So, Yonah is fast?

It's no longer beating an A64 clock-for-clock :(. Dothan had 10-cycle L2 latency, and that was its bread and butter. IIRC, A64's have 17-cycle. Anyway, Yohah has 14-cycle latency, and as you can see, that's a 40% increase. Without an integrated memory controller, the Intel chips literally need the lowest latency they can get; and that's precisely why Dothan worked so well.

I don't know. Yonah may still be comparable clock-for-clock to a similarly rated X2, but it will no longer dominate it. Perhaps they will be able to win on the MHz side of things, as the current generation P-M cores scale extremely well. I don't even think that the new push back to the P6 architecture will put the performance crown back into Intel's camp. They definetly do get the performance per watt crown, but AMD isn't that far behind. Even if Intel does manage to take take the performance crown, it won't hold it for long - P6 architecture is old and architecturally unimpressive. While at the same time it's better than NetBurst, it is a regressive step nontheless. IMO, they should have attempted to develop something truly next-gen, instead of yet another painfully obvious band-aid solution. I mean, as all bad-aid solutions, it's simple, and works... for the short term at least.

I'm actually more interested in what AMD's next-gen architecture, the K10 will be like.

just my 0.02...
 
but you have to consider, X2 is a desktop processor. the Yonah is built for a mobile processor. If a MOBILE processor can compete with a desktop processor and still keep it's temperatures low, that's incredible. What kind of laptop do you consider can compete with an X2? maybe... MAYBE a Pentium M... but that's about it.
 
I don't know why people are getting depressed by it but I'm impressed that a mobile processor can keep with a desktop with the advantage of using less energy.
 
noIinteam said:
I don't know why people are getting depressed by it but I'm impressed that a mobile processor can keep with a desktop with the advantage of using less energy.
Click to expand...
QFT. I can hardly wait for reviews of the retail components surrounding Yonah to be tested. Should be very interesting, at the least.
 
iddqd, Yonah, just like Banias and Dothan before it, is NOT P6... P6 died wtih the Tualatin. the Pentium-M Architechture, which does not actually have an "architechture name" (like netburst or p6) that i am aware if, IS a Hybrid of Netburst and P6, but is anything but a stright up incarnation of either of them. Yonah is in fact, if i understand correctly, closer to Merom than any Intel chip currently out. Merom will, of course, have more cool stuff built into it, but Yonah's got a lot of it already... with the most notable lacking feature being 64-bit extentions.

i am personally excited about Yonah, and will be buying a new Thinkpad based around it just about as soon as they are avaliable. my reasoning is that my T23 feels like a dinosaur compared to my X2 and its pretty much intolerable now, its multicore, and i dont mind not having 64bit in a notebook. my T23 lasted 5 years, this one can too. it also consumes less power than the similar turion-x2 (this is speculation on my part, based on current X2 consumption and the fact that its staying on teh 90nm process initially) the anandtech preview also did impress me and met my expectations. i am thrilled that i can get the performace (or very, very close to it) in a notebook. it has actually had me considering selling off the desktop, as i am in college and do all the work on the laptop anyway... ive also been playing more games on my consoles recently.. i dunno, we'll see. also thinking about selling off the super high end rig ive got and going back to the athlon XP/6800GT... i use my laptop more than my desktop anyway. ugh, decisions, decisions...

Im personally more interested in Merom/Conroe than i am in AMD's next gen, as K10 is rumored to just be a multicore extention to the K8 Family... just like K9 is the dual core extention to the K8 family.
 
I think a dual core PM will be a great cpu. it still won't be the fastest gaming cpu, but the system will feel really fast.
 
noIinteam said:
I don't know why people are getting depressed by it but I'm impressed that a mobile processor can keep with a desktop with the advantage of using less energy.
Click to expand...

Pentium M has been doing that (in most repsects) for years now. I think people are a bit dissapointed because is maintaining the status quo rather a real leap forward for intel.
Pentium M competed well with the desktop chips over the last few years and did it at 1/2-1/4 of the power; and Yonah looks to be doing much the same against the dual core desktops. While this is impressive, it's not unexpected. When a product as successful as Pentium M merely meets everyone's expectations, there's bound to be a bit of dissapointment.

