xorg +XGI Volari XP5
tom at bluespice.org
Tue Apr 26 16:58:25 PDT 2005
In-Reply-To: <200504262209.j3QM948Y043998 at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Message-ID: <426ed597$0$718$415eb37d at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Trace: 1114559896 crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org 718 184.108.40.206
Xref: crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org dragonfly.users:3164
> It's too new, for one thing. It was barely launched a month ago.
> Secondly, the Turion is basically just a rebranded notebook
The technology is not new, the VIA Chipsets are mostly the same like
their desktop counterparts.
> athlon 64. The pentium-M is a major redesign of the pentium-III
> core with power consumption in mind.
The Turions power consumption seems ok to me... AMD has 2 lines, one is
supposed to have a max. TDP of 25 W and, while the other's is 35 W.
Intel is telling us values of up to 27W TDP Pentium-M's.
IMHO a 25W Turion at 1.8Ghz is a good competition for the Intel P-M at
the same clock-speed.
The AMD delivers a bit more performance, while the Pentium-M has
slightly less power consumption. The Turion isn't much faster, but it is
firmly, however I think AMD64 on a laptop isn't really a major reason,
and the Pentium-M doesn't suck alot less power.
I think the used display, graphics device, physical devices, accu, make
the real difference here. The cpus are very similiar.
> The turion clearly outperforms the pentium-M, but the low voltage
> version of the pentium-M beats the shit out of AMD's best turion
> offering in regards to power consumption. The pentium-M also
> has a bunch of major frequency-reducing technologies built into it
> (such as clocking different parts of the core at reduced frequencies),
> above and beyond basic cpu frequency controls, and I'm fairly sure
> that the Turion just has the basic stuff.
AMD Cool'n'Quiet, go ahead... it's a bit more than basic, and surely
competetive to Intels frequency reducing stuff, they are very similiar.
The article is ridiculusly based on opinion... read the first slashdot
comment, i completly agree with that.
> I also believe that AMDs technology will ultimately prove to be
> superior for laptops, ONCE they've done a few major engineering turns
> on it to reduce power consumption. It's 1-2 years away at the very
I think they are good to go now, the Turion is a fine piece competetive
in power consumption, and as a child of the athlon64 completly
competetive in performance.
Remember the huge Cache of the Pentium-M, the Athlon doesn't have, thus
the Turion will be a bit faster, which kill the Pentium-M.
the tests are quite exhaustive, and the pentium-m is no comparison for
the athlon64 (still remember pentium has 4x the cache).
I expect the Turion to be of the same performance compared to the A64,
because of the same chipsets, hyper transport and more cache.
Remember when referring to ULV Intel CPUs to compare with AMDs
counterpart which is not the Turion64, but the Goede.
Goede NX @ 6W (that's the way they call it) with 1Ghz seems pretty neat
Here is a german article about the details. AMD did the same to the K7
as Intel to the P3... the Goede NX is the result... pretty impressive if
you ask me, the Pentium-M has a strong compretitor in the sub-notebook
As for the Goede GX is a different beast, derived from the National
Semiconductor Geode GX2.
This one features alot of built-in stuff like an "on CPU NIC" or mpeg2
hardware decoding, as well as "on CPU graphics adapter" all connected by
something they call GoedeLink?. There's a 400Mhz model, which is said to
consume 1.1W costing roughly 33U$.
A Few weeks ago I've seen one of those Goede GX machines being compared
to a Macmini. Though the competitor for the P-M is the NX, it's pretty
nice to know what AMD did in the low-power, and ultra-low-voltage
region. I think they are comparitve NOW.
More information about the Users