The Sempron 3200+ socket 939 processors are being used in Compaq presario's, model # SR1603. I have been trying to find any documentation I could on this chip because AMD's website said it did not exist despite the fact that SANDRA and CPU-Z were telling me that I had a socket 939 Sempron. CPU-Z reports the chip as a Sempron 3200+, Code Name Palermo, Brand ID 38, socket 939, Family F, Model F, Stepping 2, Ext Family F, Ext Model 2F, Revision E6. I have been searching the web for the last three weeks looking for some info on this processor and this is the first documentation I have found on it. I even EMailed AMD tech support and they denied any knowledge of it.
Presently I have a relatively cheap Intel chip and a nice 2gb of ram (it makes what I do work out fine). If AMD were to have DDR2 support right now, I'd switch cpu's and mobo in an instant. Guess I'm just kinda sad it'll take a year before that's a possibility.
However, saying that I am still wishing they'd spend till 2007 supporting upgrades for the 939 socket folks. Imo, supporting them with better cpu's to plug in to their systems would be a nice thank you for giving the business to AMD. I know, but it's my $.02.
So I guess I wait till next year, as I'm not going to invest in 2gb of DDR at this point. OH well!
Strange you say you cant mention the lower speed X2 aka 3800+ after all it is on AMD's website if you look hard enough.(Just click on processor)
http://www2.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalReso...">http://www2.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Te...182_869_... Couple of other comments - to date there are no cache disabled Manchesters (they have a different die size to the Toledo 147 v 199mm2) and the X2 3800+ and X2 4200+ TDP is only 89W.
That's the unfortunate problem of NDA. AMD hasn't actually leaked the specs yet, even though they leaked the name it looks like. I don't think anyone from AMD is going to hammer us about talking about the chip, but I'm not in the mood to push my luck either.
Kristopher, could you please back up this statement:
"As virtually any socket 754 board should have no trouble supporting these mobile variants, 754 owners looking to upgrade for additional CPU performance might be interested in checking out these parts."
aldamon: In comparison to Turion, Athlon 64-M is pretty well supported by motherboard manufacturers. I've heard various horror stories of getting Turion to work in desktop motherboards, howeever.
You didn't say "well supported" in the article. You said "virtually any socket 754 board" could run the 4000+. As far as I know, only the DFI Lanparty UT nForce3 can run mobiles without problems. The MSI and Chaintech boards can do it too but with quirks. That's a far cry from "virtually any socket 754."
Also, mobiles do not come with an IHS. That messes with the HSF spacing for a lot of mobo / HSF combos.
What I'm getting at here is that virtually any S754 SHOULD be able to run the chip but they can't. Maybe if AT called out a few of these companies we'd get proper BIOS support. I'd love to have an upgrade path for my Epox 8KDA3J.
First it has to be realeased. Then we need to email the board manufacturers and ask about support for Athlon 64-M and Turion. We may be looking at a Turion/64-M article in the future, so that will give me a good reason to email a variety of manufacturers and ask about support.
Kris- That's pretty lame. How's that supposed to give a notebook buyer a clue using desktop motherboards and desktop chipsets?? The whole idea with centrino is it's platform..low power chipset and mobo and chip. AMD same deal with "Turion 64 mobile technology" their complete platform. I want to see how those techs compete with one another not those chips in hacked desktop setup which only works with 1 or 2 motherboards.
Not only that Anandtech has done at least 7 Pentium M notebook reviews by my count, is'nt it a bit irresponsible not to have done even one with it's direct competitor?
Well Kris (i can call you Kris right:)) I just don't get doing yet another desktop preview of pentium M. I mean you have like 3-4 of them out now in a couple part series and with a .. 855 and the asus adaptor. We know how it performs in the limited desktop. We also know how turion performs for the most part from two years ago in tens of 754 reviews and you had a couple 754 chips inside those very same Pentium M reviews.
What I'd like to see is the compete platform technology, done by a thorough site like anandtech using same equiped notebook parts then see how they stack up. No one one has done one yet (at the AT quality level) which is totally bewieldering to me.. not to compare direct competitors in a market which saw sales higher than the desktop first time last month.
Zebo - any specific laptop that you'd suggest? I'm not the mobility reviewer, but I can at least put the word out to the others and see what happens. Part of the problem is that non-Pentium M laptops are often billed as more affordable solutions, including the Turion systems. If the battery size is significantly smaller on a Turion, it doesn't really make it a better mobility laptop.
Looking at power requirements, which are now 25W for the low power Turion/Athlon 64-M and 22W for the Pentium M, you can pretty much say that all other things being equal, battery life should be similar. Unfortunately, rarely are the other things equal - different screen is a big one, but different battery, HDD, RAM, GPU, etc. will all have an impact. Until someone comes out with a Turion notebook specifically tailored to compete against the high-end mobile Pentium M notebooks, getting anything resembling an apples to apples comparison will be difficult. (Which of course is why I ask for a suggested Turion notebook.)
