AMD Finally outs new CPUs!!

So a small summary is that in the WNSIB Forum I just read a thread where HP was already offering the AMD Turion II x2 Caspian CPU, based on a 45nm. Tigris might see the light of the market after all, and this news are quite exciting, considering that they are supposedly made to compete directly with C2D with a lower price tag and same performance.

This update finally came, and seems like the good ol' roadmap we all know:



Is finally becoming reality. I can say I am excited to see AMD still fighting in this, what most call "already lost mobile war".

I will continue to update this, as I search for more info, but I can give you the link to the thread, where it was posted the Turion II.

This is the HP UK website, where this CPU was spotted by a member. It is an update in the AMD lines that passed quite hidden behind Intel Core i7 bunch of news, but if this is accepted by many more, we might actually get the same current performance, for less, and not have to deal with Intel's GMA4500MHD, but with AMD's 3200HD or 4200HD.

NEW UPDATE 2/11/09
New AMD Roadmap Shown

 

It`s a about time AMD got out of the budget notebook market , but core2duo is old hat with i7 coming in , I bet INTEL are worried "NOT"

 

Well, until 2010, C2D is what Intel has for mainstream, so if looking for a laptop and having both AMD and Intel in the same performance bracket, but with AMD offering better graphics and a lower price tag, I would go with AMD.

 

Finally...I am an AMD fan, but when it came to notebooks they never really offered anything that would give me the performance I wanted...the Turion X2 Ultra is only comparable to a Pentium Dual-Core. I find the codenames interesting. I live in Ontario and one of my favourite games is Warriors Orochi 2 lol...

I see their finally putting large amounts of memory in the L2 cache. I wonder if they follow the double cache method rather than Intel's shared cache method. If so Orochi is actually 4MB X 2, Llano is 2MB X2 and Ontario is 512kb X 2 (like the Turion we have now except DDR3). Very interesting.

 

I think AMD is aiming to compete in terms of the whole package, not just toe-to-toe CPU performance where they unquestionably lose every time.

 

What a wonderful day that will be, hurry up and get them ready AMD, you have a buyer!

Complete in the whole package is what I'm talking about, too. Intel unquestionably loses when you factor in their IGP vs. anything by NVidia or ATI. I'll take a laptop that can actually do more than word processing and watching a movie. Give me some 3D gaming.

 

AMD with ATI IGP is a winner if you ask me, considering you can get a GPU and "bang" switchable graphics for less!

ATI's IGP smoke Intel's current GMA4500MHD solution, that deals good performance and better 3D software.

Sorry, I already got an i7 lol, but I finally see AMD fighting back with something that is worth it.

 

Have there been actual benchmarks showing the new AMD cpu's comparable to the C2D's?

How about heat and power consumption?

I'm excited as well, but am not going to be swept away by hype.

 

This is true, but 2010 is less than 3 months away. That chart is actually rather bad news for AMD: they will not have 32nm parts until 2011 while Intel will have them in the very beginning of 2010 (Fudzilla says January 3).

I do not see any changes in the notebook CPU market. Intel will continue to dominate the high-end and mid-range while AMD remains competitive at the low end and continues to offer superior IGPs.

 

What's with all the GMA4500 hate? It's cheap, power efficient and it can support 1080p. Not to mention that doesn't even try to compete in the gaming/multimedia market, yet all this hate is sorta...expecting it to?

Unless you're multimedia or a gamer, is the 4500 lacking that much from the context of everyday laptop computing? Looking back, I wished I did get Intel's GMA, because the increase in battery life is insane and it would promote less d!cking around on my laptop =P

 

Perhaps, but still, this is a good news!
If they do perform well, AMD will gain a lot of territory in the low budget with good performance area

 

Intel owns a lil under half off AMD's debt.. Billions in bonds..

Intel has to have AMD or Intel is a monopoly.. and thats not good..

