Yonah article here on Anandtech

[Furen]

Originally posted by: dexvx
This is a preview article... while he did not say C/Q was on, I think its a given that Cool and Quiet is on for every test system. Without C/Q, the idle/load consumption delta is rather small.

I would assume that both speed step and cool and quiet are off, not on. The current draw delta for A64s is quite a bit higher than it is for Intel CPUs.

EDIT: Also, the Turion pretty much matches Dothan on power consumption. It has slightly higher consumption at load and slightly lower consumption at idle, if I remember correctly.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

Originally posted by: Furen

Originally posted by: dexvx
This is a preview article... while he did not say C/Q was on, I think its a given that Cool and Quiet is on for every test system. Without C/Q, the idle/load consumption delta is rather small.

I would assume that both speed step and cool and quiet are off, not on. The current draw delta for A64s is quite a bit higher than it is for Intel CPUs.

EDIT: Also, the Turion pretty much matches Dothan on power consumption. It has slightly higher consumption at load and slightly lower consumption at idle, if I remember correctly.

its the opposite way: Centrino consumes less under load while Turion has better idle power consumption.

nvm, thats what u said.. :/

 

[mamisano]

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley
There are a number of things wrong about these assumptions people make.

First, Microsoft is not moving towards "dropping 32-bit." Windows Vista has concurrent x86 and x64 builds. Most people will not be able to tell the difference. I have not read any mention of the next Microsoft Office being an x64 program either. Lack of 64-bit will be inconsequential for all but power users.

I did not state that Vista would not be both 32 and 64 bit. The fact of the matter is that Microsoft will start phasing out design of 32-bit apps, much like currently no one programs for 16-bit apps.

Yonah is due out in Q1, when do you think they are going to add 64-bit? Its not like the P4 when all they had to do was give the vendors the okay to enable P4 EMT, the 64-bit registers, etc are not Physically on the Yohah. So that means that either they wait for a Die shrink (2 years?) or move to a larger core to accomodate... Either way, don't expect Yonah to support 64-bit any time soon. Meanwhile, the move to 64-bit marches on.

I guess in the same token, then the next gen desktop chips from Intel should also NOT have 64-bit, as it is not "necessary"? Pretty lame excuse.

 

[carlosd]

For a part that will be avaliable whithin 6 months the performance is not impressive, but considering this is a mobile parte the numbers seems to be pretty good though not awesome.

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: dexvx

About Turion vs Dothan. Their performance is about the same, clock for clock. Except the Turion cannot keep up with the Dothan performance/watt ratio. Turions consume about 50% more power at load. Dothans have a much longer battery life compared to similarly equipped Turions.

Why people loves to ignore Turion MT line with 25W max TDP? The turion MT line CPUs consumes less power than similar performance dothan which consumes 27W at 75% load. At max loas Turion MT consumes 25W, at max load Dothan consumes about 34W!! I would say Dothan consumes about 30% more power than Turions MT at full load.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

but who really needs 64bit? i do not and most of the users neither. Most of us seem to use Windows and until Vista comes out thats not gonna change. It was a clever marketing strategy from AMD when they started advertising 64bit CPU three years ago, or 2, i dont remember. So today everyone has a 64bit CPUs but only the linux guys can use it.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

Originally posted by: carlosd

Originally posted by: dexvx

About Turion vs Dothan. Their performance is about the same, clock for clock. Except the Turion cannot keep up with the Dothan performance/watt ratio. Turions consume about 50% more power at load. Dothans have a much longer battery life compared to similarly equipped Turions.

Why people loves to ignore Turion MT line with 25W max TDP? The turion MT line CPUs consumes less power than similar performance dothan which consumes 27W at 75% load. At max loas Turion MT consumes 25W, at max load Dothan consumes about 34W!! I would say Dothan consumes about 30% more power than Turions MT at full load.

nah, there are enough benches that show its not true. they are very close and under heavy load dothan wins.

