AMD launching Centrino Killer

[amol]

At least that's what The Inquirer is saying

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19810

It would be interesting to see which company has the better mobile product, Intel or AMD.

 

[ViRGE]

With no offense to AMD, I don't believe they have the ability to make a chip that can offer the performance/power ratio of the Pentium-M - it's a very well designed chip in a field they don't have much experience with.

 

[ScrapSilicon]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
With no offense to AMD, I don't believe they have the ability to make a chip that can offer the performance/power ratio of the Pentium-M which is a very well designed chip in a field that AMD doesn't have much experience with.

edited for clarity

 

[magomago]

yeah I agree also...AMD is doing great now but I don't see them having the technology to challange the Pentium-M at this time...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
With no offense to AMD, I don't believe they have the ability to make a chip that can offer the performance/power ratio of the Pentium-M - it's a very well designed chip in a field they don't have much experience with.

I think you could be wrong. AMD "shouldn't" have been able to make the Athlon superior to the P3(and all P4s up to the P4c), but it did. AMD "shouldn't have been able to make the Athlon64 superior to the P4, but they did. When it comes down to it, what does Centrino have that's so hard for AMD to achieve?

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ViRGE
With no offense to AMD, I don't believe they have the ability to make a chip that can offer the performance/power ratio of the Pentium-M - it's a very well designed chip in a field they don't have much experience with.

I think you could be wrong. AMD "shouldn't" have been able to make the Athlon superior to the P3(and all P4s up to the P4c), but it did. AMD "shouldn't have been able to make the Athlon64 superior to the P4, but they did. When it comes down to it, what does Centrino have that's so hard for AMD to achieve?

Intel can afford to have several teams working on several products at once, I doubt AMD can.

 

[JimRaynor]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ViRGE
With no offense to AMD, I don't believe they have the ability to make a chip that can offer the performance/power ratio of the Pentium-M - it's a very well designed chip in a field they don't have much experience with.

I think you could be wrong. AMD "shouldn't" have been able to make the Athlon superior to the P3(and all P4s up to the P4c), but it did. AMD "shouldn't have been able to make the Athlon64 superior to the P4, but they did. When it comes down to it, what does Centrino have that's so hard for AMD to achieve?

um, the p3 was superior to the athlon, and now only when athlon64 chips are here are the amd chips outperforming p4s. When it was athlon non xp vs p3 the results were neck and neck but the pentiums were narrowly better.

 

[Kaieye]

So even if Intel has several teams working, why is AMD breathing down their necks? Or should I say, when will Intel build a faster gaming or server cpu??

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JimRaynor

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ViRGE
With no offense to AMD, I don't believe they have the ability to make a chip that can offer the performance/power ratio of the Pentium-M - it's a very well designed chip in a field they don't have much experience with.

I think you could be wrong. AMD "shouldn't" have been able to make the Athlon superior to the P3(and all P4s up to the P4c), but it did. AMD "shouldn't have been able to make the Athlon64 superior to the P4, but they did. When it comes down to it, what does Centrino have that's so hard for AMD to achieve?

um, the p3 was superior to the athlon, and now only when athlon64 chips are here are the amd chips outperforming p4s. When it was athlon non xp vs p3 the results were neck and neck but the pentiums were narrowly better.

Nope, read some old Athlon vs P3 articles.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: JimRaynor

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ViRGE
With no offense to AMD, I don't believe they have the ability to make a chip that can offer the performance/power ratio of the Pentium-M - it's a very well designed chip in a field they don't have much experience with.

I think you could be wrong. AMD "shouldn't" have been able to make the Athlon superior to the P3(and all P4s up to the P4c), but it did. AMD "shouldn't have been able to make the Athlon64 superior to the P4, but they did. When it comes down to it, what does Centrino have that's so hard for AMD to achieve?

um, the p3 was superior to the athlon, and now only when athlon64 chips are here are the amd chips outperforming p4s. When it was athlon non xp vs p3 the results were neck and neck but the pentiums were narrowly better.

The K7 and K75 clearly outperformed then Katmai P-iii's.
The Thunderbird and Coppermine Athlons and P-iii's were neck and neck, at least until the Thunderbird started outcloking the P-iii.
The AthlonXP's were clearly superior to the P-iii in pretty much everything, but by then the P4's were out, and with Northwood eventually gained the crown back.

So to just say that the P-iii is superior to the Athlon is just silly.

So even if Intel has several teams working, why is AMD breathing down their necks? Or should I say, when will Intel build a faster gaming or server cpu??