I'm definity not buying one of these new X2 chips.. Throttle?? No thanks! Even having that potential bugs me to no end. I'd rather burn my chip than throttle. I want Mhz I paid for, not what they feel like giving me
Not only that DDR right now is hitting 2-2-2 @270Mhz which DDR2 has no hope the trump.
Then the whole tin foil thing- converting your Personal Computer(PC) into a corporate-controlled terminal(CCT).
Jarred please stop quoting TDP's. Thier highly erronous MANUFACTURES numbers, which should be taken with a grain of salt. You don't use MANUFACTURES benchmarks why use thier power numbers? For example:
AMD says X2 has a TDP of 110W while Xbit measured 96W from the 4800+.
Same story everywhere. Intel signifigantly under rating thier TDP while AMD not only overrating it, but applying that number to almost every chip in the series. Even the lower clocked and less cache ones to that over rated number.
Test it, dont quote it.
Kris: Same battery (mAh), same screen, same hurtz lancaster/M or Sempy/cele , same HDD, Same video card, and same DVD I hope?
Anyway, we don't really have an accurate and reliable way of measuring TDP for ourselves. The change from 80Amp to 95Amp is pretty surprising, though whether it's just a spec change for future stuff or a real change at present is impossible to say. If you can give me an accurate way of measuring TDP on our own (without exotic tools), I'd love to hear it. At present all we can usually do is plug the system into a wall socket device that measure total system power draw. You're right, though: take the TDP with a healthy helping of salt. :)
SO the 4-pin ATX12V is *only* for the CPU and the CPU doesn't draw power from anything else? Damn, learn something new each day! I guess a clamp around the two +12V lines would be able to measure the current with moderate accuracy.
Zebo: We have one coming up... And yes; Turion can't compare to Pentium M per watt.
Pentium M isn't worthwhile outside of mobility; and no one argues it's an awesome mobility chip. Turion is nice, but AMD has an incredibly long way to go to catch up in the mobile sector. Expect an AnandTech review in the near future, although it's going to have a desktop focus.
"AMD has been trailing in the mobile performance per Watt competition ever since Intel launched the Pentium M. "
How do you know? You refuse to do a turion notbook review. Actually it's been 6 months since you've done a moblie review what's up with that? I sent anand an email, never heard back from him.
Anyway lets look at someone who HAS done the legwork;) :P Albeit not anandtech high quality standards.. just a few synthetics and batt life similarly equiped.
http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/hardware/notebooks/0,... I know Intel fans think the Pentium M is the second coming of christ but the numbers simply don't bear that out.. Turion, at least in acer form, is very competitive performance and battery wise with the Pentium M, indescerable really, and it's usually cheaper.
20 - The current is reported from the AMD specs listed in the roadmap. While there will certainly be parts that run at lower power output than the maximum we've listed, the highest performing parts will likely approach those values.
Maybe someone with a better knowledge of electronics can verify this, but just because the socket can supply 80 Amps on current 939 boards doesn't mean the CPU has to use all 80 Amps, right? It's like a water pipe going to the house: it might provide enough water pressure to run all the sinks at once, but the individual sink may never use that much water.
Anyway, 80 A * 1.4V = 112W. Revision E 939 is as follows: X2 chips have a TDP of 110W, meaning they can use everything the socket provides. FX-939 can use 104W, and the single core chips are 89W. Revision C/D used higher voltages but lower Amps and had FX-55 at 104W, FX-53 and other single cores as 89W. 60A * 1.7V = 102W, roughly the value listed for FX-55. The 1.5V chips were 90W in comparison.
Finally, we have M2 parts slated to use 95A. 95A * 1.3V = 123.5W, indicating that the FX will use all the Amps available. X2 will remain at 110W, so it will either use less of the available Amperage or else it will run at lower voltages. Single core will be 104W, slightly lower than X2. These are all maximums, however, so the mid-range parts probably won't be any worse than current parts; it's AMD building for future parts - they have to make sure that all motherboards can supply the power required by the top chips.
Thanks for the response Jarred. Your response is accurate, but that doesn't explain this quote from the article.
quote: For example, a typical Revision "E" San Diego Athlon 64 utilizes 80 amps with a maximum TDP around 90W.
That's impossible unless the revision E San Diego's run on 1.125 volts. I understand 80A and 90W are "worst case scenario's." Still, it can't have a maximum amperage of 80 AND a maximum wattage of 90 because that means the voltage will NEVER be over 1.125 volts.
With regards to your comments on the Newark 4000+:
"As virtually any socket 754 board should have no trouble supporting these mobile variants, 754 owners looking to upgrade for additional CPU performance might be interested in checking out these parts."
