AMD Quad Core Notebooks showing up?

my AMD PHenom II X6 1055T runs cooler with less power consumption than my i7 920 D0.

Edit, found something interesting...
from Dells website here: http://www.dell.com/us/en/dfo/notebooks/inspnnb/cp.aspx?refid=inspnnb&s=dfo

not sure if it's a typo or not, but it looks like there will be even more coming.

 

sweet. Now i all have to do is find a gaming lappy with a 5870 and AMD quad and im sold.

 

In my experience the problems AMD has with heat are more because of the manufacturer than the chip itself.

 

Why everyone is hopping for AMD to be back in they?

I mean the way I see it they have been back for a while now and this in both the GPU and CPU segments. The difference between them and intel is that intel has a CPU for every market segment while AMD are concentrating their efforts on the bugdet and mid range segments of the market.

I personaly apploud AMD and the work they did with ATI and what they are trying to do with their CPUs

 

^^this

Amd sends them the chip.Thats it. How cool or hot it runs is completey up the manufacturer and engineers ect.

 

It's a typo -- they meant "expect more from..." because that is a description of the products already there.

That said, there are more coming, though not just of the quad-core variety:

AMD chips to be in many more computers this summer-sources - Yahoo! News

It looks like AMD has finally managed to get battery life and heat issues (which, unlike performance, are immediately obvious to even the most casual user) under control. Let's see what these things look like.

 

Anyone know if Lenovo plans to refresh their AMD based laptops?

 

In a way you are right but even with the same cooling system as the same intel based notebook chasis , the AMD processors always run way hotter...

I know hp has refreshed their pro books with the new CPU's.. i do think i've seen somewhere that lenovo has refreshed their AMD laptops but i think its the CULV ones i think.. not sure.

 

Too bad any fault with either of the manufacturers of AMD's chips can be directly traced back to AMD, so in the end it's still AMD's fault.

If we're talking about older CPUs (anything manufactured more than a year ago), then it's directly AMD's fault, no ifs ands or buts.

If we're talking about CPUs newer than that, then it's still AMD's fault because AMD set up GlobalFoundries and as far as I'm aware, still owns a significant portion of the company.

 

Talking about the notebook manufacturer, not the chip manufacturer. AMD provides full thermal specs for their chips, it's the notebook designer's fault for not designing a cooling solution adequate for those thermal specs.

 

I agree that they run a little hotter but it is greatly exaggerated.

 

imo i think these amd quad cores are going to be a complete fail. The intel core i7 quads are what like 20-30% more powerful then their counterpart made by amd. Unless these AMD chips are SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper no 1 in their right mind would get one.

 

Like I said before, if they're making it into Dell's Inspiron line, they must be really cheap.

 

Um, so you've seen tests that show a quad core i7 being 20-30% faster than one of these new 45nm AMD quad cores, or are you making up statistics? These are AMD's first quad cores for notebooks, stop trying to spew hate before these are even out.

 

They will be significantly cheaper than i7 quads.

 

Interesting, a 25W or 35W quad with a 57xx or 58xx radeon makes my mouth water.

 

I think you are comparing Desktop Quads. However you missed some pints about upcoming AMD CPU's.

First: not everybody want performance crown CPU. They need CPU which can perform multiple tasks simultaneously without big performance hit.

Second: It's cheap and offer with better package (CPU/GPU).

Third: people who want to play games don't need extreme processor, they need GPU

Fourth: person who's in their right mind never going after high performance CPU, they are going after better overall package and price.

 

With these being so cheap I think they are geared to compete against i3 and i5 quad thread CPU's. They do not seem to be at the price point to compete against an i7-920xm or even a i7-720qm. At these levels they should be a competative CPU even without integrated on chip graphics.

There is allways the haters in either the Intel or AMD camps, we should just wait and see. My outlook is I love computers and computing as a hobby and competition is always a good thing...........

 

With the cash you could save getting a cheap AMD quad core notebook, can be used on buying a SSD.
A quick SSD = awesome speed increase.

Just tested one of my friends desktop that uses the 3.5" SSD and it way quicker than my Samsung F1 7200rpm drive.

 

I think AMD is on the right way if they adopt the same philosophy for cpu's as they did for the gpu's, that is a high performance to price ratio. They don't have to have the fastest cpu just the fastest cpu to price ratio.

 

that's being a little defeatist as we have no info about them but one of the reasons why AMD is inferior to Intel is the lack of hyperthreading tech and slightly inferior architecture... the hyperthreading would help... but its just a matter of waiting.. i should expect to see some notebooks propping up in June or so.

 

Yup. There's no way these will be as expensive as the Core i7 quads -- I think AMD will undercut the prices of the latter by a factor of 2 or so.

 

not entirely true... Dell does care about costumer satisfaction... remember the fallout from a couple years ago when they first tried to use AMD mobile chips? those machines only lasted a few months on market add they disappeared.

I'll bet heat is under control (at least on the single and dual cores) and the price is low. the triples and quads may also not have a huge heat issue, which would make these chips very popular. cheap Quad core's that preform say 20-30% lower clock for clock to the i7 Quad for 500$ less will sell very well.

 

Given that Phenom IIs still are cheaper than most Core i's in the desktop world(given the rest of the platform, not just the CPU itself) I see no reason why the mobile versions would follow a similar trend.

