http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/ Engadget Comments for Athlon 64 2000+ at 8-watts outperforms, draws less energy than Atom http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/
lifes good once again xD]]>Aug 17th 2008 5:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/
Wow.

Surprising news to hear, but its all about marketshare. With everything small now appearing to use Atom, I doubt it will have any bearing on anything.

Not that I care. Gaming rigs all the way!]]>Aug 17th 2008 6:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/
OK.]]>Aug 17th 2008 6:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 7:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 8:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/
What perturbs me is that AMD seem to take a wait-and-see attitude on the emergence of a low-cost mobile platform (from a recent CNet piece) given its low margins. When you are a second banana, you have to take more risk than the market leader, and it seems to me that Intel is doing all leading in opening a new market.]]>Aug 17th 2008 8:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 9:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 11:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 11:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/

QUICK get ice for intels nuts.... AMD used the steel toe boots !

::chuckles::]]>Aug 17th 2008 5:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 6:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 7:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 20th 2008 4:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Although I don't know how cost efficient that would be, probably on the same range as Intels 900MHz CeleronM backstock pushing out with the first netbooks.
Also, is there any CPU that Atom outperforms, like really? (besides the old C7)]]>Aug 17th 2008 6:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/
Especially since it looks like the a new Macbook Air seems to be the expensive netbook Apple is getting in stores.]]>Aug 18th 2008 1:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/here comes eee 900A642000+ version]]>Aug 17th 2008 6:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/
btw can this be done to old amd 64 chips? (in motherboards where voltage and multiplier controls are present)

also they should have thrown in some tegra and some via nano stuff just so we can see the results across the board. ]]>Aug 17th 2008 6:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 7:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/
1. Wasn't the Atom supposed to be a CPU for Mobile Devices, like smart phones and the likes?
Isn't the AMD cpu MUCH larger?

2. What's the reason for the Atom outperforming the AMD in the CPU benchmarks, by far, and in the "real world" tests losing to it? Faster memory bus and so on, I guess, right?


]]>Aug 17th 2008 6:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/
2.It's because of HT. Atom benefits from it in multitasking - and looses in single threaded tests, like all of the examples, except of antivirus and winrar tests (which both has some optimization for multithreading...)]]>Aug 17th 2008 9:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 6:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 9:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 2:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/
I'd probably still prefer an AMD but I'm kinda leery of those benchmarks.]]>Aug 17th 2008 6:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/
The only real-life application where this comparison is relevant is in an HTPC where the slight advantage in performance per watt trumps the large disadvantages in size and cost.]]>Aug 17th 2008 6:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/The mobile version of atom uses half the power (2W vs 4W TDP for netbook vs desktop) and the mobile chipset of atom also draws a lot less power (5.5W vs 22W TDP for the netbook vs desktop variant). If they compared it to the atom in netbooks, as opposed to the desktop atom, athlon 64 will still lose probably.]]>Aug 17th 2008 6:45AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/
Comparing the Athlon 64 with the mobile Atom is comparing desktops with laptops. Of course the laptop will win in performance per watt. This comparison - two processors not built for mobile use - is fair, especially when factoring in AMD's superior chipset (AMD's six SATA ports to Intel's four, AMD's 12 USB 2 ports to Intel's 4, AMD's better 3D accelerator, AMD's H.264 acceleration, etc.)

Nobody but the Engadget commenters brought up MIDs. Of course the Atom is better for MIDs – no MID needs six SATA ports or 12 USB ports, or the space usage that comes with it. As long as Intel is posting the Atom for energy-efficient non-mobile single-core computing, it'll lose to the Athlon 64.]]>Aug 17th 2008 6:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/
Different applications require different processing capabilities. If AMD were innovating instead of trying to play catchup, they might look into using this info to make some different applications with their chips.]]>Aug 17th 2008 9:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 9:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 9:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/
Oh, wait! This is a 5-year old (or so) processor, with 5-year old tech and (oddly enough) 5-year old nomenclature. And it's spanking Intel's latest/greatest low-power processor, which is why something 5 years old is in the news today.

For the "OMFG it's effing HUGE" group: It's packaged for a desktop, but it's not like the packaging is dominated by the die size; these could be repackaged to fit Atom-sized packaging. Thing is, with practically no R&D, they can bring out an Atom-like contender, and with more R&D, they can plausibly stomp all Atom models, because they've got a core that (without even trying) comes out comparable.]]>Aug 17th 2008 10:45AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/
The XX00+ name doesn't say anything about the clock. My 6000+ doesn't have over 6ghz.]]>Aug 17th 2008 2:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/
What I'm talking about is called performance rating: http://ln2.us/9fe7bc

And your 6000+ has two cores running at 3Ghz, that's why it's called that way.

Next time try using that fantastic and mysterious tool called "Google".
]]>Aug 17th 2008 3:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 6:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/
pit?????? you mean put?

wow engadget let me write for you.]]>Aug 17th 2008 9:47AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/v. tr.
2. To set in direct opposition or competition: a war that pitted brother against brother.]]>Aug 17th 2008 9:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/
For example: The Galactic Civil War pitted the Rebel Alliance against the Galactic Empire.

Or: The Romans would frequently pit prisoners against animals for entertainment.]]>Aug 17th 2008 10:00AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 11:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 10:47AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/
Either way you look at it though, the verb the author was intending was not "put", nor should it have been.]]>Aug 17th 2008 12:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 12:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 6:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 10:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 9:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 2:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 6:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/
I think it's that whole "former fan" thing. Like ex-smokers that are even more brutal and annoying to smokers than people that have never had a cigarette in their life.... same thing. Ex-fans are the worst critics.

Logic does not apply here.]]>Aug 17th 2008 7:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 10:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 10:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/17/athlon-64-2000-at-8-watts-outperforms-draws-less-energy-than-a/Aug 17th 2008 8:34PM