My 8KDA3J won't support Newarks and as far as I can tell it's just a BIOS limitation. The 8KDA3+ is in the same predicament. It would be nice if Epox would make a effort to support ALL 754 CPUs for our older S754 boards. They're being stubborn so far.
#19 Jarred- you make some good points on whether the 4400+ is really a better buy than the 4200+. Yes I do intend to overclock as I'll be pairing whichever I go for up with a DFI mobo, and a Thermalright XP-90C heatsink (and suitable fan) which I've heard is one of the best coolers, and seeing what I can get out of it.
The upcoming 3800+ is tempting as it should be a good bit cheaper, but I'm concerned that what they'll be are all the speed-binned rejects of both the Manchester and Toledo cored X2's that had very little headroom. The Toledo parts would have half the cache disabled of course, providing a further means for AMD to offload rejects with a fault in part of the cache (similar to what they did with .
I think I'll wait and see rather than possibly spend a small fortune on a 4400+ that overclocks no better than a part little more than half the price. Another month hardly matters as I'm not desperate, but it does seem a bit of a waste running my two new 1GB PC3200 CAS2 sticks on an old KT266A mobo at 138 FSB :)
13 - PrinceGaz, I realize that having more cache can be helpful, but in general is the $100 price increase worth the extra 4% performance for the X2 4400+? More importantly (if you're willing to overclock), it's probably $250 more than the X2 CPU that was mentioned above. and still only slightly faster. If I could get my hands on them, I'd like to try overclocking the 4200+ and 4400+. My instinct tells me the extra cache may reduce overclocking headroom a bit, making the two basically equal in performance.
18 - I don't think DDR1 will dry up that quickly, so Q2'06 seems reasonable for DDR2. The 65nm parts from Intel are going to be the interesting competition. Pressler/Cedar Mill aren't too special, but Conroe/Merom could present a tought matchup for K8+DDR2. Unless K9 is coming out sooner rather than later, the new architecture from Intel may regain the performance crown for a while. Still, competition is good for us, so whatever happens happens. 200 MHz per quarter is going to be unlikely for a while, though. Some are saying we'll stay in the 2 to 4 GHz range for many many years and just add more cores.
As for DDR2/3 and FB-DIMM, while the base technology may be similar, I'd be surprised if the DIMMs are interchangeable. FB-DIMM is really targeting servers/workstations, where the current 2 DIMM per channel maximum memory is extremely limiting. It won't be quite as fast, but it should allow for 4 DIMMs per channel at least, and possibly more (?). Like registered vs. unbuffered DIMMs, the boards/chipsets/CPUs will either require FB-DIMM or not support it at all I think.
The new threaded view for comments came into effect after this was posted. Look at the date of the post. Older articles are going to have odd looking comments, but that's the price of progress.
DD3 (2007/8) can use the same FB-DIMM interface as DD2 FB-DIMM's. That may be OK for servers but the first desktops with DDR2 not use the FB-DIMM interface. FB-DIMM interface still has a few performance limiations per channel. Eletrical and frequency may change in future versions for DDR3.
AMD really need a move on if they don't wont to be steam-rolled by Intel. Intel are not going to sit idly by and leave AMD with a performance lead. It's too slow to wait for AMD to make the changes and wait for new technology. Waiting for mid-2006 for DDR2 is too slow when slower DDR2 is hitting price prity with DDR. By Q1-2006, DDR1 will be more expensive than todays prices and faster DDR2 wil be cheaper than DDR1, Intel will have faster/cooler 65nm CPU's and AMD will still have a very slow trickly of faster CPU's until their 65nm. It's only been about 400MHz increase per year for the last 2.5 years. I want 200MHz+ every quarter.
Oh boy, just Reply to the post you're refering to instead of using the old numbers, that dont even exist anymore. Get over it, this is how comments will be from now on.
#12- thanks for that, they've got the new lower-clocked X2 listed :)
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ - 2.0 GHz, Manchester (2x512K L2), due Aug 2005.
Unfortunately there isn't a Toledo 2.0 GHz part (which would be the X2 4000+), but that makes sense as they don't want to sell an expensive to manufacture part at a low price.
The X2 3800+ isn't for me as I want the larger cache, so I'm not going to delay going for a X2 4400+ now (I was going to wait and see what the new part was). Thanks again for the link :)
Jarred, on the front page, you have two statements that disagree with themselves:
---
However, although the processors require a bump in the current, the power remains the same
Unfortunately, expect massive increases in TDP. From the roadmap we expect the FX M2 processors to have a max TDP of 125W...
----
If the "power"(which I interpret as wattage requirement) remains the same, then why is the TDP rising? Do you mean the voltage is staying the same(which with the higher amperage would cause the power drain in wattage to rise)? We have always assumed that TDP was roughly the same as the amount of power the chip draws.