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: dexvx


For some reason I doubt the X200 alone is the reason why the Pentium-M dominates. The Turion has a higher TDP than the Pentium-M. But the integrated graphics is also a double-bladed sword... people here lament on how poor performing Intel is in 3d games. However, they fail to realize it is optimized for battery life.

Here you again
Turion MT CPUs: 25W max TDP
Dothan with similar performance: 27W intel TDP at 75% load = 34W max TDP

Turion has a higher TDP than dothan??? Specify, you are talking about the ML line, but you ignore the MTs.
Pentium M doesn't dominate anything except the market sharing.

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: BlingBlingArsch

Originally posted by: carlosd

Originally posted by: dexvx

About Turion vs Dothan. Their performance is about the same, clock for clock. Except the Turion cannot keep up with the Dothan performance/watt ratio. Turions consume about 50% more power at load. Dothans have a much longer battery life compared to similarly equipped Turions.

Why people loves to ignore Turion MT line with 25W max TDP? The turion MT line CPUs consumes less power than similar performance dothan which consumes 27W at 75% load. At max loas Turion MT consumes 25W, at max load Dothan consumes about 34W!! I would say Dothan consumes about 30% more power than Turions MT at full load.

nah, there are enough benches that show its not true. they are very close and under heavy load dothan wins.

where? show me those.
There are plenty of bechmarks showing Turion MTs notebooks having longer battery life than 27W dothans. Look carefully in the forum!

 

[Zebo]

I'm not even that impressed by it's system power consumption. 108 (yonah) vs 144 (same speed X2) .. The X2 is overvolted, for example I can run 2Ghz with only 1.15 instead of 1.4. The X2 uses high power nV chipsets, have you ever touched the HS? crazy hot.. The X2 uses higher current DDR. Will be very interesting next year when AMD makes moves twards notebook duallies/ddr2 to compete.

 

[Marmion]

New here but none-the-less been doing some research on Yonah and quite interested in it.
I think the preview shows me what I expected, a mobile processor that is competitive against desktop processors, whilst being viable for use in low profile, light weight laptops.
The problem that I see here, is that everyone expects to use it as a desktop processor, which it is not. They want it to perform like an Athlon X2 even though that is not it's competitor. It's competitor is the Turion X2, which won't make it out untill after Yonah is released.
What I suspect will hapen because it will come out before the Turion, it will already have a hold on the market, and therefore it will be difficult for the Turion X2 to prove itself. I'm not saying Turion will be better or not, only time will tell, I'm just saying that because of AMD's inability to match Intel in its launch, it could suffer in market share (plus Intel is a much bigger company and has the Centrino platform).

The 65nm vs 90nm thing is a null point IMO, M2 isn't coming out for a while, and by that time, Intel would be close to its next generation architecture. Keeping it in the mobile market, if the 90nm Turion X2s come out in March, it would'nt make sense, a couple of months later, to change to 65nm.

What I'm trying to get at, is that by the time AMD's Turion X2 65nm CPUs come out in volume, Intel would be either very close to, or at the stage whereby the can roll out their Merom CPUs which are reportedly going to consume a lot less power. So, the power consumption benefits that AMD gains from moving to the 65nm process are nullified by Intels Merom CPU. So, for the mobile market, Intel will have the more tempting proposition of low power consumption plus performance adequate for business work.

64bit? I don't see it being a huge deal for consumers at this stage untill Vista is well and truly established. I wouldn't buy a Turion just because its 64bit ready. Most Turions don't come with powerful enough graphics to run Vista anyway (in NZ anyway), apart from Acer Ferrari. Vista will come out in 32bit form anyway.

Battery life? Well I'm getting 4+ hours out of my laptop with just general surfing, wireless on full power. The key to this is to set the power scheme as 'Max Battery.' Intel Speedstep keeps the processor at 366Mhz as much as possible, going up to 797Mhz then onto 1.73Ghz if needed.
The problem I have with the preview power consumption figures is that the Motherboard probably doesn't support Speedstep. The reason why I supspect this is because of the similar load/idle figures.