Look at the CPU families.
It's K8(Opteron, Athlon64/FX) vs i786(P4, Xeon), and this category, K8 wins most of the time.

But Intel also has Itanium, AMD has nothing to compete with it, except in the lower end where Opteron is an option.

And then there's Pentium-M, which for most mobile applications is clearly superior to anything AMD has to offer, with impressive performance at a low power budget and the chipsets to back it all up.

So for general purpose CPU's Intel has three families, all intended for separate purposes(though of course they cross over here and there), while AMD is doing what they can with the K8 family.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ViRGE
With no offense to AMD, I don't believe they have the ability to make a chip that can offer the performance/power ratio of the Pentium-M - it's a very well designed chip in a field they don't have much experience with.

I think you could be wrong. AMD "shouldn't" have been able to make the Athlon superior to the P3(and all P4s up to the P4c), but it did. AMD "shouldn't have been able to make the Athlon64 superior to the P4, but they did. When it comes down to it, what does Centrino have that's so hard for AMD to achieve?

Intel can afford to have several teams working on several products at once, I doubt AMD can.

True, yet AMD has been winning in the CPU technology arena.

 

[dguy6789]

The AthlonXP's were clearly superior to the P-iii in pretty much everything, but by then the P4's were out, and with Northwood eventually gained the crown back.

The Athlon XPs held an unwavered performance crown over the pentium 4 till the C models came out. All P4s before that were much inferior to the athlon xp.


And i dont see why amd cant do it. AMD's Athlon 64 is faster clock for clock then the pentium M, and costs MUCH less to make. All they need to do is reduce power requirements a bit and they will have intel owned.

 

[arod]

Yeah they are owing intel in the power/heat consumption on amd64 vs p4, i see no reason they cant get the tech to make a centrino killer...... Granted it will take a few generations to get right but a few years ago nobody said amd could take out the pentium series and that happened.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: Kaieye
So even if Intel has several teams working, why is AMD breathing down their necks? Or should I say, when will Intel build a faster gaming or server cpu??

I really think all the AMD fanatics are forgetting one crucial thing.

AMD started a mhz war that Intel answered with the P4. The P4 was built from the ground up to scale very high mhz wise, but because of the length/number of pipelines, it's not as efficient. The whole arcitecture was built for the war that AMD started. Then all the sudden AMD turned around and started their PR ratings bullsh!t because they had no chance of beating Intel at the fight they started.

Remember this was back when mhz WAS the thing that most people (and they still do, except enthusiast like us) purchase based off.

So now both chip makers are using the same chip family with minor revisions. AMD is better performing clock for clock, but sadly joe public still buys based on mhz.

If you really want to see how this will turn out, wait for the next totally new core and build up from the ground. AMD is still working off the XP platform and Intel is still working off the P4. It's the next round of chips that will really show you who's more advanced or not.

As others have said, Intel has a real winner with the Mobile chips. Sure AMD might be able to make something that is decent and close, but the thing you forget is AMD is doing it how long since Intel started Centino? So who had the technology and know-how first. Intel was first in Mhz...and first in low power consumption high performance mobile chips. Thats just how it is.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
All they need to do is reduce power requirements a bit and they will have intel owned.

That's where I think they're going to have problems. Some of the technologies in the P-M are so advanced that Intel refuses to patent them just so that their competitors can't see them. Intel even designs the P-M to only reach certain clock speeds in order to minimize any leakage and further bring down power usage. AMD may surprise us here, but creating a ULV chip is going to be very hard work in a field they don't have experience with.

 

[mikecel79]

All they need to do is reduce power requirements a bit and they will have intel owned.

Because all they need to do is turn the power requirements knob to the lowest point on the machine that cranks out the chips and they are done!

Do you realize how hard it is to reduce power requirements of a CPU while still getting good performance? Intel spent years engineering the Pentium M.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: mikecel79

All they need to do is reduce power requirements a bit and they will have intel owned.

Because all they need to do is turn the power requirements knob to the lowest point on the machine that cranks out the chips and they are done!

Do you realize how hard it is to reduce power requirements of a CPU while still getting good performance? Intel spent years engineering the Pentium M.

Intel spent years making a cpu that is just like the athlons; Low clock, but high work per clock. AMD has been doing this for years. So they are well experienced with this type of cpu, and can probably make a mobile cpu based off it with much less time needed then intel did. Look at the new Athlon 64s. They are getting faster and faster and running cooler and cooler with every new core. Unlike what Intel has been doing with the prescott(getting hotter and hotter, and slower clock for clock then northwood).