Oh, and AMD needs to come up with less names; my head's doing about 5K RPMs right now with all of this stuff. =P
DDR2 when its been shown that fast timings and ddr1 at 250mhz vs 200 shows less than 3% difference! yeah! thats what we need???
I remember an anandtech article about a year ago that showed how less bandwidth in trade for severely low timings can actually boost some area's for performance.
m2 = take your money like a mofo'in gangsta
and more heat as a bonus!
im going to be happy when i get my 4400 x2 i think. bah. cant wait again for something that sounds, er worse? maybe it would be better with that virtual crap. whatever that is.
maybe it's like 3d now! when intel was doing great floating point calcs and amd was doing that on my k6-III getting no frames :(
6 - You might not even need the BIOS flash. I have no idea, though.
5 - I'm a skeptic, I admit. AMD's official launch of 90nm SOI got pushed back quite a bit, IIRC. We're only *just now* hitting the point where AMD is 100% 90nm SOI. The ramp to a new process is almost always slow at first while the kinks get ironed out, and then there's a massive shift at the end. So with that mid-2006 to mid-2007 plot from Hector, I'd be inclined to say 75% of the shift will occur in 2Q'07. (/skeptic)
The main point is that there is no talk in this roadmap of what lies ahead. Could that change in the next month or two? Of course. Sometimes big changes are kept off the roadmaps until 4-6 months prior to the launch, just to keep OEMs and everyone else focused on the current products rather than getting ahead of themselves. Intel isn't talking much about Merom and Conroe either, for example.
--- "Massive TDP increases" really amount to 20% for the FX, 17% for single core A64s and 0% for DC parts. Significant, okay. Massive? No.
--- Turion & OEMs. 60 design wins and climbing.
--- Pentium M TDP 22W : Well, actually the higher FSB PMs have a 27W TDP. And that doesn't include a memory controller. However, DDR2 is an advantage over DDR. OTOH, no 64b, which per Intel's own admission would bump up the power requirements for them significantly.
--- AMD 65nm timing. Per AMD, production 65nm shipments in H106 (my guess is late Q2). Per Hector in June Technical Analyst Day Q&A, 65nm ramp is from mid-2006 to mid-2007 (100% 65nm). So I think your "late 2006, early 2007" estimate is too far in the future. Should be parts launching in early Q306, having been shipped in late Q206.
--- Socket M2. You fixed the 1207 vs. 940 pin issue.
3 - Heh, that's a topic for another day. :) But yeah, there are several new chipsets being worked on by all the major parties for the AMD DDR2 transition.
A slower/cheaper X2 sounds mighty nice, especially if it turns out to be a decent overclocker. I'm certain the 5000+ will be a wee bit out of my price range.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
51 Comments
Back to Article
john matthews - Saturday, January 21, 2006 - link
The Sempron 3200+ socket 939 processors are being used in Compaq presario's, model # SR1603. I have been trying to find any documentation I could on this chip because AMD's website said it did not exist despite the fact that SANDRA and CPU-Z were telling me that I had a socket 939 Sempron. CPU-Z reports the chip as a Sempron 3200+, Code Name Palermo, Brand ID 38, socket 939, Family F, Model F, Stepping 2, Ext Family F, Ext Model 2F, Revision E6. I have been searching the web for the last three weeks looking for some info on this processor and this is the first documentation I have found on it. I even EMailed AMD tech support and they denied any knowledge of it.Griswold - Friday, August 5, 2005 - link
Guess I'll just buy me a X2 soon and dont bother with M2 for a year or two (from the time it is released)Anemone - Friday, July 29, 2005 - link
Presently I have a relatively cheap Intel chip and a nice 2gb of ram (it makes what I do work out fine). If AMD were to have DDR2 support right now, I'd switch cpu's and mobo in an instant. Guess I'm just kinda sad it'll take a year before that's a possibility.However, saying that I am still wishing they'd spend till 2007 supporting upgrades for the 939 socket folks. Imo, supporting them with better cpu's to plug in to their systems would be a nice thank you for giving the business to AMD. I know, but it's my $.02.
So I guess I wait till next year, as I'm not going to invest in 2gb of DDR at this point. OH well!
$.02
OC DETECTIVE - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
Strange you say you cant mention the lower speed X2 aka 3800+ after all it is on AMD's website if you look hard enough.(Just click on processor)http://www2.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalReso...">http://www2.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Te...182_869_...
Couple of other comments - to date there are no cache disabled Manchesters (they have a different die size to the Toledo 147 v 199mm2) and the X2 3800+ and X2 4200+ TDP is only 89W.
KristopherKubicki - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
That's the unfortunate problem of NDA. AMD hasn't actually leaked the specs yet, even though they leaked the name it looks like. I don't think anyone from AMD is going to hammer us about talking about the chip, but I'm not in the mood to push my luck either.Kristopher
aldamon - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
Kristopher, could you please back up this statement:"As virtually any socket 754 board should have no trouble supporting these mobile variants, 754 owners looking to upgrade for additional CPU performance might be interested in checking out these parts."