Now for the overclocker wanting to put it onto the desktop; you won't need to put masses of money into water cooling the CPU because quite simply it doesn't produce the heat that an Athlon X2 or P4 does. At stock, it appears to be competitive with the 3800+ X2, so overclocked who knows? If the reviewer used 667Mhz DDR2 Ram it would've been more competitive I guess too.

Please don't flame me, I hope I have some valid points

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: linkgoron
Well, I wonder what Dothan or Intelia would say after seeing these benchmarks.

Anyway, I thought Yonah would own, and maybe wake up AMD, but nope...

Well it is a bit early to tell anything really - beta board, beta bios, unknown memory timings, cut memory speed@ only 533, etc - basically I'm waiting for future review. Also Anand seems to be relying on synthetics too much in this review - again I wait for real review with real product then we'll get a better picture... but you're right does'nt pwn anything.. The chip really to wait on is conroe though - not frozen into he power envelope Yonah is which hampers it big time like the cache slowdown, the clocks both CPU and MEM, and even missing some instuction sets.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: carlosd
Here you again
Turion MT CPUs: 25W max TDP
Dothan with similar performance: 27W intel TDP at 75% load = 34W max TDP

Turion has a higher TDP than dothan??? Specify, you are talking about the ML line, but you ignore the MTs.
Pentium M doesn't dominate anything except the market sharing.

Ok, answer me this question. If the "real" Dothan TDP is 35W, then how come the Dothan wins by over 50% on the battery life at load when comparing a similarily equipped Turion-ML (with a TDP of 30W)?

http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/detail.php?id=17&page=13

Your numbers are nice and daddy, but they are just synthetic marks of performance. There is far more to attribute to battery life than just raw TDP.

 

[mamisano]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: carlosd
Here you again
Turion MT CPUs: 25W max TDP
Dothan with similar performance: 27W intel TDP at 75% load = 34W max TDP

Turion has a higher TDP than dothan??? Specify, you are talking about the ML line, but you ignore the MTs.
Pentium M doesn't dominate anything except the market sharing.

Ok, answer me this question. If the "real" Dothan TDP is 35W, then how come the Dothan wins by over 50% on the battery life at load when comparing a similarily equipped Turion-ML (with a TDP of 30W)?

http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/detail.php?id=17&page=13

Your numbers are nice and daddy, but they are just synthetic marks of performance. There is far more to attribute to battery life than just raw TDP.

Did you even bother to read the rest of the article from your link??? In the updated testing, the Turion has slightly BETTER battery performance against the Dothan!

 

[Accord99]

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfis...on-64-Pentium-M-Asus-A6000-327%2f11%2f
With nearly identical laptops based on the Asus A6 series, a 2.2GHz Turion ML running cpuburn uses 84w at the wall (and also throttles), the P-M 2GHz uses 46w.
A 2GHz Turion ML running Doom 3 depletes its 71WHr battery in 57min, for an average power consumption of 74.7w, the P-M 2GHz does so in 96min, for an average power consumption of 44.4w.

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfis.../le-turion-dans-les-desktops/page4.php
The difference between fully stepped down underclocked/undervolted and full speed running cpubrun is 42w for the 2.2GHz Turion ML, 26w for the 2.2GHz Turion MT and 17w for the 2.13GHz P-M.

 

[Hacp]

amazing at the fud that is being passed around here. The Turion is below the Pentium M in battery life for typical use. People who say otherwise are stupid fanboys.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Hacp
The "domination" in battery life is due to the whole platform Put the celeron M with x200 graphics and see how well it does in terms of battery life

For some reason I doubt the X200 alone is the reason why the Pentium-M dominates. The Turion has a higher TDP than the Pentium-M. But the integrated graphics is also a double-bladed sword... people here lament on how poor performing Intel is in 3d games. However, they fail to realize it is optimized for battery life.

Originally posted by: Zap
Yes, I'm quite aware of the overclocking potential of the Dothan chips. However, A64 chips are capable of those speeds as well. Power draw would go up on both platforms.

No my point was that if you're putting the chip in a laptop, you are severely restricted in cooling options, and thus clock speed.

