PDA

View Full Version : AMD's 65nm Brisbane Core Previewed: The most energy efficient AMD CPU to date


Anusha
12-15-2006, 05:25 AM
Source: Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com)

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3366/brisbanefg4.jpg

When Intel launched its Core 2 line of processors we saw AMD's performance and power advantages vanish into thin air but the comparison, at least on the power side, wasn't totally fair. Intel had been shipping desktop processors on its 65nm process for months prior to the launch of Core 2, while AMD's Athlon 64 X2s were still built on a 90nm process. We had no way of telling how much of Intel's power advantage was due to a more efficient architecture or simply smaller, cooler running transistors. Up to now, AMD has been penalized twice in all Core 2 vs. Athlon 64 X2 comparisons; AMD's new micro-architecture won't debut until next year and neither will 65nm in any great quantities.

Technically in-line with roadmaps, AMD just introduced and announced shipment of its first 65nm cores: codenamed Brisbane. Availability is another story entirely, as it's looking like we won't see any real quantities of these things until Q1 2007. Right now AMD's Brisbane chips are strictly OEM only and AMD wasn't able to give us an indication of when to expect retail/channel availability. Of course we wouldn't be talking about this today if we didn't have a chip, which we do, but for all intents and purposes you can consider this a preview of what to expect in the new year from AMD's first 65nm chips.

Read the full article here (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2889).

chaminga_d
12-15-2006, 05:50 AM
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1241/am265nmgv5.jpg

chaminga_d
12-15-2006, 05:52 AM
cache iz not improved?

Anusha
12-15-2006, 05:53 AM
cache iz not improved?

The minor performance gain was not worth it. (because of high production costs)

blackroses
12-15-2006, 06:13 AM
mmm.............

chaminga_d
12-15-2006, 06:27 AM
AMD cannot beat INTEL

http://www23.tomshardware.com/charts8/465-604-174.png

chaminga_d
12-15-2006, 06:31 AM
http://www23.tomshardware.com/charts8/465-604-158.png

Anusha
12-15-2006, 03:20 PM
You can hotlink those images from Tomshardware. You have to upload it to somewhere. Use "Preview Post" when hotlinking, before posting them.

fazaal24
12-15-2006, 03:26 PM
AMD cannot beat INTEL

http://www23.tomshardware.com/charts8/465-604-174.png

INTEL INSIDE>>>>>>>>>AMD OUTSIDE>>>>>>

Anusha
12-15-2006, 03:26 PM
Of course, AMD cannot supersede Intel's Core 2 architecture. I'm surprised they got so close to Core 2 with the 90nm process technology (even though now it's 65nm, only the power consumption has decreased compared to the 90nm). Also, they are competing with a vastly inferior cache and SSE engine.

When AMD releases the K8L, we'll see how the CPU war comes out of peace talks ;). But by this time, Intel will have true Quad-Core (that's what Intel says, although the Kentsfield really is a Quad-Core but not much cache sharing as the upcoming Yorkfield CPU. Kentsfield has two L2 caches each shared between two cores, and Yorkfield will have a single L2 cache shared between all the 4 cores. This will lower the transistor count, hence the performance. We can expect some tweaks to the instruction sets, and this will yield more performance.

So Yorkfield will be slightly faster than Kentsfield with a significantly low power consumption.

prasadana2
12-15-2006, 03:48 PM
im an amd athelon 64 user

chathu_
12-15-2006, 03:49 PM
thanxxxxxxxx machoooooooooo

Anusha
12-15-2006, 03:56 PM
im an amd athelon 64 user

So?