I would have loved to see what a Pentium M could do with a 4MiB (or Larger) L2 cache, but even with the power saving features of Pentium M's cache, that likely would have seriously hurt the TDP.
 
lithium726 said:
iddqd, Yonah, just like Banias and Dothan before it, is NOT P6... P6 died wtih the Tualatin. the Pentium-M Architechture, which does not actually have an "architechture name" (like netburst or p6) that i am aware if, IS a Hybrid of Netburst and P6
Click to expand...
Closer to Netburst and quite a disappointment. Intel screwed up big time with Yonah. They had a killer chip in their hands and they blew it by adding additional latency. You can only hope those extra cycles allow it to clock well beyond AMD's top of the line, but with Opterons consistently starting to overclock to 3GHz on air, and DC chips capable of 2.8GHz, it will probably be too late.

"...but Yonah is based on a mobile chip!" Yawn. :eek: ...and AMD64 architecture can be tweaked for similar low power performance (cough Turion), but do you think power consumption is a major concern to the average consumer? Negatory.

Fortunately for Intel, AMD is too cheap, stupid or arrogant to advertise their chips so they are going to be mired in second place for the forseeable future. Maybe they like having something to complain about? ...or maybe they just can't meet the production if they did. Who knows.
 
sleepeeg3 said:
Closer to Netburst and quite a disappointment. Intel screwed up big time with Yonah. They had a killer chip in their hands and they blew it by adding additional latency. You can only hope those extra cycles allow it to clock well beyond AMD's top of the line, but with Opterons consistently starting to overclock to 3GHz on air, and DC chips capable of 2.8GHz, it will probably be too late.
Click to expand...
so, youre accounting for the fact that SOME opterons can clock rather well (some are duds too, you know...) and you are giving no thought at ALL to desktop boards for yonah chips? sorry, but the only way the dothan was competitve with the FX chips was when it was oced on a desktop board, so I fail to your point? also, Yonah is so far from being netburst it makes your comment laughable. it has some of the GOOD technology from the NB era of Intel, leaving all the bad crap (ie, the incredibly long pipeline) out. the L2 is still lower latency than what is on the Athlons, BTW. also, as far as i know, most of hte internal design has not changed a whole hell of a lot from the Dothan... its been tweaked, had some new instructions added, had a new core added, and had some smart shared cache strapped on.
"...but Yonah is based on a mobile chip!" Yawn. :eek: ...and AMD64 architecture can be tweaked for similar low power performance (cough Turion), but do you think power consumption is a major concern to the average consumer? Negatory.
Click to expand...
yes, Turion is a good chip. where's AMD's mobile Turion X2? oh, thats right, there ISNT one. keep this in mind: the first A64's were 130nm. they had a TDP of 89w. the mobile a64 sucked. period. the Turion is much better, but is based on a single core 90nm design with slow transistors and 1mb l2... the 90nm similarly clocked A64's carry a TDP of 67w. much easier to tweak that one down to 25/35w, no? futhermore, the X2 is currently rated for 110w for every model but the 3800/4200, and you can bet the mobile part will have 2x1mb or some shared (highly doubtful) cache scheme. thats gonna be incredibly hard to get TDP down to the 25w range, dont you think? The AMD/IBM 65nm process is no where near completion. sorry, but this argument is rediculous at this point in time too. a 90nm Turion X2 would be far above the Yonah as far as power consumption goes.

edit: of fucking course power consumption matters! users dont like laptops which have fans that have to run all the time nor do they like it when they take their laptop out and it lasts for an entire two hours on a battery.

Fortunately for Intel, AMD is too cheap, stupid or arrogant to advertise their chips so they are going to be mired in second place for the forseeable future. Maybe they like having something to complain about? ...or maybe they just can't meet the production if they did. Who knows.
Click to expand...
they dont have the budget to overcome Intel's advertising department nor the production capabilities to supply the demand that Intel meets.

sorry, AMD has nothing to match this chip. I am rooting for them though, i dont wanna see them flop.
 
You know what I like to see. someone overclocking this chip to at least 3ghz and bench this like no tomorrow or did someone from xtremesystems already did that?
 
noIinteam said:
You know what I like to see. someone overclocking this chip to at least 3ghz and bench this like no tomorrow or did someone from xtremesystems already did that?
Click to expand...

There isn't a single desktop/mATX/anything that can take this chip yet. Only engineering sample boards and such that I doubt would have good enthusiast options.
 
boards for desktops? if you really want one of these on a desktop, i'd just go buy an adapter :) or go buy a barebone laptop and trick it out, lol.
 
noIinteam said:
I don't know why people are getting depressed by it but I'm impressed that a mobile processor can keep with a desktop with the advantage of using less energy.
Click to expand...


Intel's mobile procs have been faster for years :p
 
arabdon1203 said:
Intel's mobile procs have been faster for years :p
Click to expand...
Many people I read were disappointed by yonah compared to x2 which cause me to make that statement.
 
