT include the chips or the Memory or ANYTHING but the processor its self. Period.
End of discussion

and Intel C2D systems draw less power at the wall compare to AMD A64X2/Opty systems. Period.
End of discussion.