We'll just wait and see though. The market has shown us that 8 threads and massive performance are still a niche for most of the market users of laptops(by most I mean higher than 50%) so if the Phenom IIs can cross the "good enough" threshold while being cheaper that's all which matters.

 

I thought what I said was fairly transparent, but I guess not. The original post links to a Dell Inspiron laptop that is going to have an AMD quad in it. Since current Inspirons are anywhere from $400-800 USD for the starting price, I would think this new AMD quad Inspiron would fall into that price range. Also note that none of the Inspiron models have Clarksfield cpus.

 

ok, I thought you ment that dell would only use really cheap stuff in there PC's. I understand what you're saying now.

 

who cares about cpu performance crown?

all i want is amd quad core + 5870 for $900

 

amd should just give all thier CPU R and D notes to intel and just concentrate on GPU and throw in the towel in a sector they are years behind in.

 

Right, because everyone will be happy when the cheapest CPU you can buy will cost $300...

 

Minus the extra heater function.

 

Preliminary results from laptop.bg (source Engadget)

AMD Phenom II N930 hands on

 

me to. I wonder whos going to be the first to do it though.

 

Very interesting. Looking at the Cinebench results, its single-threaded performance is inferior (by a large margin) to everything it has been compared to, including even the Pentium T4400. But, more interestingly, even its multi-threaded performance is lousy: it's at roughly the same level as a Core i5-430M and noticeably worse than a Core i5-520M.

I don't entirely understand how the multi-threaded results are possible: the lack of hyperthreading and Turbo Boost should hurt, but these alone can't make a 2.26GHz dual-core processor (the 430M) match a 2GHz quad-core processor (the N930) -- AMD has to have sacrificed something else for the lower thermal profile. The Wikipedia article says that these new processors have no L3 cache and I'm almost certain that is true because AMD has already tried this with Athlon IIs. The chart in the same article also says that unlike the Athlon IIs (which compensate for their lack of L3 cache with doubled L2 cache), the laptop processors have the same 512KB per core as the desktop Phenom IIs. If this is true then I suspect the N930 is simply cache starved in both single and multi-threaded applications and the most AMDs mobile quad-cores will be able to compete with is mobile Core i5 (and even there they lose). This is speculation though -- I'd wait for more detailed reviews before making conclusions.

 

Results for the new processors are disappointing, but have faith that Llano processors and Bulldozer architecture will put AMD mobile's on par with Intel.

 

You guys compare 2.0Ghz with 2.16Ghz and above. Single threaded performance is OK for me.

 

Llano looks like it will just be the 32nm die shrink of these with (maybe higher) clock speeds and more cache. It may be able to match what Intel is currently offering, but by the time it comes out, it will probably be competing with Sandy Bridge which will almost certainly crush it.

The interesting part about Llano is not the CPU, but the GPU that's integrated with it. The rumors online (see link above) are that its performance will be very high. I think it's pretty safe to say that it will be higher than whatever Intel puts into Sandy Bridge, but beyond that I'd wait for more details. The latter is even more true of Bulldozer -- very little is known about it.

That's not quite true -- there is a comparison there to the 1.6GHz Core i7-720M, but of course that one wins because of Turbo Boost. The single threaded performance is about expected, it's the multi-threaded one that's much lower than what I thought it would be.

 

Just wish the prerelease review would include some info on heat and battery life.
And maybe the AMD Phenom II "black edition" features more cache?

 

It doesn't talk about heat, but it does mention battery life. The machine manages two and half hours when watching a movie in power saving mode (screen brightness at 50%) and one and a half hours when running the benchmark tests in performance mode.

 

Would love it but will nver happen..

You get that in hp core 2 machines already for free

They are very disappointed... really killed it for me.. but is this phenom the best one of the ones comming out? If it is good luck to AMD...

 

BE CPUs typically are made for OCing so they have unlocked multipliers and such.

 

2h30m aint that bad.
Undervolting it would perhaps add 10-15 minutes more.

Just hope they release a reasonable priced notebook with ATI HD 5870 and i would buy it. xD

 

Two and a half hours is with integrated graphics. If they paired it with a 5870, the battery life would be much lower. I also don't see the reason to waste a perfectly good 5870 on this -- I suspect many games would be CPU-bound in such a configuration.

 

2.5 hours playing a movie.

 

2.5 playing a DVD is probably over 4 while web-surfing

 

AMD 45nm Platform's Official. Naming scheme is more a mess than Intel's.

PC Mag

 

And some news on Fusion:

 

Yeah that doesn't sound horrible to me, but I'm used to having a dedicated GPU.

As for the claims that it would be CPU limited, it is probably true to some extent but for what is essentially an Athlon II X2 (the black edition dual core) in a laptop will probably handle playing most games quite well (with an acceptable GPU, like a 5650). Seems like a good budget gamer setup. Battery life is another matter entirely...

 

Sweet.
I love cheapish notebook featuring near awesome specs.
Just hope the OEMs actually create a great cooling system to pair it with.
Maybe a Clevo barebook?

 

Why owning an established CPU and GPU puts AMD in such a better position than Intel and Nvidia are in individually.

 

I am really excited about actually seeing some real competition between AMD and Intel.