If these upcomming desktop boards are cheap i may use one in my next system to last me till conroe. I have a Northwood 533FSB now and moving to a slower and hotter Pentium D seems silly when compared to Yonah.
 
noIinteam said:
Many people I read were disappointed by yonah compared to x2 which cause me to make that statement.
Click to expand...
If people were really hoping for an X2 killer from Yonah, that's rediculous. You can't even get a dual core AMD laptop yet afaik, and even if you could it would be using a desktop kit. I have no plans to exploit yonah on a desktop, but I definitely want a XPS with a 7800gtx (or better) and a yonah.
 
sleepeeg3 said:
Closer to Netburst and quite a disappointment. Intel screwed up big time with Yonah. They had a killer chip in their hands and they blew it by adding additional latency. You can only hope those extra cycles allow it to clock well beyond AMD's top of the line, but with Opterons consistently starting to overclock to 3GHz on air, and DC chips capable of 2.8GHz, it will probably be too late.
Click to expand...
wow…just wow. That’s like saying the Itanium is like the Xeon. Cause it is not. Intel went back to the P6 core and heavily tweaked it. That’s why some have said that the Pentium-M is the best CPU that Intel ever made. The 40% increase in latency was inevitable, it’s the first time that Intel used the shared L2 cache. The way that it works is that if one core needs it, the other core will let them use it. It’s the first time that Intel used it. As time goes by, they will iron out the kinks; they have to because Conroe and Merom will use the shared L2 cache. Yonah is more of a transitory chip to bridge the gap between Dothan and Merom.
 
jebo_4jc said:
If people were really hoping for an X2 killer from Yonah, that's rediculous. You can't even get a dual core AMD laptop yet afaik, and even if you could it would be using a desktop kit. I have no plans to exploit yonah on a desktop, but I definitely want a XPS with a 7800gtx (or better) and a yonah.
Click to expand...

There are 940 based notebooks (I think Iwill makes one) that you could drop a 175 HE in. 2x1mb cache and 2.2GHz, with a 55W TDP. Lower TDP than mobile Athlon 64's.
 
robberbaron said:
There are 940 based notebooks (I think Iwill makes one) that you could drop a 175 HE in. 2x1mb cache and 2.2GHz, with a 55W TDP. Lower TDP than mobile Athlon 64's.
Click to expand...
but still high. remember: its not only the processor that has to have a low power consumption, its the chipset and wireless set too, which is why intel started pushing the whole centrino thing so hard.

my T23 gets 5 hours with two batteries, and the max TDP of the processor (which it has probably never hit) is 22w iirc. thats right on par with the Pentium-M chips, yet the Pentium-M centrino notebooks absoltly kill mine in battery life just cuase all the ohter crap consumes less power.

id be really interested to see this notebook youre speaking of, and what chipset it uses..
 
Hmmm... disappointments with the yonah... Against an X-2..... lol. For all of you who still think it's a disappointment, like what I had posted up before..... it isn't a disappointment when the yonah is a LAPTOP processor core and the X-2 is a DESKTOP processor........ you have to think differently. Laptops consume less power, and the components have to generate less heat. AMD could have jacked up that X-2 to produce as much heat as they wanted.... but the yonah can't unless it's on a desktop board. So the performance of a yonah is quite good. stop thinking that it could have beat the X-2... that amd processor is a high end DESKTOP processor. I'm quite glad that Intel can match x-2 performance in a laptop core =D Keep it up!!! :-D
 
StealthyFish said:
Hmmm... disappointments with the yonah... Against an X-2..... lol. For all of you who still think it's a disappointment, like what I had posted up before..... it isn't a disappointment when the yonah is a LAPTOP processor core and the X-2 is a DESKTOP processor........ you have to think differently. Laptops consume less power, and the components have to generate less heat. AMD could have jacked up that X-2 to produce as much heat as they wanted.... but the yonah can't unless it's on a desktop board. So the performance of a yonah is quite good. stop thinking that it could have beat the X-2... that amd processor is a high end DESKTOP processor. I'm quite glad that Intel can match x-2 performance in a laptop core =D Keep it up!!! :-D
Click to expand...

uh, dothan was a lap top proc too and whooped ass
 
sleepeeg3 said:
Closer to Netburst and quite a disappointment. Intel screwed up big time with Yonah. They had a killer chip in their hands and they blew it by adding additional latency. You can only hope those extra cycles allow it to clock well beyond AMD's top of the line, but with Opterons consistently starting to overclock to 3GHz on air, and DC chips capable of 2.8GHz, it will probably be too late.
Click to expand...