Better to fund the competition or fund number two and be inside thus managing the problem.. instead of Congress kicking down the doors..

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E0D6163CF931A1575AC0A96F9C8B63

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/does-amd-really-pose-a-risk-for-bankruptcy-2009-09-29

http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/13/intel-fined-1-45-billion-dollars/

http://www.infoworld.com/t/hardware/intel-launches-probe-amds-spin-plans-340

Intel will be outed as AMD's source for cash.. during this shoving match and I will not sound quite so Kooky.. it is the worst kept secret in computers.

Be well, JW

 

I expect if they claim it can do 3D, which they do, and that it supports 1080p, which it doesn't very well, that it actually do those things. That's not hate, that's disappointment.

 

Wait, Intel now claims that their IGP can do 3D? Even by marketing standards, that's preposterous. I would've expected they'd know better than claim that the GMA series can handle anything more demanding than Aero.

And to keep this on topic, I agree with Althernai - this doesn't change the overall picture. With this launch, it seems like we have another example of AMD playing catch up - and only managing to catch up to where Intel was a year ago. I'm hoping that these new CPUs will match Westmere Arrandales so that they'll still be something other than budget CPUs 6 months from today, but I have my doubts.

 

Well those 6 months could be crucial for AMD if they sell, giving the push to jump faster to 32nm...but it sees no light, since Intel did that small [cant mention it] thing.

 

That's a big if. They'd have to convince already-skeptical OEMs to actually use these CPUs in something other than budget laptops. It's not like desktop CPUs where they just have to impress hardware review sites like THG and [H] and the enthusiasts will start buying.

If we then factor in the typical 3-month delay OEMs take in bringing new CPUs to market in all their products, then the 6 month timeframe seems even more impossible.

 

Perhaps. But as a OEM if you see similar performance than the competition, for less money, I think AMD has a good shot there, just need to take full advantage of it.

 

OEMs don't see Intel as "the competition" - they see Intel as their primary partner. Except maybe HP.

Besides, for an OEM to use these products in their laptops in large quantities would mean:

1) Giving AMD advertising
2) Pissing off Intel - bye bye (illegal and monopolizing, some would say) discounts
3) Staking their reputation on AMD

Most OEMs probably wouldn't mind #1 too much, but since these are gigantic, risk-fearing companies, I don't see #2 and #3 being acceptable to senior management. Again, except for HP which already has a long-established relationship with AMD.

[Edit] Oh, and I doubt the OEMs would be willing to design a new premium laptop that they can only sell for 6 months, either.

 

Let us not be negative. If AMD sees the change, we all win, Intel has to lower to remain competitive, and we get laptops for cheap(er)!

 

Well honestly, lower to to mid range market matters a lot in the laptop world.

Most people won't buy an i7 and even less actually need something of that performance caliber; half those purchases are hubris based(i.e. I want to have the latest and the greatest). People are too caught up in the numbers and need to look at actual marketing. Even in the desktop world, the i CPU family hasn't even come near to replacing any other type of CPU family out there simply because they're an expensive platform that doesn't grant benefit to most users.

I know for a fact that retail stores(I've checked the ones near me at least so that includes Future Shop, Best Buy and Staples) sell 500-700$ laptops far more often than they do 1500$+ laptops so let's not underestimate the power of lower budget laptops here; they represent a very large portion of the market.

The main thing is pricing and efficiency of the chip. Most people don't care much for top notch performance so if you can sell them something that does what they want for cheap, then they're sold. It's even better if that something decent has an IGP(or even lower end graphics) that are better than an GMA 4500HD so their kids can play computer games on it lol

 

I want to be positive too, but AMD has shown us very little hope in their roadmaps so it's hard not to be negative. I've heard Arrandale CPUs start at $87 (about the same price as a Pentium Dual Core is today), so these new AMD CPUs would have to be competitive with Arrandale in order to be anything but a budget processor in 6 months time.