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: mikecel79

All they need to do is reduce power requirements a bit and they will have intel owned.

Because all they need to do is turn the power requirements knob to the lowest point on the machine that cranks out the chips and they are done!

Do you realize how hard it is to reduce power requirements of a CPU while still getting good performance? Intel spent years engineering the Pentium M.

Intel spent years making a cpu that is just like the athlons; Low clock, but high work per clock. AMD has been doing this for years. So they are well experienced with this type of cpu, and can probably make a mobile cpu based off it with much less time needed then intel did. Look at the new Athlon 64s. They are getting faster and faster and running cooler and cooler with every new core. Unlike what Intel has been doing with the prescott(getting hotter and hotter, and slower clock for clock then northwood).

Er, Intel already had a CPU that was like the Athlons: it was the Pentium 3. It took Intel years to come up with a design variation that could hit their lofty performance/power ratio though.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

AMD has 30w Opterons already so I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility that they can approach the capabilities of the P-M soon. A "killer" however is tough to believe/doubtful and such a quote can be directly attributed to AMD's marketing monkeys.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Heck, if AMD does deliver in the attempt (if the Inq report is right), we are going to have a great year in 2005, especially for the mobile market.

AMD is not a company to be underestimated.

 

[Macro2]

RE:"With no offense to AMD, I don't believe they have the ability to make a chip that can offer the performance/power ratio of the Pentium-M - it's a very well designed chip in a field they don't have much experience with."

I agree, no way can AMD design a chip that can compete with a reworked Pentium III. LOL

 

[GnomeCop]

I hope AMD isn't spreading themselves too thin, but best of luck to them.
This thread is so back and forth, and a lot of the remarks about the Pentium M being just a P3 and such being incorrect, have we forgotten this news is from THE INQUIRER?? And only 1 paragraph at that. It is strange news when they just released a new mobile sempron for Thin and KLight notebooks that they would be doing something like this.

 

[Pariah]

And i dont see why amd cant do it. AMD's Athlon 64 is faster clock for clock then the pentium M, and costs MUCH less to make. All they need to do is reduce power requirements a bit and they will have intel owned.

Might want to check out this article. As always, performance is application dependent. In gaming, the Pentium-M is the better clock for clock than the A64, and for the home user that is where CPU performance comes into play the most. And that's with the M running on an ancient platform. Looked at the overclocked numbers which boost the FSB, at 2.3GHz, the M is running nose to nose and sometimes even beating AMD's best FX-55 which is running 300MHz faster on a vastly superior platform. When the Pentium M's next platform is finally released with a "new" 533MHz bus, the Pentium M will be quite a beast.

From the article conclusion:

"While putting up impressive gaming numbers is one thing, one simply must consider the benefits of the Pentium-M architecture in comparison to these other high-end CPU?s. The Pentium-M can compete typically perform within 5% of top of the line Intel/AMD consumer level processors in gaming while running at one fourth the heat production levels. Power consumption numbers are also far, far less on the Pentium-M compared to other modern processor lines. Basically, you?re getting solid gaming performance without all the nasty side effects of running at high clock speeds, thanks to the efficiency of the Dothan core architecture. "

From GamePC's first article:

100% load

AMD Athlon64 FX-55 2.6 GHz - 53 ° C / 127 ° F
Intel Pentium 4 3.6 GHz (775) - 67 ° C / 152 ° F
Pentium-M 2.0 GHz (Dothan) - 35 ° C / 95 ° F

Those numbers speak for themselves, but it still has to be added that the Pentium M was being cooled by one of these, which wouldn't have a prayer in hell of working with either of the 2 CPU's it was compared to, making the results even more impressive.

Good luck AMD, but Intel is out of your league in this market.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
The Athlon XPs held an unwavered performance crown over the pentium 4 till the C models came out. All P4s before that were much inferior to the athlon xp.

The P4As more or less matched or beat the XP and the P4B decisively took the crown.

And i dont see why amd cant do it. AMD's Athlon 64 is faster clock for clock then the pentium M, and costs MUCH less to make. All they need to do is reduce power requirements a bit and they will have intel owned.

Dothan is 87mm^2, roughly the same size of Winchester. However, Intel has the benefits of economy of scale, needing fewer layers, not needing PD-SOI, 300mm wafers, and much of the Dothan core is for cache, which is cheap to manufacture. In other words, Dothan is by far the cheapest x86 processor to make.

 

[dguy6789]

Thats where you are wrong. Read reviews and all. Untill the C models came out, the athlon xps PR ratings were right on the money, with the 3000+ being faster then the 3.06ghz(still is).