KristopherKubicki - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
aldamon: In comparison to Turion, Athlon 64-M is pretty well supported by motherboard manufacturers. I've heard various horror stories of getting Turion to work in desktop motherboards, howeever.Kristopher
aldamon - Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - link
You didn't say "well supported" in the article. You said "virtually any socket 754 board" could run the 4000+. As far as I know, only the DFI Lanparty UT nForce3 can run mobiles without problems. The MSI and Chaintech boards can do it too but with quirks. That's a far cry from "virtually any socket 754."Also, mobiles do not come with an IHS. That messes with the HSF spacing for a lot of mobo / HSF combos.
What I'm getting at here is that virtually any S754 SHOULD be able to run the chip but they can't. Maybe if AT called out a few of these companies we'd get proper BIOS support. I'd love to have an upgrade path for my Epox 8KDA3J.
How about an AT article on 4000+ Newark support?
JarredWalton - Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - link
First it has to be realeased. Then we need to email the board manufacturers and ask about support for Athlon 64-M and Turion. We may be looking at a Turion/64-M article in the future, so that will give me a good reason to email a variety of manufacturers and ask about support.aldamon - Thursday, July 28, 2005 - link
That would be great. Thanks.KristopherKubicki - Sunday, July 24, 2005 - link
Zebo: We are doing desktop tests; so yes everything is the same but the motherboard.Kristopher
Zebo - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
Kris- That's pretty lame. How's that supposed to give a notebook buyer a clue using desktop motherboards and desktop chipsets?? The whole idea with centrino is it's platform..low power chipset and mobo and chip. AMD same deal with "Turion 64 mobile technology" their complete platform. I want to see how those techs compete with one another not those chips in hacked desktop setup which only works with 1 or 2 motherboards.Not only that Anandtech has done at least 7 Pentium M notebook reviews by my count, is'nt it a bit irresponsible not to have done even one with it's direct competitor?
Lame-- GamePC lame.
KristopherKubicki - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
We have other mobility only reviews scheduled as well. This is just a comparison of the two chips on the desktop.Kristopher
Zebo - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
Well Kris (i can call you Kris right:)) I just don't get doing yet another desktop preview of pentium M. I mean you have like 3-4 of them out now in a couple part series and with a .. 855 and the asus adaptor. We know how it performs in the limited desktop. We also know how turion performs for the most part from two years ago in tens of 754 reviews and you had a couple 754 chips inside those very same Pentium M reviews.What I'd like to see is the compete platform technology, done by a thorough site like anandtech using same equiped notebook parts then see how they stack up. No one one has done one yet (at the AT quality level) which is totally bewieldering to me.. not to compare direct competitors in a market which saw sales higher than the desktop first time last month.
Zebo - Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - link
BUMPJarredWalton - Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - link
Zebo - any specific laptop that you'd suggest? I'm not the mobility reviewer, but I can at least put the word out to the others and see what happens. Part of the problem is that non-Pentium M laptops are often billed as more affordable solutions, including the Turion systems. If the battery size is significantly smaller on a Turion, it doesn't really make it a better mobility laptop.Looking at power requirements, which are now 25W for the low power Turion/Athlon 64-M and 22W for the Pentium M, you can pretty much say that all other things being equal, battery life should be similar. Unfortunately, rarely are the other things equal - different screen is a big one, but different battery, HDD, RAM, GPU, etc. will all have an impact. Until someone comes out with a Turion notebook specifically tailored to compete against the high-end mobile Pentium M notebooks, getting anything resembling an apples to apples comparison will be difficult. (Which of course is why I ask for a suggested Turion notebook.)
Zebo - Sunday, July 24, 2005 - link
I'm definity not buying one of these new X2 chips.. Throttle?? No thanks! Even having that potential bugs me to no end. I'd rather burn my chip than throttle. I want Mhz I paid for, not what they feel like giving meNot only that DDR right now is hitting 2-2-2 @270Mhz which DDR2 has no hope the trump.
Then the whole tin foil thing- converting your Personal Computer(PC) into a corporate-controlled terminal(CCT).
Zebo - Sunday, July 24, 2005 - link
The cnet article linked did just that and disagrees with your conclusion.. How do you explain this discrepancy?Performance was split, battery life was within 2% of one another.
Zebo - Sunday, July 24, 2005 - link
Jarred please stop quoting TDP's. Thier highly erronous MANUFACTURES numbers, which should be taken with a grain of salt. You don't use MANUFACTURES benchmarks why use thier power numbers? For example:AMD says X2 has a TDP of 110W while Xbit measured 96W from the 4800+.
Intel says P4E 670 has a 112W TDP Xbit measured 162W!!!
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/penti...
