AMD Quad Core Notebooks showing up?

Source

Just saw on Fudzilla that both Acer and Dell are planning on releasing new noebooks based on AMD Mobile Phenom cpus.

Inspiron M501R

More info can be found at the source link at the top.

 

AMD 45nm Champlain processors on the Danube platform. Single, dual, tri, quad cores.

 

A quad core running at 25W would be pretty sweet.

 

It suffers from the same problem as Intel's 45nm quads: the clock speed necessarily ranges from very low to low. Do these have AMD's version of Turbo Boost like the desktop Thuban Phenom IIs do? If not, then performance in everything except heavily multithreaded applications is going to be downright pitiful.

On the bright side, these appear to be dirt cheap so maybe Intel will lower their prices. At the very least, the appearance of some competition should prevent them from delaying Sandy Bridge just so that retailers would have time to sell off old stock like they did with Clarksfield.

 

AMD has 32nm Llano coming out in the beginning of 2011, so I doubt Intel will be delaying SB and letting Llano gain a lead.

 

1.6GHz is plenty for most things.

 

When on battery my i5-540M is locked to 1.2GHz. I have not found it feeling slow at all, even playing some games (like Civ4), and with GPU acceleration watching high-def movies is fine.

I think you make too much of clock speed.

 

A Quad-Core running at 1.6 is more than fast enough for most people.

 

The word "quad core" is already overkill for most people.

 

My point was that all such processors fit a rather small niche. Sure, they'll do fine if you don't do anything intense... but then there is no reason to buy a quad core in the first place. If you do use the CPU to its full potential, it is much, much more likely that a fast dual-core will be better for you than a slow quad-core. The only people for whom such processors make sense are those whose intense usage is limited to heavily multithreaded workloads.

 

All things being equal, which they never are, why wouldn't take a quad over a duo? They'll offer better performance on the top end. That said most probably don't need them.

 

If by "all things being equal" you equate heat output, power use and subsequent battery life then yes, there would be no sensible reason not to get the quad, but seeing as all those things aren't equal and add to the fact that some people privilege some of those elements(while not needing the extra power), then a dual is fine for most of the population.

 

i'd wonder how hot they'll run considering how hot the turrion II processors run...

 

Thats why you can choose the triple core cpu.

And i dont think they will run that much hotter than a i7 Macbook Pro. lol

 

But but...you can cook an egg on the Macbook Pro!

Ok but in all seriousness, they're on their way, time will tell how well(or badly) this will impact the current gap between Intel and AMD (apparently their 6 core in the desktop world did a good job).

 

yummm eggs


I hope that it does bring the gap down. AMD has been so far behind for the last numbers of years it would be nice to see a different color than blue. The fact that Dell is using them tells me these chips are going to be decent.

as for the Desktop Hex-core... I bought one last night... amazing simply amazing. in fact I'm typing on it right now. the Phenom II X6 1055T FEELS faster than the i7 920 that I sold which ran way to hot. my temps on my X6 are 24C idle, 48C 100% load on all 6 cores. all on the stock heatsink.

just a though... 1.6Ghz X4 at 25WATT? sooo... 1.6ghz X6 at 35WATT? that would be worth some bragging rights.

 

It probably feels faster because your new desktop has a better hard drive. There is simply no way at all a difference in those CPUs would be within human perception outside of some heavy duty programs (games, scientific computing, etc.). And incidentally, the 920 is slightly faster than the 1055T in almost all applications (even multithreaded ones!) despite only having 4 cores. I wouldn't be surprised if it ran hotter though -- it's nearly 2 years old now and was one of the very first Nehalems whereas the 1055T is at the tail end of the K10's.

 

sounds like amd alright. great multithreaded performance for cheap. i wonder what idle power consumption is like. doesn't the desktop phenoms downclock all the way to 800mhz?

 

More Ace-r's leaking with Danube platform tri and quad cores.

 

But can it run Crysis???


On a serious note, I wonder just how these will compare to Intel's lineup. If these mobile Phenoms can get about the same performance as the higher-end C2Ds or C2Qs, and cost significantly less, AMD might be back in the budget game.

 

phenomIIs are slightly faster clock for clock vs c2d i think. and athlonIIs (phenoms w/o L3 cache) are a tad slower clock for clock vs c2d. these won't beat the i5s and i7s, but they will compete against chips like i3s and below.

also, does this mean new IGPs, to go with the chipset?

 

The igp has support for DirectX 10.1.

 

and........

 

And it means its 4000 series. What else do you want?

Champlain

 

I realize the 920 is/should be faster, the reason I sold was the heat and noise to cool it and I downgraded my hard drive... I have a 80GB intel SSD to a 250GB 7200RPM 2.5 notebook hard drive. just waiting to a good sale on a SSD... maybe it was the change in the motherboard, I had some amount of trouble with my motherboard that my 920 was in, where as this one has been flawless. anyway, AMD quads are a good thing for everyone, that way intel is forced to innovate.

oh and I use a really weird video overlay program that has a tenancy to completely consume 1 or 2 cores so having a few extra for other stuff is a bonus to me.

 

It depends which Phenom II variety these are and whether anything except clock speed was sacrificed for the sake of a lower TDP. The original Phenom IIs were considerably slower than C2Qs clock for clock, but AMD keeps tweaking them and the desktop variety improves slightly with every tweak. I think they're still slightly slower than C2Qs, but it's difficult to say because once Core i5 and Core i3 came out, people stopped doing comparisons to C2Qs (and Core iX is definitely faster clock for clock).

