• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

[News]AMD Developing Intel Atom Rival

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Shiggity

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Location
Chicago, IL
8420_large_amd-bgacpu-slide.jpg


Intel and AMD have been fierce rivals for many years. Intel almost always had the upper hand over AMD until the launch of AMD's K8 architecture which saw the Sunnyvale, California-based company basking in the spotlight (and in enthusiast praise). Intel shoved AMD into the backseat with the launch of its Core architecture and AMD has been pretty much stuck in that position ever since. While AMD may be having problems tackling Intel in the high-end desktop and notebook markets, the company is looking to go toe-to-toe with Intel in the emerging Mobile Internet Device (MID) and netbooks/nettop market. Intel is currently having a lot of success with its Atom processor which will be in short supply until the end of Q3 2008.

AMD is countering with a low-power AMD64-based CPU design of its own according to leaked slides obtained by HEXUS. The unnamed processor features an integrated memory controller, 16-lane 800MHz HyperTransport link, 256KB of L2 cache, and a 1GHz core clock.

Considering that this new chip is to be used in low-power applications, power consumption is a critical talking point. Intel's Atom N270 -- the most popular Atom variant for netbooks -- features a 2.5W TDP at 1.6GHz. However, we can't forget the i945GSE Northbridge which adds another 4W -- more than the Atom processor itself.

AMD’s new processor, however, has an 8W TDP for the processor with its integrated Northbridge/memory controller at 1.0GHz. Although performance figures obviously aren't available at this time, it would be interesting to see how AMD's 1.0GHz processor would do against Intel's in-order 1.6GHz Atom N270.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12115



Go get 'em AMD ;)
 

AlabamaCajun

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Location
A Labyrinth
It don't got a name :p
Cool, we now have 4 in the ring!
Atom, Nano, Tegra and something AMD dreamed up late for the party. If the AMD ? is anything like Puma then it might just cut a niche!
 

ps2cho

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
AMD should have a HUGE advantage because ATI will be able to provide a better GPU chipset using less power than Intel's GMA900 or derivative.
 

Kuroimaho

Member
Joined
May 26, 2004
Location
Japan, Tokyo, Ueno.
With AMD having PICs like 3-4 years ago they should own that part of the market, unfortunately they never shipped them outside a few countries to protect their Athlons and maybe their relationship with Dell and friends.
 

Evilsizer

Senior Forum Spammer
Joined
Jun 6, 2002
ok what im i missing, atom 2.5watts? intel stated 2.3watts for the TDP but in any case. even if combine the TDP of NB and cpu. Atom is lower TDP then this namless chip...the only thing im worried about with this from amd. is they dont state 1 or 2 instructions per clock. i would hate to see this as a 1 per clock, would really suck in a way. If amd puts this on a M-ITX board, i will get one to play with. i wonder what gen "gpu" will they try to use. a older 2000's or x1k's..better be something that can keep up with NV's tegra with 720p/1080p decoding abilities. Intel shot them selves in the foot by not being able to support any HW decoding on the video chip...
 

The Coolest

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2001
There are two versions of Atom.
One with 4W (the N230) TDP and a lower power 2.5W TDP (N270).
Usually Intel TDP numbers aren't the maximum/peak power usage while AMD's are.
There are the Silverthorne CPU+IGP chipset combo but that's different, as they're strictly for MIDs and are not very cheap.

I think that AMD should've went with a system on a chip solution similar to nVidia, maybe it's harder technically but I believe that less chips equals less overall power usage and faster system with a smaller footprint...
 

AlabamaCajun

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Location
A Labyrinth
There are two versions of Atom.
One with 4W (the N230) TDP and a lower power 2.5W TDP (N270).
Usually Intel TDP numbers aren't the maximum/peak power usage while AMD's are.
There are the Silverthorne CPU+IGP chipset combo but that's different, as they're strictly for MIDs and are not very cheap.

I think that AMD should've went with a system on a chip solution similar to nVidia, maybe it's harder technically but I believe that less chips equals less overall power usage and faster system with a smaller footprint...

These will only use an external SB and GPU (SB and GPU may be combined?). From what I've seen, they will not have a NB style chipset since it does not have an FSB or PCI/PCIE support. As for Intel, they won't be able to to this until a Neha version and seeing the production headaches they keep having, it may be a while. Just a little extra time for AMD to coble one together and maybe a few ticks to spare before the ATOMic tock.