This coming from some one who'd more than likely never buy anything with an Intel tag on it. Please stick to the AMD side of the forum, less flames happen that way. One Dothan equals 10ns latency, two full core with two full Exe. Units would equal 20ns effectively. So Yonah cuts, not increases the latency. Now it did have a Crossbar or something to it's L2, it would be better. But is most certainly not as bad as two Dothans and is still lower than AMD 19ns is what I heard, but lower than 17ns if that's what everyone is going with as well.

sleepeeg3 said:
"...but Yonah is based on a mobile chip!" Yawn. :eek: ...and AMD64 architecture can be tweaked for similar low power performance (cough Turion), but do you think power consumption is a major concern to the average consumer? Negatory.
Click to expand...

For Laptops it is LOL! AMD has nothing tweaked like Yonah, Turion is a Single Core 90nm, not dual core 65nm, sheesh! To start with, you have to tweak an X2, not an Athlon64 like Turion.

Donnie27
 
arabdon1203 said:
uh, dothan was a lap top proc too and whooped ass
Click to expand...

Yup but Yonah stomps Dothan with MultiMedia apps. It sucked in General for all kinds of streaming apps. Yonah solves those problems.

Those most important issues with Yonah is PRICE POINT=P If it costs more than AMD Processors that perform anywhere near the same but cost much more, it will suck. If it costs less or similar, it will effective KILL AMD=P

Donnie27
 
Donnie27 said:
Yup but Yonah stomps Dothan with MultiMedia apps. It sucked in General for all kinds of streaming apps. Yonah solves those problems.

Those most important issues with Yonah is PRICE POINT=P If it costs more than AMD Processors that perform anywhere near the same but cost much more, it will suck. If it costs less or similar, it will effective KILL AMD=P

Donnie27
Click to expand...

lol lets not go overboard. but yes dothan is nice :D
 
Donnie27 said:
Yup but Yonah stomps Dothan with MultiMedia apps. It sucked in General for all kinds of streaming apps. Yonah solves those problems.

Those most important issues with Yonah is PRICE POINT=P If it costs more than AMD Processors that perform anywhere near the same but cost much more, it will suck. If it costs less or similar, it will effective KILL AMD=P

Donnie27
Click to expand...
The price structure on Yonah is different, it won't suck if it costs more then AMD's X2 or Turion 64 line as they aren't competitors anyway. Like it has been said this is a Laptop chip, to get the same performance with more battery life will cost you a premium, plus it's Intel which can get away with charging higher anyway. :p

2.17GHZ 637US
2.00GHZ 423US
1.83GHZ 294US
1.67GHZ 241US


AMD Opteron 170 367US
AMD Opteron 165 278US

AMD Athlon 64x2 3800+ 328US

AMD Turion 64x2 ???
 
Donnie27 said:
This coming from some one who'd more than likely never buy anything with an Intel tag on it. Please stick to the AMD side of the forum, less flames happen that way. One Dothan equals 10ns latency, two full core with two full Exe. Units would equal 20ns effectively. So Yonah cuts, not increases the latency. Now it did have a Crossbar or something to it's L2, it would be better. But is most certainly not as bad as two Dothans and is still lower than AMD 19ns is what I heard, but lower than 17ns if that's what everyone is going with as well.

...
Click to expand...

It doesn't work like that with the L2.

Yonah has higher L2 latency because of 2 reasons :

-shared cache creates the need for a much more complicated L2 cache controller capable to handle more tasks at the same time , prefetch mechanism , synchronize acceses and keep a detailed log on what core has got info x ...

-improved frequency headroom ...10 cycle L2 is very nice but is hard to scale with it....
 
savantu said:
It doesn't work like that with the L2.

Yonah has higher L2 latency because of 2 reasons :
Click to expand...
even if it did work that way, you cant just add latencies - each core would have a 10ns access time to their respective cache, not a 20ns overall access time.
 
lithium726 said:
even if it did work that way, you cant just add latencies - each core would have a 10ns access time to their respective cache , not a 20ns overall access time.
Click to expand...

Yeah , but the cache is shared...Guess what happens when both cores try to load the same info at the same time...:D

Frankly , altough the caches of Pentium M are impressive if you look at Itanium they're nowhere....

I mean 9MB L3 with 14 cycle acces time , the same as Yonahs' L2.
Altough it runs slower ( 1.66Ghz vs. 2.13 ) , that is impressive nonetheless.
 
