Amd C-50 - Any chipset?

Does this chip, AMD C-50, have an "external" chipset that goes with it, like the NM10 for the Atom by Intel, or is it already integrated. I am a little confused because the TDP for the C-50 is given as 9 Watts. The TDP for the Atom N455 is given as 6.5Watts. However there are some claims that the C-50 systems have a longer battery life. I wonder if there has been a real life comparison to check at the wall receptacle power draw for each system. Any help will be highly appreciated. Thanks.

 

The chipset of the C-50 is the FCH1 "Hudson". I'm not sure how much power it uses, but it is best to compare complete systems for a more complete picture.

Here is a decent comparison:

Battery life relative to capacity during internet usage, I'd say this is pretty indicative of power efficiency. Note these are the E-350s, I'd assume the C-50 is even more power efficient.

 

Its all integrated unlike the atom chipset. The Fusion notebooks do have longer battery life but their GPU's use more power under heavy load compared to Atoms so that's their only downfall.. other than that , i'd get a C-50 anytime. The Atom is based on obsolete P4 architecture. I don't even want to start about how slow they are.

 

That is incorrect. Atom's architecture is a ground up design ( called Bonnell), it is not based on Pentium 4's Netburst micro-architecture. First generation Atom processors do use an NM10 Express chipset but newer Pine Trail Atoms also have an integrated memory controller and on die GPU. So both Fusion and Atom now use a "platform controller hub" rather than a traditional chipset. Because more of the functions are offloaded to the C-50 itself rather than the rest of the system, the listed TDPs are not comparable between the N455 with NM10 and the C-50 with FCH1 based platforms. It is best to look at specific notebooks and compare their battery life.

 

Seems strange to compare laptops with different screen sizes in that table.

 

I think that table wasn't so much as to compare to all similar competitors, but rather to include some similar-alternative systems as well as some well-known laptops (ie, MBP 13).

 

In that case it's not a good way of comparing power efficiency of platforms.

 

Whichever way , the Fusion platform is superior performance wise. It might not be as good as Atom in Battery life , but a 5-10% battery life less is a worthy sarifice for 20-30% better performance or even more. I'm not sure of the numbers but i do know this.