20W SIngle Core Athlon in Q4

Z

Zachstar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
1,407
Looks like we have an interesting new CPU incoming that could be quite nice for low heat and power HTPCs

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15198/1/

The most efficient AMD CPU is currently under development and it is based on the only 45nm single-core from AMD codenamed Sargas. The CPU based on it to remain at 20W TDP is branded as Athlon II 160U and it will work at 1.8GHz and comes with 1MB cache.

It comes in AM3 packaging and supports DDR3 1066 memory and the rest of the AM3 platform. The introduction of Sargas based ultra low efficient CPU will also mean the end of life for Athlon 2850e at 1.8GHz and 22W and Athlon 2650e with 1.6GHz and only 15W. They should EOL at the end of Q4 2009.....
Click to expand...

Obviously for any kind of gaming outside perhaps Half Life 1 this will be just about as useless as Ion so the question is. Will it be enough for HD?

I request some simulations. Is there anyone with some of AMDs earlier single cores in a similar TDP? Or perhaps someone with a Sempron 140 they can underclock to 1.6GHZ (200 MHz less just to be extra sure) or so and see if they can run Hulu and HD Youtube?
 
Guess it would be good for embedded devices or something that requires low processing power. Forget HD.

Hmmm... AMD powered toaster oven?
 
JaguarSKX said:
Guess it would be good for embedded devices or something that requires low processing power. Forget HD.

Hmmm... AMD powered toaster oven?
Click to expand...


Do you have any evidence of this? I asked for simulations not guesses that seem to indicate a 20W CPU is weaker than an Atom.
 
Zachstar said:
Obviously for any kind of gaming outside perhaps Half Life 1 this will be just about as useless as Ion so the question is. Will it be enough for HD?
Click to expand...

HD files won't be an issue, even a PIII or an Atom can do it when using a GF 8 or 9 GPU. The only question is with regards to Hulu HD and similar Flash based services (until Adobe finally decides to support hardware decoding in the Flash plugin...).
 
Which is the most important question in my view. As it seems this MIGHT have enough power to pull it off as you can get quite a bit of power per watt at 45nm.
 
yeah, i have had issues with my 3600 X2 and high bit rate mkv's playback in Media Center (vista or 7)

it get studdering on 1080p content....

let alone HD flash files... I dont think a single core is really going to get it done.... the only good atoms are the DC ones aswell... the single core ion is not up to high bitrate rips.... it will play bluray from the disk......
 
Adidas4275 said:
let alone HD flash files... I dont think a single core is really going to get it done.... the only good atoms are the DC ones aswell... the single core ion is not up to high bitrate rips.... it will play bluray from the disk......
Click to expand...
Dude, that's because of how weak the Atom is. It needs to that extra core to even be on the same level as an entry level single core Celeron/Sempron.

Based on what I've seen from people using the new 140 Sargus is that it works perfectly for their HTPCs and plays whatever they throw at it. :)
 
Adidas4275 said:
yeah, i have had issues with my 3600 X2 and high bit rate mkv's playback in Media Center (vista or 7)

it get studdering on 1080p content....

let alone HD flash files... I dont think a single core is really going to get it done.... the only good atoms are the DC ones aswell... the single core ion is not up to high bitrate rips.... it will play bluray from the disk......
Click to expand...

If you have the right GPU (8200, 9300 or ATI 4550) even a single core atom ought to be able to play 1080P content fine.. perhaps check settings?

No offense but I am looking for simulations using the single core series from AMD so even atom is out (Obviously)

If all one wants to do is watch stored VC-1, Mpeg-4, and AVC stuff the atom (Ion) is perfect due to low power draw and heat. But the atom (Ion) is USELESS for Hulu and Youtube HD where even the mention of it causes it to slow and freeze.

The question thus mainly deals with the request of the simulation of the performance of this upcoming core.
 
Last edited:
Zachstar said:
I request some simulations. Is there anyone with some of AMDs earlier single cores in a similar TDP? Or perhaps someone with a Sempron 140 they can underclock to 1.6GHZ (200 MHz less just to be extra sure) or so and see if they can run Hulu and HD Youtube?
Click to expand...

It's not that similar, but my secondary computer is an AMD Opteron 146 (2GHz) w/ 1GB PC3200 and a built in GeForce 6150. It chokes when trying to play full screen Hulu 480p videos, but is okay when playing them in a window.
 