Originally posted by: Zap
I'm not implying anything. I asked, "did they take into account power saving features for the idle power draw?" I ask that because I wanted to know. The author of the article would know what settings he used more than either of us. Why would it be rediculous for an x2 CPU to draw 40W at idle? I don't know how much power a CPU draws at full MHz while idling. Do you? I don't think an A64 CPU would draw the same 89W at idle as at full load even if Cool and Quiet were turned off.

This is a preview article... while he did not say C/Q was on, I think its a given that Cool and Quiet is on for every test system. Without C/Q, the idle/load consumption delta is rather small.

I'm talking about celeron M here. The Celeron M doesn't downclock yet beats the sempron in the notebook benchies. This is due largely to the wireless/graphics card difference.Sempron should in theory beat the Celeron M, and does if the graphics cards are the same. As for Pentium m vs Turion in Blife, the Pentium M beats the Turion handily in terms of battery life for typical mobile usage, which is surfing the web and using office apps. Under full load all the time though, the battery life evens out.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Hacp
amazing at the fud that is being passed around here. The Turion is below the Pentium M in battery life for typical use. People who say otherwise are stupid fanboys.

Prove it...

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Accord99
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfis...on-64-Pentium-M-Asus-A6000-327%2f11%2f
With nearly identical laptops based on the Asus A6 series, a 2.2GHz Turion ML running cpuburn uses 84w at the wall (and also throttles), the P-M 2GHz uses 46w.
A 2GHz Turion ML running Doom 3 depletes its 71WHr battery in 57min, for an average power consumption of 74.7w, the P-M 2GHz does so in 96min, for an average power consumption of 44.4w.

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfis.../le-turion-dans-les-desktops/page4.php
The difference between fully stepped down underclocked/undervolted and full speed running cpubrun is 42w for the 2.2GHz Turion ML, 26w for the 2.2GHz Turion MT and 17w for the 2.13GHz P-M.

You say nearly identical...could you please list the exact specifications of each system and exactly what settings they are at? "Nearly" can be such a big place...

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: mamisano

Originally posted by: dexvx
Ok, answer me this question. If the "real" Dothan TDP is 35W, then how come the Dothan wins by over 50% on the battery life at load when comparing a similarily equipped Turion-ML (with a TDP of 30W)?

http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/detail.php?id=17&page=13

Your numbers are nice and daddy, but they are just synthetic marks of performance. There is far more to attribute to battery life than just raw TDP.

Did you even bother to read the rest of the article from your link??? In the updated testing, the Turion has slightly BETTER battery performance against the Dothan!

Umm... did you bother to read the review?

When both laptops are idle (doing NOTHING), the ML performs better. But at load, the Dothan fares much better. I buy a laptop to use, not to idle. If all you do is idle on battery with a laptop, then the ML will be the better choice for that particular brand.

Originally posted by: Hacp
I'm talking about celeron M here. The Celeron M doesn't downclock yet beats the sempron in the notebook benchies. This is due largely to the wireless/graphics card difference.Sempron should in theory beat the Celeron M, and does if the graphics cards are the same. As for Pentium m vs Turion in Blife, the Pentium M beats the Turion handily in terms of battery life for typical mobile usage, which is surfing the web and using office apps. Under full load all the time though, the battery life evens out.

I think you have it backwards; the Turion/Sempron beats the Dothan/Celeron-M at idle. It matches it at general usage (Celeron-M -> Sempron // Dothan -> Turion clock for clock). However, the Dothan/Celeron-M is better at full load. Celeron-M, with half its L2 disabled (which is a SIGNIFICANT amount of die size... somewhere around 1/3 the die size) has a TDP of 21W.

AFAIK, these are just extrapolations. It is very difficult to compare laptops like desktops because the delta of power consumption is so small some odd component could be the root cause of the delta. However, the Pentium-M // Celeron-M wins hands in the mobile department because they can offer a variety of products based on that design (whereas Turion is basically a handpicked quality A64 that is undervolted). There are LV and ULV Pentium-M's (1Ghz operating at 7W TDP) that can fit the ultra-small mobile department, something Turion does not have. And ultimately, that is the benefit of designing a package from the ground up as mobile.