Same story everywhere. Intel signifigantly under rating thier TDP while AMD not only overrating it, but applying that number to almost every chip in the series. Even the lower clocked and less cache ones to that over rated number.
Test it, dont quote it.
Kris: Same battery (mAh), same screen, same hurtz lancaster/M or Sempy/cele , same HDD, Same video card, and same DVD I hope?
JarredWalton - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
Wow... gonna have to get used to the change. :pAnyway, we don't really have an accurate and reliable way of measuring TDP for ourselves. The change from 80Amp to 95Amp is pretty surprising, though whether it's just a spec change for future stuff or a real change at present is impossible to say. If you can give me an accurate way of measuring TDP on our own (without exotic tools), I'd love to hear it. At present all we can usually do is plug the system into a wall socket device that measure total system power draw. You're right, though: take the TDP with a healthy helping of salt. :)
Zebo - Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - link
Hehe I hear ya this new format is confusing to say the least.. I much prefered the "flat" version. :)Anyway isolating CPU power today is faily trivial to do since all modern CPU's are fed by the 12V 4 or 8 pin dedicated auxiliary power connector. For specfic methodology please look here: http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_venice/5.shtml">http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_venice/5.shtml
JarredWalton - Saturday, August 6, 2005 - link
SO the 4-pin ATX12V is *only* for the CPU and the CPU doesn't draw power from anything else? Damn, learn something new each day! I guess a clamp around the two +12V lines would be able to measure the current with moderate accuracy.KristopherKubicki - Sunday, July 24, 2005 - link
Zebo: We have one coming up... And yes; Turion can't compare to Pentium M per watt.Pentium M isn't worthwhile outside of mobility; and no one argues it's an awesome mobility chip. Turion is nice, but AMD has an incredibly long way to go to catch up in the mobile sector. Expect an AnandTech review in the near future, although it's going to have a desktop focus.
Kristopher
Zebo - Sunday, July 24, 2005 - link
"AMD has been trailing in the mobile performance per Watt competition ever since Intel launched the Pentium M. "How do you know? You refuse to do a turion notbook review. Actually it's been 6 months since you've done a moblie review what's up with that? I sent anand an email, never heard back from him.
Anyway lets look at someone who HAS done the legwork;) :P Albeit not anandtech high quality standards.. just a few synthetics and batt life similarly equiped.
http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/hardware/notebooks/0,...
I know Intel fans think the Pentium M is the second coming of christ but the numbers simply don't bear that out.. Turion, at least in acer form, is very competitive performance and battery wise with the Pentium M, indescerable really, and it's usually cheaper.
Like this sweet little MSI jobber... Purdy and only $700
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/print.php?cid...
.. it's about time for Anandtech to clear up the noise with a real review don't you think?....
JarredWalton - Saturday, July 23, 2005 - link
20 - The current is reported from the AMD specs listed in the roadmap. While there will certainly be parts that run at lower power output than the maximum we've listed, the highest performing parts will likely approach those values.Maybe someone with a better knowledge of electronics can verify this, but just because the socket can supply 80 Amps on current 939 boards doesn't mean the CPU has to use all 80 Amps, right? It's like a water pipe going to the house: it might provide enough water pressure to run all the sinks at once, but the individual sink may never use that much water.
Anyway, 80 A * 1.4V = 112W. Revision E 939 is as follows: X2 chips have a TDP of 110W, meaning they can use everything the socket provides. FX-939 can use 104W, and the single core chips are 89W. Revision C/D used higher voltages but lower Amps and had FX-55 at 104W, FX-53 and other single cores as 89W. 60A * 1.7V = 102W, roughly the value listed for FX-55. The 1.5V chips were 90W in comparison.
Finally, we have M2 parts slated to use 95A. 95A * 1.3V = 123.5W, indicating that the FX will use all the Amps available. X2 will remain at 110W, so it will either use less of the available Amperage or else it will run at lower voltages. Single core will be 104W, slightly lower than X2. These are all maximums, however, so the mid-range parts probably won't be any worse than current parts; it's AMD building for future parts - they have to make sure that all motherboards can supply the power required by the top chips.
Jeff7181 - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
Thanks for the response Jarred. Your response is accurate, but that doesn't explain this quote from the article.That's impossible unless the revision E San Diego's run on 1.125 volts. I understand 80A and 90W are "worst case scenario's." Still, it can't have a maximum amperage of 80 AND a maximum wattage of 90 because that means the voltage will NEVER be over 1.125 volts.
aldamon - Saturday, July 23, 2005 - link
With regards to your comments on the Newark 4000+:"As virtually any socket 754 board should have no trouble supporting these mobile variants, 754 owners looking to upgrade for additional CPU performance might be interested in checking out these parts."
My 8KDA3J won't support Newarks and as far as I can tell it's just a BIOS limitation. The 8KDA3+ is in the same predicament. It would be nice if Epox would make a effort to support ALL 754 CPUs for our older S754 boards. They're being stubborn so far.
