Intel announces 50 watt quad core processors

[Phynaz]

Text

 

[Keysplayr]

Looks like Intel has the accelerator to the floor. So this is what happens when a sleeping giant awakens. I'm impressed. They have come a long way from P4 in a relatively short amount of time. I wonder why there are talks of replacing Otellini as CEO??

 

[nyker96]

crazy Intel done it again! Since C2D intel's on steroid.

 

[AnandThenMan]

The new 50-watt quad-core processors operate at 1.86 GHz and 1.60 GHz,

Obviously low clocked parts to get to the 50 watt nominal thermal power draw. Also note that Intel's TDP numbers are average, not maximum. Still impressive none the less.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: AnandThenMan

The new 50-watt quad-core processors operate at 1.86 GHz and 1.60 GHz,

Obviously low clocked parts to get to the 50 watt nominal thermal power draw. Also note that Intel's TDP numbers are average, not maximum. Still impressive none the less.

These parts are the exact same speed as existing Quad Xeons.

And Intel TDP being some kind of "average" is a myth.

 

[coldpower27]

Quite nice, Intel is quite effective when it gets it act together and focuses on delivering a product that is good from an overall perspective rather then being sexy and chic.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

And Intel TDP being some kind of "average" is a myth.

No. Intel's own documents back this up.

edit: don't get me wrong, 4 cores with such a low power draw is very nice.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: AnandThenMan

Originally posted by: Phynaz

And Intel TDP being some kind of "average" is a myth.

No. Intel's own documents back this up.

edit: don't get me wrong, 4 cores with such a low power draw is very nice.

Please provide a link to an Intel document that says the word average. You've fallen victim to the myth. What Intel actualy says is "under nornal operating conditions".

Anyway, it doesn't matter, because Intel never said the TDP of these processors is 50w, it said the power consumption is 50w. There is a difference.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: AnandThenMan

Originally posted by: Phynaz

And Intel TDP being some kind of "average" is a myth.

No. Intel's own documents back this up.

edit: don't get me wrong, 4 cores with such a low power draw is very nice.

Please provide a link to an Intel document that says the word average. You've fallen victim to the myth. What Intel actualy says is "under nornal operating conditions".

Anyway, it doesn't matter, because Intel never said the TDP of these processors is 50w, it said the power consumption is 50w. There is a difference.

That's a good thing, because I believe we "are" talking about power consumption here, are we not?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: AnandThenMan

Originally posted by: Phynaz

And Intel TDP being some kind of "average" is a myth.

No. Intel's own documents back this up.

edit: don't get me wrong, 4 cores with such a low power draw is very nice.

Please provide a link to an Intel document that says the word average. You've fallen victim to the myth. What Intel actualy says is "under nornal operating conditions".

Actually, you might want to buy a dictionary or thesaurus. The definition of average, especially in the computer-related world, is pretty much "under normal operating conditions". You could phrase it slightly differently, in a few different variations, but it would still have exactly the same meaning.

Oh, and after the last few years, who would've thought that it would be Intel coming out with a ~50 watt quad? It just goes to show how the consumer is always the winner, anytime there is competition.

 

[Yellowbeard]

It appears that Intel is in the process of releasing a CPU that can beat AMD in any catagory AMD wants to compete in. Low power=Intel, OCing=Intel, low budget bang per buck=Intel, etc etc.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard
It appears that Intel is in the process of releasing a CPU that can beat AMD in any catagory AMD wants to compete in. Low power=Intel, OCing=Intel, low budget bang per buck=Intel, etc etc.

You mean the old K8s I assume...

 

[Yellowbeard]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard
It appears that Intel is in the process of releasing a CPU that can beat AMD in any catagory AMD wants to compete in. Low power=Intel, OCing=Intel, low budget bang per buck=Intel, etc etc.

You mean the old K8s I assume...