Why Intel uses cooked numbers is beyond me other than deception. Anything else you buy has it's peak or min numbers posted. PSU (max watts sustained), drives, (Min access time and RPMs). Electronic parts are posted with max Volt and Amps. Well, automobiles are like Intel, average City and Hwy MPG (yea, right, downhill behind a truck) but those are the Max attainable MPGs..
 
Last edited:
OP
Shiggity

Shiggity

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Location
Chicago, IL
A CPU with a cache that big and an ICM for only 8W is pretty impressive imo.

We'll see if those factors make up for the lower clockspeed.
 

Niku-Sama

Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
looks like a sempron. either way i hope their chipsets use the same or less power than the CPU, unlike the atom boards out now
 

AlabamaCajun

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Location
A Labyrinth
looks like a sempron. either way i hope their chipsets use the same or less power than the CPU, unlike the atom boards out now

More like a Lapron/Turion with a Puma Chipset which I think is a single integrates GFX/SB or is just a GPU. Move MATX boards use the PCIE controller to reside in, this one may be just the GPU. Chipsets on these new platforms shutdown when idle so look for some power sipping. See the release on Puma Lappys, impressive low power running.

If we can sink them and bump the speed to 2G then these might FOLD!
 

Particle

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Location
Kansas
ok what im i missing, atom 2.5watts? intel stated 2.3watts for the TDP but in any case. even if combine the TDP of NB and cpu. Atom is lower TDP then this namless chip

Your punctuation makes it seem like you think 2.5W is for the CPU + NB, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since the whole post is poorly punctuated.

6.5W vs 8W is not a lot of difference. I'm not sure why you think it's worth splitting hairs about.
 

Evilsizer

Senior Forum Spammer
Joined
Jun 6, 2002
Your punctuation makes it seem like you think 2.5W is for the CPU + NB, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since the whole post is poorly punctuated.

6.5W vs 8W is not a lot of difference. I'm not sure why you think it's worth splitting hairs about.

ok............. punctuation/english.......... major.... nazi.... Not everyone here did great in class for sentence structure. they are more worried about the kids passing the TAS test in TX schools. Blame the schools, not the person... Your the only one that didnt understand my post, so it must not be that bad.

Atom is the name of the cpu, unless you want to stick to codenames? The TDP for atom is what has already been said, in the first post they say the NB is 4watt TPD. making the combined TDP of Atom and the NB lower overall vs Amd's.
 
Last edited:

Particle

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Location
Kansas
The punctuation thing--that wasn't mean to be an insult. I am not a grammar nazi. I'm just communicating that it made me have to interpret your statement instead of taking it at face value. I wanted to throw that out there in case you read my reply and I had taken your statement wrong. Geeze, man.

<gangsta>Don't be hatin'.</gangsta>
 

Evilsizer

Senior Forum Spammer
Joined
Jun 6, 2002
ok, well sorry then but i have reread my post. it was clear i stated combining NB and CPU. that atoms TDP was lower still, maybe im lost how that isnt clear on in my post.

no worries then. :thup:
 

Kuroimaho

Member
Joined
May 26, 2004
Location
Japan, Tokyo, Ueno.
Why Intel uses cooked numbers is beyond me other than deception. Anything else you buy has it's peak or min numbers posted. PSU (max watts sustained), drives, (Min access time and RPMs). Electronic parts are posted with max Volt and Amps.

Good question especially since AMD does the same with their Barcs, but I doubt it really matters as I am sure the system builders know the min/max/average and besides a few of us not many cares but it wouldn't be so difficult to publish all these.

If I had to pick one I would say NV has the best solution, one chip design decodes HD vids and has enough cpu power to deal with everyday tasks, and they will sell these in millions.

On the other hand NV can grew the least among the 4 companies and they will loose due to the lack of X86 license. In a few years these chip will rival X2 performance with the same TDP, built in GPGUS decoding/encoding all the videos.
Right now AMD looks best for the future but it depends on how much can they benefit from ATI what else can they make the GPGU do.
 

AlabamaCajun

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Location
A Labyrinth
Kind of an AMD can't beat them and had to join them type scenario (speaking of TDP).
We really should be saying AMD? vs the Tegra. Atom is just a low TDP entry into the x86 Mobile market, AMD will be bringing a platform and NV with Terga brings (nonx86)-pc on a chip.
I actually applaud NV for a device that will no doubt cut a big niche. Maybe they can buy one Barc core from AMD and use it to emulate X86 and smoke the competition.