PrinceGaz - Saturday, July 23, 2005 - link
#19 Jarred- you make some good points on whether the 4400+ is really a better buy than the 4200+. Yes I do intend to overclock as I'll be pairing whichever I go for up with a DFI mobo, and a Thermalright XP-90C heatsink (and suitable fan) which I've heard is one of the best coolers, and seeing what I can get out of it.The upcoming 3800+ is tempting as it should be a good bit cheaper, but I'm concerned that what they'll be are all the speed-binned rejects of both the Manchester and Toledo cored X2's that had very little headroom. The Toledo parts would have half the cache disabled of course, providing a further means for AMD to offload rejects with a fault in part of the cache (similar to what they did with .
I think I'll wait and see rather than possibly spend a small fortune on a 4400+ that overclocks no better than a part little more than half the price. Another month hardly matters as I'm not desperate, but it does seem a bit of a waste running my two new 1GB PC3200 CAS2 sticks on an old KT266A mobo at 138 FSB :)
Jeff7181 - Saturday, July 23, 2005 - link
Kristopher Kubicki & Jarred Walton... could you explain something to me?Watts = volts x amps
90 watt CPU running on 1.4 volts = 65 amps (90/1.4=~65)... how'd you get 80?????
JarredWalton - Friday, July 22, 2005 - link
13 - PrinceGaz, I realize that having more cache can be helpful, but in general is the $100 price increase worth the extra 4% performance for the X2 4400+? More importantly (if you're willing to overclock), it's probably $250 more than the X2 CPU that was mentioned above. and still only slightly faster. If I could get my hands on them, I'd like to try overclocking the 4200+ and 4400+. My instinct tells me the extra cache may reduce overclocking headroom a bit, making the two basically equal in performance.18 - I don't think DDR1 will dry up that quickly, so Q2'06 seems reasonable for DDR2. The 65nm parts from Intel are going to be the interesting competition. Pressler/Cedar Mill aren't too special, but Conroe/Merom could present a tought matchup for K8+DDR2. Unless K9 is coming out sooner rather than later, the new architecture from Intel may regain the performance crown for a while. Still, competition is good for us, so whatever happens happens. 200 MHz per quarter is going to be unlikely for a while, though. Some are saying we'll stay in the 2 to 4 GHz range for many many years and just add more cores.
As for DDR2/3 and FB-DIMM, while the base technology may be similar, I'd be surprised if the DIMMs are interchangeable. FB-DIMM is really targeting servers/workstations, where the current 2 DIMM per channel maximum memory is extremely limiting. It won't be quite as fast, but it should allow for 4 DIMMs per channel at least, and possibly more (?). Like registered vs. unbuffered DIMMs, the boards/chipsets/CPUs will either require FB-DIMM or not support it at all I think.
Griswold - Friday, August 5, 2005 - link
Use the REPLY button.JarredWalton - Saturday, August 6, 2005 - link
The new threaded view for comments came into effect after this was posted. Look at the date of the post. Older articles are going to have odd looking comments, but that's the price of progress.tygrus - Friday, July 22, 2005 - link
DD3 (2007/8) can use the same FB-DIMM interface as DD2 FB-DIMM's. That may be OK for servers but the first desktops with DDR2 not use the FB-DIMM interface. FB-DIMM interface still has a few performance limiations per channel. Eletrical and frequency may change in future versions for DDR3.AMD really need a move on if they don't wont to be steam-rolled by Intel. Intel are not going to sit idly by and leave AMD with a performance lead. It's too slow to wait for AMD to make the changes and wait for new technology. Waiting for mid-2006 for DDR2 is too slow when slower DDR2 is hitting price prity with DDR. By Q1-2006, DDR1 will be more expensive than todays prices and faster DDR2 wil be cheaper than DDR1, Intel will have faster/cooler 65nm CPU's and AMD will still have a very slow trickly of faster CPU's until their 65nm. It's only been about 400MHz increase per year for the last 2.5 years. I want 200MHz+ every quarter.
johnsonx - Friday, July 22, 2005 - link
Also, let's not forget that town from the Jackass bit:Mianus
(pronounced 'My Anus'... don't recall what state it's in)
johnsonx - Friday, July 22, 2005 - link
There's a small town in Minnesota that would make a perfect name for AMD's next CPU:Nimrod
yacoub - Friday, July 22, 2005 - link
Man, what's gonna happen when they run out of cool city/town names?? :(lsman - Friday, July 22, 2005 - link
#11 DDR3 in 2007 = another socket.Griswold - Friday, August 5, 2005 - link
Oh boy, just Reply to the post you're refering to instead of using the old numbers, that dont even exist anymore. Get over it, this is how comments will be from now on.PrinceGaz - Friday, July 22, 2005 - link
#12- thanks for that, they've got the new lower-clocked X2 listed :)Athlon 64 X2 3800+ - 2.0 GHz, Manchester (2x512K L2), due Aug 2005.