 

support for dx10.1 doesn't imply anything about dx11.
5800 supports dx7 too, doesn't mean it only support dx7.

 

Ok but in all seriousness, they're on their way, time will tell how well(or badly) this will impact the current gap between Intel and AMD (apparently their 6 core in the desktop world did a good job).[/QUOTE]

I hope that it does bring the gap down. AMD has been so far behind for the last numbers of years it would be nice to see a different color than blue. The fact that Dell is using them tells me these chips are going to be decent.

as for the Desktop Hex-core... I bought one last night... amazing simply amazing. in fact I'm typing on it right now. the Phenom II X6 1055T FEELS faster than the i7 920 that I sold which ran way to hot. my temps on my X6 are 24C idle, 48C 100% load on all 6 cores. all on the stock heatsink.

just a though... 1.6Ghz X4 at 25WATT? sooo... 1.6ghz X6 at 35WATT? that would be worth some bragging rights.[/QUOTE]

wait , does this new phenon have AMD's version of hyperthreading?

 

The laptops showed up here.
But with the Turions this hot I think I won't be getting any until someone proves otherwise.

 

Same names like Intel Eg: P2 X920/ P2 X620 ...lol

BTW Nice Work AMD.

 

I will keep a close eye as well, my only one major complaint though. There is no USB 3.0 here............

 

USB 3.0 will be support via 3rd party chip.

 

I don't see that as being something worthy of a complaint, considering these (even the quad cores) will be cheap enough to make it into Dell's Inspiron line.

 

it will be quite some time until usb2.0 peripherals get replaced with usb3.0 ones.

 

If you look at the structure listed before there are USB 2.0 channels native within the design but not USB 3.0. While agreed this can come off the esata port it would have been nice to see it incorperated. Also while USB 3.0 will be a while before it replaces USB 2.0 there are enclosures already out for HDD's. This would be my primary use and need for the faster interface.

 

Llano will have USB 3.0 support.

 

Last I heard, AMD doesn't have a version of hyperthreading. Perhaps you were thinking "Turbo" clocking? The Bulldozer (Q1 2011 32nm 128 bit desktop processor) will be their first quad core with eight "effective" cores, I believe. However, this still is not hyperthreading, it is due to multiple integer cores.

 

Bulldozer is not a processor, it is the next gen architecture. And it is not coming until later in 2011, since the first Fusion processors (Llano for mobile) will be K10 based.

 

I apologize for the long term lapse in nomenclature, I generally call "Nehalem" processors as well. In reality, it is a highly scalable architecture that processor cores are based upon.

The first Bulldozer based processors to roll out should be 32nm "Orochi" quad core desktop processors, scheduled for 2011.

 

Let me get this straight, Bulldozer will be a desktop-and-server oriented architecture, with a (poorly) scaled down mobile version coming out later that will probably run too hot, use too much power, and perform poorly compared to Intel's chips. As usual. Right?

Given how notebooks now outsell desktops, even without counting netbooks, isn't it about time AMD designed a truly mobile-oriented CPU?

 

Um, no. Please go look up Bulldozer, it will compete well against Sandy Bridge.

 

On desktops I have no doubt about that, but will the mobile version even be available before Ivy Bridge's scheduled launch?

 

I would assume that multiple integer cores are more effective for parallel tasks than hyperthreading, but it may indeed cost more energy. AMD's chips have recently been performing below Intel's but it does not mean it will stay this way. Even then AMD has been rather effective in carving out niches in which their products compare favorably in cost effectiveness. Notebooks have definitely not been one of these areas!

That is what Bobcat (Ontario) and Fusion (Llano) are for, dear sir.

 

Sadly, Intel already has shipping products in both the Ultraportable and the CPU+GPU-in-one categories. I almost feel sorry for AMD given how they've pegged all of their notebook hopes and ambitions on Fusion since 2006, and yet Intel still beat them to it by a year without really even having to try.

 

I really hope AMD gets their act together soon, because the last few iterations of both desktop and laptop CPUs are disappointing to say the least. The only positive has been price versus performance. All other metrics are basically in favor of intel. (performance per core, performance per cycle, performance per watt, etc)

 

I didn't say Fusion will be superior or even competitive to Intel's CPU, I just said they are mobile oriented.

 

Well, the desktop chips are typically acceptable, even if only because there's a lot more leeway in a desktop for things like power consumption and heat output - if it translates into upfront cost savings on the CPU. On a laptop, losing an hour of battery life is hard to swallow for a ~$50 discount.

So, since you mentioned that AMD has been effective in carving out niches in the first part of that post, what kind of niche do you suppose Fusion will carve out then?

 

Carve out? More probably burn out. Laptop grill niche

 

Intel already partnered up with a certain fruit-themed OEM to claim that niche

 

I suppose for people who play light games... but not too light. Like World of Warcraft, it doesn't need any more CPU power but an Intel integrated can only play it acceptable frame rates (~45fps) at 800x600 resolution. I think that is an area where AMD/ATI can clearly improve, and thus carve a niche market. But what I think isn't relevant to the original discussion. So after this, let us return to AMD new processors for notebooks.

Rant:
People will continue to disregard AMD (and rightfully so in the notebook arena) but they should be given a good look. Especially for people like my family. Do they need a good Intel processor? No. Would they be able to tell the difference from an AMD Athlon II and an Intel i5? No. But they certainly would like to watch a video online, and use Facebook. The cost difference is often important to such consumers. Once again, in the notebook field AMD is currently outgunned in every aspect. But in desktops, few mainstream consumer cares about energy efficiency or heat, so long as it dirt cheap and works.