65nm 4400+ X2 review

[harpoon84]

http://translate.google.com/translate?u...=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

Translated using Google.

The site tested an X2 4400+ against an E6300. Power consumption and overall performance are very close between these two chips. There are no overclocking results, unfortunately.

All in all, it performs pretty much as expected. I don't expect these chips to really challenge C2D in the enthusiast sector, but they were never intended to anyway.

It will improve AMD's production capacity and margins though, which is still good news I guess. A heathy AMD = more competition = consumers win.

 

[kknd1967]

pcpop is one of the worst Chinese hardware review sites. This is just another example:
the review gives almost no new information except power consumption, which is also pretty much known given the TDP number.

I guess most of ppls are really eager to see OC capability which is not tested at all

 

[harpoon84]

Haha yeah damn right, the most important thing people want to know, they leave it out. Grrr...

I have never come across PCPOP (lol, funny name) before this, how are they a bad review site?

 

[Duvie]

I expected power consumption to be lower (ie vcore is lower), but dammit the real test will be in the ocing, IMHO......

I want to see if AMD bought some headroom and how much...

 

[piesquared]

Originally posted by: Duvie
I expected power consumption to be lower (ie vcore is lower), but dammit the real test will be in the ocing, IMHO......

I want to see if AMD bought some headroom and how much...

Yeah, i think alot hinges on how high this new process will go for them. On the other hand, a completely different design on the same process could yield quite different results.

 

[PetNorth]

well, if a X2 2.3ghz 0.65nm consumes at full load the same power (whole system) than a 1.86ghz C2D, and we keep in mind nvidia SLI chipset consumes more power than i975, we can conclude that a 2.3ghz X2 consumes less power at full load than a C2D 1.86ghz. And thats is impressive IMHO

 

[Roguestar]

Yet the C2D E6300 does better on a P965 chipset, how much power does that use?

 

[PetNorth]

I seems a bit more than 975 http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?page=17&articleid=845&cid=1

btw, looking at this hothardware link, we can obtain some interesting numbers between 975 and nf4 SLI. It seems nf4 SLI consumes about 25-30W more than i975 (look at X6800 configurations).

This would mean that (looking at pcpop numbers), X2 2.3ghz 0.65nm would consume (cpu only) at least about 25-30W less than C2D 1.86ghz at full load. I say at least because pcpop asus mobo (crosshair) uses 590 SLI, more power hungry than nf4 SLI. So, probably the difference in power usage between both cpus would be greater than 25-30W. Really impressive

Of course, if pcpop numbers are accurate

 

[IntelUser2000]

I seems a bit more than 975 http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?page=17&articleid=845&cid=1

Hmm, really??: http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/foxconn-gigabyte-p965/index.x?pg=15

Better to compare different chipsets from same company, when more websites report P965 is less power than 975X(ie. Anandtech).

I say at least because pcpop asus mobo (crosshair) uses 590 SLI, more power hungry than nf4 SLI.

About the same: http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q2/am2-chipsets/index.x?pg=19

590 SLI=~NF4 SLI

Of course, if pcpop numbers are accurate

http://pcper.com/article.php?aid=285

Although looking at above, NF4 SLI showing to be lower power chipset, I don't know which site to believe .

 

[Markfw]

I guess that is true. Since AMD has an IMC, you have to add the northbridge power consumption in to be fair. and I know my E6300@3.43 is just burning that northbridge ! I have to kee a fan pointed to it.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Brisbane overclocked:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=126558&page=2

It hit 3.1 ghz with good temps, but hit a hard wall. G2 revision chips may do better. Anyone know when those will be out?

 

[hardwareking]

Well this will take away intel's power consumption advantage.
Imagine the EE(energy efficient) versions of these chips.
And also the quadfx line could really benefit from a die-shrink considering how much more power its consuming compared to QX6700.

 

[sanitydc]

i smell higher clocked conroes.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: hardwareking
Well this will take away intel's power consumption advantage.
Imagine the EE(energy efficient) versions of these chips.
And also the quadfx line could really benefit from a die-shrink considering how much more power its consuming compared to QX6700.

I am not sure AMD is going to waste resources making Santa Ana on 65nm, instead they are just going to Quad Core K8L/K10 Directly.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
I guess that is true. Since AMD has an IMC, you have to add the northbridge power consumption in to be fair. and I know my E6300@3.43 is just burning that northbridge ! I have to kee a fan pointed to it.

No not acceptable, only what is on the CPU Socket is considered for CPU power consumption, if your going to add any auxiliary components, you might as well switch to platform power consumption as a whole.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: hardwareking
Well this will take away intel's power consumption advantage.
Imagine the EE(energy efficient) versions of these chips.
And also the quadfx line could really benefit from a die-shrink considering how much more power its consuming compared to QX6700.

To some extent yes, if the EE SFF version 35W are a real threat, Intel could just start putting the 800FSB Merom's on desktop.

It also only takes it away on the low end. There is still the E6400, E6600 and E6700 to consider,

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

you might as well switch to platform power consumption as a whole.

That would make a lot of sense actually.