Unfortunately there isn't a Toledo 2.0 GHz part (which would be the X2 4000+), but that makes sense as they don't want to sell an expensive to manufacture part at a low price.
The X2 3800+ isn't for me as I want the larger cache, so I'm not going to delay going for a X2 4400+ now (I was going to wait and see what the new part was). Thanks again for the link :)
coomar - Friday, July 22, 2005 - link
hasn't a lot of this information been known for a whilethe roadmap for a64's:
http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/
has had this for the last 4-6 months
Resh - Friday, July 22, 2005 - link
Not another socket! Geez!ViRGE - Friday, July 22, 2005 - link
Jarred, on the front page, you have two statements that disagree with themselves:---
However, although the processors require a bump in the current, the power remains the same
Unfortunately, expect massive increases in TDP. From the roadmap we expect the FX M2 processors to have a max TDP of 125W...
----
If the "power"(which I interpret as wattage requirement) remains the same, then why is the TDP rising? Do you mean the voltage is staying the same(which with the higher amperage would cause the power drain in wattage to rise)? We have always assumed that TDP was roughly the same as the amount of power the chip draws.
Oh, and AMD needs to come up with less names; my head's doing about 5K RPMs right now with all of this stuff. =P
Doormat - Thursday, July 21, 2005 - link
Nothing about AMD integrating PCI-Express into their CPU? There was an article at TheInq about that...ElJefe - Thursday, July 21, 2005 - link
Er, great!!??DDR2 when its been shown that fast timings and ddr1 at 250mhz vs 200 shows less than 3% difference! yeah! thats what we need???
I remember an anandtech article about a year ago that showed how less bandwidth in trade for severely low timings can actually boost some area's for performance.
m2 = take your money like a mofo'in gangsta
and more heat as a bonus!
im going to be happy when i get my 4400 x2 i think. bah. cant wait again for something that sounds, er worse? maybe it would be better with that virtual crap. whatever that is.
maybe it's like 3d now! when intel was doing great floating point calcs and amd was doing that on my k6-III getting no frames :(
JarredWalton - Thursday, July 21, 2005 - link
6 - You might not even need the BIOS flash. I have no idea, though.5 - I'm a skeptic, I admit. AMD's official launch of 90nm SOI got pushed back quite a bit, IIRC. We're only *just now* hitting the point where AMD is 100% 90nm SOI. The ramp to a new process is almost always slow at first while the kinks get ironed out, and then there's a massive shift at the end. So with that mid-2006 to mid-2007 plot from Hector, I'd be inclined to say 75% of the shift will occur in 2Q'07. (/skeptic)
The main point is that there is no talk in this roadmap of what lies ahead. Could that change in the next month or two? Of course. Sometimes big changes are kept off the roadmaps until 4-6 months prior to the launch, just to keep OEMs and everyone else focused on the current products rather than getting ahead of themselves. Intel isn't talking much about Merom and Conroe either, for example.
NightCrawler - Thursday, July 21, 2005 - link
Athlon 64 4000+ Newark 2.6 GHz 1MB Socket 754 Q3'05Hmmm...I wonder if a bios flash on older 754 boards will allow the use of the newark cpu.
dougSF30 - Thursday, July 21, 2005 - link
A few things:--- "Massive TDP increases" really amount to 20% for the FX, 17% for single core A64s and 0% for DC parts. Significant, okay. Massive? No.
--- Turion & OEMs. 60 design wins and climbing.
--- Pentium M TDP 22W : Well, actually the higher FSB PMs have a 27W TDP. And that doesn't include a memory controller. However, DDR2 is an advantage over DDR. OTOH, no 64b, which per Intel's own admission would bump up the power requirements for them significantly.
--- AMD 65nm timing. Per AMD, production 65nm shipments in H106 (my guess is late Q2). Per Hector in June Technical Analyst Day Q&A, 65nm ramp is from mid-2006 to mid-2007 (100% 65nm). So I think your "late 2006, early 2007" estimate is too far in the future. Should be parts launching in early Q306, having been shipped in late Q206.
--- Socket M2. You fixed the 1207 vs. 940 pin issue.
JarredWalton - Thursday, July 21, 2005 - link
3 - Heh, that's a topic for another day. :) But yeah, there are several new chipsets being worked on by all the major parties for the AMD DDR2 transition.SignalPST - Thursday, July 21, 2005 - link
Is nForce5 arround the corner for these new socket changes?Plifzig - Thursday, July 21, 2005 - link
xelpmoc - Thursday, July 21, 2005 - link
A slower/cheaper X2 sounds mighty nice, especially if it turns out to be a decent overclocker. I'm certain the 5000+ will be a wee bit out of my price range.