Actually, I mean as of today and on the 2 most current platforms for each.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard
It appears that Intel is in the process of releasing a CPU that can beat AMD in any catagory AMD wants to compete in. Low power=Intel, OCing=Intel, low budget bang per buck=Intel, etc etc.

You mean the old K8s I assume...

Actually, I mean as of today and on the 2 most current platforms for each.

I don't think that chip is being released today...

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard
It appears that Intel is in the process of releasing a CPU that can beat AMD in any catagory AMD wants to compete in. Low power=Intel, OCing=Intel, low budget bang per buck=Intel, etc etc.

You mean the old K8s I assume...

Actually, I mean as of today and on the 2 most current platforms for each.

I don't think that chip is being released today...

Intel has been promising to make low-power quad-core server chips available in Q1 2007 for several quarters now, therefore, no surprise that many of leading server makers and suppliers, including Acer, Dell, Digital Henge, Fujitsu-Siemens, Hewlett-Packard, HCL Enterprise, IBM, Rackable Systems, Samsung, Verari Systems and Wipro Technologies, plan to start offering low-power quad-core Intel Xeon-based machines right away.

Link

 

[Yellowbeard]

Right, but read above. That's why I said "in the process of...."

What point are you trying to make

 

[Frintin]

Very exciting news!

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard
Right, but read above. That's why I said "in the process of...."

What point are you trying to make

I think he was trying to say that somehow AMD's unreleased, untested chips that are coming at an undetermined date in the future beat Intel's current chips in power consumption, OCing and price/performance (contrary to your original post that Intel is currently releasing products that win in those categories). Unfortunately we'll never know, because once he was proven wrong, he disappeared from the thread.

 

[Yellowbeard]

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard
Right, but read above. That's why I said "in the process of...."

What point are you trying to make

I think he was trying to say that somehow AMD's unreleased, untested chips that are coming at an undetermined date in the future beat Intel's current chips in power consumption, OCing and price/performance (contrary to your original post that Intel is currently releasing products that win in those categories). Unfortunately we'll never know, because once he was proven wrong, he disappeared from the thread.

I think you are correct, thanks for the clarification

 

[Kur]

Full load at 50watt or idle?

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Kur
Full load at 50watt or idle?

Obviously at load...

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard
Right, but read above. That's why I said "in the process of...."

What point are you trying to make

I think he was trying to say that somehow AMD's unreleased, untested chips that are coming at an undetermined date in the future beat Intel's current chips in power consumption, OCing and price/performance (contrary to your original post that Intel is currently releasing products that win in those categories). Unfortunately we'll never know, because once he was proven wrong, he disappeared from the thread.

Actually, I was saying that "AMD's unreleased, untested chips that are coming at an undetermined date in the future" might beat Intel's "unreleased, untested chips that are coming at an undetermined date in the future" in power consumption...

In short, I was saying we should compare apples to apples...

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard
Right, but read above. That's why I said "in the process of...."

What point are you trying to make

I think he was trying to say that somehow AMD's unreleased, untested chips that are coming at an undetermined date in the future beat Intel's current chips in power consumption, OCing and price/performance (contrary to your original post that Intel is currently releasing products that win in those categories). Unfortunately we'll never know, because once he was proven wrong, he disappeared from the thread.

Actually, I was saying that "AMD's unreleased, untested chips that are coming at an undetermined date in the future" might beat Intel's "unreleased, untested chips that are coming at an undetermined date in the future" in power consumption...

In short, I was saying we should compare apples to apples...

What do you mean compare apples to apples? Intel has Quad Core processors available today at low power levels, AMD does not that's reality, it is NOT Intel's problem that AMD is late to the party. You compare what is currently out to what is currently out.

The best you can currently do now is compare the LP Quad Core's Clovertown's to the HE DP Santa Rosa Core's.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard
It appears that Intel is in the process of releasing a CPU that can beat AMD in any catagory AMD wants to compete in. Low power=Intel, OCing=Intel, low budget bang per buck=Intel, etc etc.