The only effective way to test Turion vs Pentium-M is when an OEM produces the SAME SERIES of laptops but differing platforms. However, such an example is typically rare.

Originally posted by: Viditor
You say nearly identical...could you please list the exact specifications of each system and exactly what settings they are at? "Nearly" can be such a big place...

Its not possible to get identical. Chipset difference for one. Normally it wouldnt matter in a desktop environment (where the TDP is around 150-200W), but in a laptop environment, even a few watts can sway the battery life results. Oh and Wifi difference for two.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: Viditor
You say nearly identical...could you please list the exact specifications of each system and exactly what settings they are at? "Nearly" can be such a big place...

Same chassis, same cooling system, same video card, same HD, same amount of memory, they even used the same battery.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: Viditor
You say nearly identical...could you please list the exact specifications of each system and exactly what settings they are at? "Nearly" can be such a big place...

Same chassis, same cooling system, same video card, same HD, same amount of memory, they even used the same battery.

System Setup Link

CPU: Turion ML-40 (2.2Ghz) on a ?? vs P-M 760 (2Ghz) on a 915m / ich6m
Memory: Turion uses DDR while the P-M uses DDR-II, all 2x 512MB
HDD : same
Video : same
Screen: same
LAN: Turion uses 10/100 Realtek versus a Marvel 10/100/1000
Audio: Turion uses standard AC'97 versus HD Audio
Optical: same

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: dexvx
I think you have it backwards; the Turion/Sempron beats the Dothan/Celeron-M at idle..

I don't this is the case either. Dothan has idle power usage of ~1W @ 800Mhz/0.988v and even at 1.6GHz, 1.308v I get idle power usage of only a couple of watts. The laptoplogic's review of the 8104 is not representative of all Pentium-M based laptops, PC Magazine for example reviewed the Gateway M680XL which has a faster 2.13GHz P-M, has a 17" LCD and a 7200 rpm drive. In the same BatteryMark Life 2004 test, it lasted 5:11 on a 98WHr battery, average power consumption of 18.9W. The 8104 somehow used 24.9W. Or you can look at the laptoplogic's review of the Z60t vs the Turion based HP L2000. Despite a 2GHz P-M vs 1.6GHz Turion ML, the Z60t had better power usage in all three tests after normalizing for battery capacity (Z60t ~65Whr, L2000 ~48WHr).

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1814894,00.asp
http://www.laptoplogic.com/reviews/detail.php?id=87&part=full&page=9

 

[DrMrLordX]

I agree that this looks like a good notebook processor, but it's nothing special in the desktop realm. I am somewhat encouraged by the fact that some desktop boards will be supporting it, which could make it an interesting overclocker. Will Intel allow Yonah to perform well enough(either at stock or OCed) to compete with AMD desktop processors? Keep in mind that this would position Yonah as a direct competitor with Presler.

 

[stateofbeasley]

I don't know how much you read the front page of AnandTech, but it was all over the front pages at the end of August that Intel is moving to a new microarchitecture in Q3 '06. There's a new mobile core called Merom that is x64. It taped out last June and is up and running.

There will be no wait for a die shrink. Merom replaces Yonah at the high end 6-9 months after Yonah launches.

I try not to be exasperated with people on this forum, but I really really really think people need to know the manufacturer roadmaps before making arguments.

Originally posted by: mamisano
Yonah is due out in Q1, when do you think they are going to add 64-bit? Its not like the P4 when all they had to do was give the vendors the okay to enable P4 EMT, the 64-bit registers, etc are not Physically on the Yohah. So that means that either they wait for a Die shrink (2 years?) or move to a larger core to accomodate... Either way, don't expect Yonah to support 64-bit any time soon. Meanwhile, the move to 64-bit marches on.

I guess in the same token, then the next gen desktop chips from Intel should also NOT have 64-bit, as it is not "necessary"? Pretty lame excuse.