Doesn't help that by the time AMD moves to 32nm in 2011, Arrandale will be history and Sandy Bridge will be mainstream, with Ivy Bridge either newly launched or about to launch.

 

And these $500-700 laptops contain a Pentium T4200 or Core 2 Duo 6xxx CPU, right? Unfortunately for AMD, there's Arrandale equivalents for those too.

I had forgotten completely about efficiency, but if AMD's just scaling K10 down to laptop specs, I'm not expecting a whole lot.

 

I read it is the same old aging K10, but scaled to 45nm.

I want to point out that Forever_Melody is right, that is why the 4500MHD sells that much, since it is in budget laptops, and Intel offers good performance for the moeny and the casual user.

 

Hmm, that's an even bigger problem for AMD then - if Intel is good enough and cheap enough, there's no real reason for a consumer to move to AMD.

Then again, given how an Atom is enough for most people's needs and even AMD's current Athlon X2 offerings are overkill for your average user, it's clear that the whole mainstream laptop market is based on hubris and perceptions, including the budget segment. Your average Joe is paying for far more computing power than they need even when they get a Pentium T4200. You can easily handle word processing and email on a Pentium III, after all.

 

Well AMD is cheaper, and graphics-wise is better.
The Athlon II and Turion II are not bad CPU's in the desktop world, and they are dirt-cheap chips and they offer good performance.

According to http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html the Athlon II and Phenom II are good performer, why not the same in mobile?

 

Um, I wasn't disappointed with the 720p and 1080p playback from the 4500HD. Maybe you weren't using the proper codecs?

http://acer1810treview.blogspot.com/

" I tested several video clips. Playing the 1080p wmv trailer of 'Rules of Attraction' caused a 100% CPU load at times, but the movie seemed smooth.

I also tested some 1080p clips with the popular H264 format. Best results were gotten with Media Player Classic Home Cinema using Cyberlink Power DVD codec.

The trailer of The Bourne Ultimatum looked spectacular: Fast moving action without any dropped frames en audio perfectly in sync. CPU load would often peak at 100% but this was not a problem. Enabling DXVA made CPU load a lot lower at the expense of image quality. The 1080p trailer of 'I Am Legend' played smooth with relatively low CPU load (around 40-50%) after enabling DXVA."

Did I mention the battery life was amazing? My housemate has an XPS 1330 with Intel integrated graphics, and with us both using 6 cell batteries rated at 56Whr, the 1330 doubles my battery life. Yes, it does have a smaller screen to power, but still impressive.

Furthermore, the Notebookreview.com's Dell Studio 15 review looked at a unit with Intel graphics, and the battery life they got was 3:41 with 50% screen brightness, wifi on. The max battery life I'm able to squeeze out is 2:40, and that's with the screen at minimum brightness. I also have the Intel X25-M, which the unit reviewed by Notebookreview did not have.

I also undervolted - this was before my upgrade to the Intel C2D T9500, when I still had the T5750 rated at 2Ghz and 35W TDP, undervolted to 0.95V. Thus, the higher clocked CPU can be ruled out as the cause for this discrepancy in battery life. Put into perspective, I would have to get the 9-cell extended battery (~50% more capacity) to even reach a comparable run-time on battery.

Assuming that 1080p can be played back well with the X4500HD (which you assert that it cannot), I would gladly trade gaming performance of a discrete graphics solution for the increased battery life.

 

Sort of. You can certainly sell a whole lot of processors there, but the margins on each one are painfully slim. Intel probably gets more profit from a single Core i7 820QM than AMD does from selling 10 of its most profitable mobile processors.

Very few people are going to play games on an ATI or Nvidia IGP that they can't play on Intel's IGP (by the latter, I mean flash games which do not rely on the GPU at all). Other than that, you have some decent points in here. Most people (with some exceptions -- I need a decent CPU for work) won't be able to tell the difference between the performance of many CPUs on the market. However, energy efficiency and heat produced are very noticeable (AMD CPUs are notorious for this, in part due to being shipped with incompetently designed cooling systems). This is where process size becomes important. For any given performance, you can't match the battery life or temperature of a 32nm CPU with one that is 45nm.