First of all, neither Intel nor AMD devote any serious attention to the so-called "overclocking" or enthusiast market. It represents such a minute amount of their total sales, they hardly care. Their cash cows are big OEMs, whether they make PCs for home/office or server/workstation use.

Low budget bang-per-buck is interesting. AMD's cheapest dual-core is an X2 3600+ for $85. Intel's cheapest is an E4300 for ~$170. Is the E4300 twice as fast as the X2 3600+? Of course, when Intel drops their prices in April, AMD will follow suit, but I expect the cheapest AMD dual-core to stay relatively cheap compared to Intel's cheapest dual-core.

Let's address the low-power issue thoroughly. You guys all seem to be stuck on CPU wattage. It's well known that AMD and Intel define TDP differently, with AMDs definition to be a 'worst case scenario' and Intel's definition to be more of an 'average'. But the thing you guys really fail to consider is the platform in its entirety. With that in mind, AMDs server platform competes very well with Intel.

Here are two power consumption and efficiency comparisons between the two server platforms (Opteron and Xeon). Text and Text.

At idle, AMD dominates Intel. For you guys that think idle power draw isn't important to companies, you've obviously never worked in a corporate server room.

The Tech Report also nicely illustrates power consumption doing tasks by measuring the "task energy" of a solution, and again we see AMD's solution near the top of the list.

These will only improve when Barcelona and the additional power-saving features of K10 are released.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard
It appears that Intel is in the process of releasing a CPU that can beat AMD in any catagory AMD wants to compete in. Low power=Intel, OCing=Intel, low budget bang per buck=Intel, etc etc.

First of all, neither Intel nor AMD devote any serious attention to the so-called "overclocking" or enthusiast market. It represents such a minute amount of their total sales, they hardly care. Their cash cows are big OEMs, whether they make PCs for home/office or server/workstation use.

Low budget bang-per-buck is interesting. AMD's cheapest dual-core is an X2 3600+ for $85. Intel's cheapest is an E4300 for ~$170. Is the E4300 twice as fast as the X2 3600+? Of course, when Intel drops their prices in April, AMD will follow suit, but I expect the cheapest AMD dual-core to stay relatively cheap compared to Intel's cheapest dual-core.

Let's address the low-power issue thoroughly. You guys all seem to be stuck on CPU wattage. It's well known that AMD and Intel define TDP differently, with AMDs definition to be a 'worst case scenario' and Intel's definition to be more of an 'average'. But the thing you guys really fail to consider is the platform in its entirety. With that in mind, AMDs server platform competes very well with Intel.

Here are two power consumption and efficiency comparisons between the two server platforms (Opteron and Xeon). Text and Text.

At idle, AMD dominates Intel. For you guys that think idle power draw isn't important to companies, you've obviously never worked in a corporate server room.

The Tech Report also nicely illustrates power consumption doing tasks by measuring the "task energy" of a solution, and again we see AMD's solution near the top of the list.

These will only improve when Barcelona and the additional power-saving features of K10 are released.

Your stretching the prices in AMD's favor either way, AMD's official price on the X2 3600+ is 102 USD, with the official price of the E4300 being 163USD.

Your also only covering non-Netburst based inventory. Intel has had Dual Core's in the bargain basement sector since the Pentium D 805, so the only issue is about becoming more performance competitive again in this space, which Intel is planning to do overtime.

Right now Intel has the Pentium D 820 84 USD, Pentium D 915 for 93 USD and Pentium D 925 for 113 USD for bargain basement Dual Core's.

Intel not having Dual Core's in this segment is only if your talking about mildly lower performing parts as compared to the competition.

When your comparing Idle it's obvious the FB-DIMM's are contributing to the power consumption, and since it's FB-DIMM technology vs Registered DDR2, a direct comparison is not entirely valid as FB-DIMM's offer additional functionality over what AMD is using.

Then there is the issue if AMD's Barcelona processor will indeed have lower idle values as AMD is making the jump to Quad Core as well.