Thank you. That is a much better simulation. And concerning. As there is rather little point for going for this CPU if it has trouble doing even 480p

Tho with the advancements with the sargas tech you never know so if anyone does have a modern Sempron 140 and is willing to do a test underclock please do so!
 
And with CnQ enabled it will at ...600mhz? I bought a Biostar 8100 for HTPC and it seems that you can't turn off CnQ, so my 245 Regor runs at 800mhz :(
 
gwarren007 said:
And with CnQ enabled it will at ...600mhz? I bought a Biostar 8100 for HTPC and it seems that you can't turn off CnQ, so my 245 Regor runs at 800mhz :(
Click to expand...

What is the problem with it idling at 800MHz and using less power?
 
Killroy said:
What is the problem with it idling at 800MHz and using less power?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that his CPU is running at 800mhz, not idling. If so then that's a common problem from back in the Socket A days. Mobile Socket A chips would do this but those we could change the multi of (which is what's happening, it's defaulting to the lowest multi like CnQ would do because it's not a recongized CPU).
 
There is nothing wrong with it idling that way, I would just at least like to turn of CnQ to see what it would do at full speed. I bought a higher speed and newer processor to have a little headroom, and I get 800mhz out of it in the HTPC box.
 
CrimandEvil said:
I'm assuming that his CPU is running at 800mhz, not idling. If so then that's a common problem from back in the Socket A days. Mobile Socket A chips would do this but those we could change the multi of (which is what's happening, it's defaulting to the lowest multi like CnQ would do because it's not a recongized CPU).
Click to expand...

That makes sense, I wasn't aware that was ever a problem.

gwarren007 said:
There is nothing wrong with it idling that way, I would just at least like to turn of CnQ to see what it would do at full speed. I bought a higher speed and newer processor to have a little headroom, and I get 800mhz out of it in the HTPC box.
Click to expand...

Are you sure it is stuck at that speed? If it is, then that really sucks. You might check it with CPU-Z and running something processor intensive.

20 Watts is nice, but why can't we get some of these 10 to 30 watt mobile dual core processors in desktop form?
 
Because that requires a redesign which is something they can ill afford without a damn good reason.

If this can play Hulu it is as low as they possibly need to go. As eventually it gets to the point where the heatsink takes too much of a percentage of the cost. The 45W one cost 39 currently. This one will be lucky to sell for 29
 
Zachstar said:
Because that requires a redesign which is something they can ill afford without a damn good reason.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. Its called speedbinning, it's been done time and time again. AMD use to release "SFF X2's" which were just s939 3800+ X2's that could operate at 35w at full speed. There's nothing stopping AMD from doing the same thing with their current line of CPUs, testing to see which ones can operate at such a low wattage reliably at full speed.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
So you work for AMD now? Why don't you go and tell them that eh? I am sure they would love to discover that suddenly they can just make appear new chips.

So yes it requires a redesign to make (mobile) chips into desktop chips. Whatever happened in the past obviously isn't applying here as I am not seeing these new chips.

On edit: Yes I know about the process of selecting better quality chips for higher speed operations but they are already doing that even going as far as disabling cores to make chips sell.
 
Last edited:
I'm not talking about making a mobile chip into a desktop chip. That's just obtuse thinking. What I'm talking about is making a desktop chip as power effiecent as a 30w dual core mobile chip. That's some easy, has been done and can be done at a decent little price increase.

It does not require a redesign of anything to speedbin a few 65w or even 45w dual cores to a lower wattage. Going from a mobile chip to a desktop chip is not only worthless it's totally impractical since they work the other way around to make a mobile chip.

Make new chips? Yeah, you have no idea what your talking about. This isn't a new process, AMD has been doing this with the "E" series for a while now (since s939 and even some of the older Socket A mobile chips). They make "new chips" all the time when they disable a quad core anyways.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
If they could have done it they would have done it period. Already the 20W is going to take until Q4 to come out.
 
Zachstar said:
If they could have done it they would have done it period. Already the 20W is going to take until Q4 to come out.
Click to expand...

They WERE doing it That's why they had the E series X2s. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The new 20w chip is based on their newer Sargas core. The reason it's taking until Q4 is because they need to build up enough supply on hand to do a hard launch.
 
An underclocked core. Hardly need a more perfect chip when you underclock to 1.8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top