 

What Arrandale starts under $100? The lowest end so far known is the Core i7 620UM and it costs as much as an SU9400 (before Intel lowered prices on them due to the culv craze).

 

Point taken, but isnt the CULV and Atom made in 45? And the Atom was made in 65 until new, and Pinetrail is now 45nm IIRC...so a 45nm is good for battery life, yes 32nm will be better but still, most people buy by price, the lower the price the better, and how many threads in the WNSIBF have I not seen with the 700 budget and gaming but no refurb??
DAAMIT could do this for the same as Intel offers their non-gaming IGP...

 

Who knows, maybe amd will jump 128bit tech before intel haha, they were good with the first 64s

 

OMG please read this thread

 

Why, that thread is really stupid.

 

Sure, that's why I said "for a given performance level" -- the Atoms and CULVs don't come anywhere close to matching the performance of the P and SP Core2Duos. When they're shifted to 32nm as well, they can either have better performance or consume even less energy.

 

Perhaps, but Arrandale comes in Jan 2010, till full implementation and distribution we are talking of Q2 2010. That gives AMD to match current C2D in 45nm and give a better price. This is the only chance they can get to "clean" their name...

And a P or T will still be around, on the lower side, until H1 2010 most likely, so AMD would have a 8 month or 9 month window to work...not enough, but still, something.

 

Actually, most of them over here have AMDs lol Athlon QL-62s or Turion Ultras are pretty common for budget machines. Probably about half of them(a bit less) of them have Pentium Dual Cores in it and a small portion have Celerons. Anything sporting a Core 2 Duo(unless it's on sale), is generally above the 700$ gap.

I mean, currently Best Buys in Canada have a promotion where you give in your old laptop(new or dead) and they give you 100$ off a 500$ Athlon QL-62 Toshiba. Let me tell you something, most stores were out after a day >.> Really, some people couldn't care less about Intel or AMD because most of them aren't techy enough to output more money than necessary for computers.

Basically, it all comes down to pricing and efficiency for lots of the market, not performance as people seem to suggest. Intel may be months if not a whole generation in front of AMD, if they have to sell a platform at double the cost, that may not appeal to some buyers(manufacturers are another story consider Intel "pressure" ). So if Intel can keep a lower end segment cheaper than AMD(or roughly equivalent enough), then AMD won't be able to pull through.

Tsk, AMD buying ATI really put them back a lot >.< I hope they manage something(either that or Intel gets lazy XD). If Intel gets monopoly status, nobody will be happy(except maybe Intel fanboys)

Anyhow, what laptops are these AMD CPUs going to be equipped with? Anyone have an idea? Rather than keep looking down on them, we could try and find and post benchmarks when they arrive to confirm or deny our suspicions.

 

ATI at least is doing great, but I agree, 70% of people dont know a **** about computers, only numbers and price. AMD can cover that easily.

 

ATI's doing good, but as we've already discussed in that other AMD thread a few weeks back, buying them put AMD back a lot in their budget(and therefore their roadmap/R&D) They're still picking up the pieces from that purchase really.

I just hope AMD will(or more like can afford) to offer their newer CPUs at a really really competitive price. If they can pull something like that 100$ quad-core Athlon in the desktop world, it'd be good.

 

Yeah, I remember. It was a risky move, that they are still paying for it, and Intel "blocking" the way, didn't help either.

But if AMD manages to pull the Athlon II x4 at under 100 bucks, then a laptop could see cheap CPU's available, and that would help a lot to manufacturers to sell cheaper, therefore, regular costumers, not people that really know in the matter, like fellow members in NBR, will go for the cheapest possible.