Yeah , but the cache is shared...Guess what happens when both cores try to load the same info at the same time...:D
Click to expand...
well yes, but i was thinking he was talking about independing cache... anyway, the cache is shared but you still cant add it like that... each core is not going to have an independent controller for the cache, it would result in..bad things. the l2 cache latency, as you said, is most likely due to the crossbar and intelegent splitting of the cache that Yonah takes advantage of.

yes, but Itanium is far, far more expenisve... so they have leeway to put rather expensive cache on it :p
 
lithium726 said:
iddqd, Yonah, just like Banias and Dothan before it, is NOT P6... P6 died wtih the Tualatin. the Pentium-M Architechture, which does not actually have an "architechture name" (like netburst or p6) that i am aware if, IS a Hybrid of Netburst and P6, but is anything but a stright up incarnation of either of them. Yonah is in fact, if i understand correctly, closer to Merom than any Intel chip currently out. Merom will, of course, have more cool stuff built into it, but Yonah's got a lot of it already... with the most notable lacking feature being 64-bit extentions.
Click to expand...
Of course it's not P6 in a way that Pentium Pro is P6, but... well, it was designed from the ground-up at the Israeli Intel facility, and they chose to base it heavily off the already-successful Pentium III, so in essence, it's very close to P6. Strikingly so.

Now to address other posts that I've read and am too lazy to quote:

1. Intel didn't really "fuck up" the cache latency as some say. As you increace SRAM [cache] complexity, latency will have to go up, it's a basic fact of CE.

2. A shared L2 cache is obviously very complex. It is shared primarily in interests of load balancing, which I think is a better solution than give each core a dedicated L2 cache (so that one core may use up to 4Mb of L2 cache, when the other core is doing nothing)

3. The performance per watt ratio is indeed impressive.

4. But nobody cares about mobile performance. All my friends are using 1.6GHz Banias chips, if not something even slower. Myself, I use a 1.6GHz Dothan. Which most of the time runs at 600MHz.

5. Waiting to see Merom and the next-gen AMD tech... for now I'm happy with the hardware I already have.
 
iddqd said:
Of course it's not P6 in a way that Pentium Pro is P6, but... well, it was designed from the ground-up at the Israeli Intel facility, and they chose to base it heavily off the already-successful Pentium III, so in essence, it's very close to P6. Strikingly so.
Click to expand...
ah, ok, i thought you were saying that it was stright up P6. sorry, misunderstanding :)

i care about mobile performance :(

my T23 is just dog slow now... i cant hardly stand it anymore.
 
I think that's actually the slow hard drive. Even 7200rpm feels slow to me, but my parents have a 4200 in their machine, and it's ridiculously slow. Takes like 7 minutes to boot windows. Gah.
 
no, its the video chip.

drive is a 60gb 7k2.

thing chugs through photos like no other.

edit: im also unhappy with general snappiness and lack of prowess during image editing and audio encoding. i love SMP and hte idea of having it in a laptop rocks!
 
savantu said:
It doesn't work like that with the L2.

Yonah has higher L2 latency because of 2 reasons :

-shared cache creates the need for a much more complicated L2 cache controller capable to handle more tasks at the same time , prefetch mechanism , synchronize acceses and keep a detailed log on what core has got info x ...

-improved frequency headroom ...10 cycle L2 is very nice but is hard to scale with it....
Click to expand...

I'll say again, the damned controller itself causes a hit to performance more than the 14 cycle L2=P Single Threads vs. Multi Thread pretty much bares that out.

I didn't say two Dothans, I said if Yonah (one Package) was made up of two Full Dothans Cores. Then an off package Arbitration Logic (Controller) ala Smithfield would be needed and cause even more latency. You get a hit to performance just as Smithfield does and that's why Intel went and changed it for Presler. Yonah was already in the works. Again, Intel should have used a Crossbar or did like AMD and copied the hell out Alpha's Bus, Integrated controller and yada yada, as much as Possible. Hell, Intel owns the Alpha IP LOL!

The bitching about Shared Bus is like bitching about AGP 8X vs PCI-Express with older games. It's rare when that much bandwidth is needed. Then Intel would need to make an up coming 379 million transistor Processor about 400 million sheesh!

Yonah is built for Notebooks and then HTPC/Media Center PC, not as much for Games. Those area's where Yonah needed to improve over Dothan, it sure as hell did. The Streaming Benchmarks speak for themselves.

Last but not least, the only two real things that will matter for Yonah is; will it get full Desktop support and Price Point. I'm not disappointed in the Yonah's performance *if it cost less or the same as a 3800+ (same clockspeed). If it costs more, then I'm buying AMD=P It's just that simple.

Donnie27
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top