SO basically, we can translate it (in a simplistic way) like this:
AMD is cheaper+similar performance than Intel C2D+better graphic solutions, including switchable on some models=sales on most levels, budget, mainstream and budget gaming.

 

Switchables would in fact be a big selling point for AMD. Seeing as they basically own ATI, switchable graphics shouldn't be as much of a hassle as it is for a manufacturer who wants to combine an Intel CPU with a switchable Nvidia platform for example(or an Intel IGP+something else platform). Switchable graphics are something I wanted to see more in laptops as they basically are so far the best solution for graphics performance without sacrificing too much battery life. AMD also has this option open to them.

If they can manage that(switchable graphics for a decent price), I think even I'd be willing to swap to an AMD CPU based laptop(even if say they were subpar to Intel's CPUs).

 

The HP DM3 is offered with both Intel and AMD, AMD being switchable and Intel not, the AMD comes for less, around 100 IIRC...so IMHO, for the Neo x2 which is very good performer, plus switchable for less, that is a win!

 

That's not what I'm hearing. There are already reviews of it out now, production is currently ramping up. January 2010 is when the distribution begins in earnest.

They don't have to sell a platform at double the cost. If Intel wanted to, they could lower their prices for both notebook and desktop processors which would drive AMD out of those markets. They don't do this because they make a great deal of money even as it is and if AMD was gone, Intel would have several regulatory bodies on their case in very short order.

I don't think that is how it works. The part that is doing the switching should ideally be capable of doing it regardless of what it is switching between. This is not quite as relevant in laptops because you're stuck with the GPU that they ship with, but it is crucial in desktops.

 

I disagree. The ATI chipset only supports AMD chips. So only via AMD you can switch between ATI IGP+GPU, which would be ATI normally, it is cheaper and performs just as good, or better than NVIDIA.

For NVIDIA to do the switch they require their chipset, their GPU, and an Intel CPU, but there are law suits between them, so dont expect switchable from NVIDIA for a time, and NVIDIA chipset does not support AMD chips.

Intel chipset, only via special modifications supports switchable between the GM45 chipset and a third party GPU. And AMD is not supported with Intel chipset.

So basically the AMD/ATI chipset is the cheapest capable offering switchable, and it is done via software yes, but the hardware has to support it.

 

Ahha! Gotcha! I am using a AMD Processor on Nvidia Chipset.
Don't believe google Aspire 4530.
Nvidia is desperate they will try to run their graphics on anything.

 

Is that even possible?? HOW!>!>!

 

Here Just Click on Specification

 

I stand corrected.

 

weird... heard of intel cpus in NVDIA motherboards and not AMD ones... good to know this fact..

 

Well its not under $100 but the cheapest Arrandale is the i5 520M with $225.

 

It looks like Core i5 has finally forced AMD to slash its desktop prices ( TechReport article here). There isn't a single consumer-oriented AMD processor left that sells for more than $200 and they're running out of room to put the various processor bins: all 3 different Athlon II X2s are between $60 and $70 in price.

If AMD has decent laptop CPUs (competitive with at least Core2Duos), they better get them out fast because once Arrandale comes out, they'll have no choice but to push the prices lower just like they did with the desktop ones.

EDIT: Didn't quite finish reading the article. It turns out there are now also low-powered (45W) Athlon II X2s one of which costs $69 and the other $77. So there are 4 CPUs in the $60-70 range, not 3.

 

Indeed. Intel has that advantage, and AMD has a bad reputation overall due to consumers and the disaster that Sempron and Turion were. While Athlon was a win, the upper series Turion was not as good as expected, and from there (and the Intel "move"), plus the ATI buyout, well AMD had it rough.

I must say, less than 100 for a triple core is a heck of a great deal!

Note how the Opteron is not listed...and Dragon (Phenom II+ATI+AMD chipset) is supposed to rival i7 when gaming. So AMD still has chances.