AMD Plans Simultaneous Desktop and Mobile Chip Releases

wh173b0y writes "Tom's Hardware reports that AMD is planning to release both it's dual-core desktop and mobile chips at the same time. This news comes after AMD, who have been fairly quiet since the release of the Athlon FX-55, came up shorter than intel on the release dates for it's dual-core processors. Intel on the other hand has been busy planning more than a dozen different chips to release as well as pressing its software designers to embrace its 64-bit architecture."

Eff pee?

I would like to see a chip that would work as both mobile AND desktop...

Moll.

Re:Eff pee?

I'd like to see a product that's a floor was AND a dessert topping. But it's only gonna happen on SNL.

There are much different tradeoffs that have to be made in chip design for low power vs. high performance.

Re:Eff pee?

I currently run a AMD Mobie 2600+ (forgot the wattage). The thing is great, overlocks easily (isn't clocked locked)and with pretty cheap, normal, quite cooling solutions. Not only that, but it also runs a lot cooler then the normal athlon XP which means yo

Maybe it's just me...

Isn't that kind of a bad strategy? I mean, won't they take away the attention from each other? I'd think it'd be better to make a spectacle of one, wait for people to invest interest in it, then, once the hype dies down, release the other to a similar effect. Won't this move minimize public attention?

Re:Maybe it's just me...

If they understood marketing, they'd be Intel.

Intel Recovers Fast

Intel, which shrugged off the idea of 64 CPU's a couple years ago, as something people didn't need, has made up for this gaffe and is not only getting ready to sell their dual core line, but have already indicated the run of the Pentium IV is soon to be ov

Re:Maybe it's just me...

The difference is that each brand of detergent is not stamped Proctor and Gamble (atleast not overtly). Most people have no idea that every single detergent on the shelf at the grocery store is made by the same company. Proctor and Gamble uses this very expensive strategy to insulate each brand from negative consumer perceptions AND to eat up shelf space ANONYMOUSLY. Does AMD plan to place their name on both chips? If so, the Detergent analogy does not apply. Sorry to be a punk, I'm taking a marketing class this semester.

What would I do with $1000?

Two cores at the same time.

News flash

Desknotes use the same processors as desktops, so of course they come out at the same time. And now that all the desktop chips have power management, the difference between "desktop" and "mobile" chips is very little.

Re:News flash

Well not exactly, my centrino notebook has a 75 watt power supply, for the WHOLE SYSTEM.

A high ghz P4 can use 1.5 x that JUST FOR THE MICROPROCESSOR. The power management on the P4 is just to keep your electricity bill down...

Arr.

"Intel on the other hand has been busy planning more than a dozen different chips to release as well as pressing its software designers to embrace its 64-bit architecture."

Good luck with that.

AMD already rules the x86 64-bit market. AMD chips are currently more power efficient and produce less heat (on average, let's not compare high efficiency chips to 'normal' chips on either side of the table). Not to mention, who needs dual core, when you can have eight eight-core Opterons*? Sixty-four cores! Mmmm, there's the beef.

It's so nice to see Intel trying desperately to catch up to AMD. ;) Insert quips about mighty falling, tables turning, et cetera.

* Yeah, yeah, they won't be here tomorrow. I can dream, damn it.

It is good we still have competition

It drives the market forward, forcing all parties to innovate.

But take a moment to think about the current software patent madness, and what would have happened if this had been the case with semiconductor patents in 1980. In this scenario we would be lucky if Intel announced that the 486 would hit the market next year.

If a company has a monopoly there is no incentive to innovate. Patents are monopolies, but they have to be balanced so the incentive to innovate is not taken away.

Re:It is good we still have competition

As far as I am aware, there's a patent minefield around these types of chips. The reason we have chips as advanced as they are is cross-licensing between Intel, Cyrix, and AMD, because all three (or AMD and Intel, at least) have important patents.

Correction

"..as well as pressing its software designers to embrace its 64-bit architecture."

Should read 'embrace AMD's architecture'.

How does it know?

How does the chip know which mode to run in? Probably a jumper.

Editing nazi

"We have still room to sclae the chip through 2005 and 2006 and expect the chip to be the best performing enthusiast and gaming processor," (sic) from article.

I wonder how one sclaes a chip through several years? ;)

Two questions:

When is the last time Intel met a release schedule?

When is the last time Intel failed to abandon at least a fourth of their in-development product line?

Intel anouncing a dozen different dual-core processors for a range of machines is a joke, and frankly isn't even very good hype. Even if I believed it, I wouldn't be impressed. You don't NEED 12 different lines. Make 5 and make them right: 1) Super low power notebook; 2) performance notebook; 3) main-stream desktop; 4) enthusiast-gamer desktop; 5) Hardcore teraflops. (Oh wait... this is Intel. Better skip that last one. They're not exactly known for putting their effort into general-purpose FPUs.)

Re:Two questions:

Sure. And I can order the 2.6GHz Opteron that tests out about the same there for $850 (It's the 252 in the test system). Best price I can find for an Itanium 2 1.5GHz is $6500. Yes, that's the CPU price.

So, yeh, as long as you don't mind spending 7 times as much, you can get the FPU performance out of Intel.

Intel have 12+ new chips on the drawing board

And AMD have a similar number.

- Faster Semprons
- Faster Athlon 64s
- Faster Athlon FXs
- Faster Athlon 64Ms
- Faster Opterons
- New Dual Core Opterons
- New Dual Core Athlon 64s
- New Dual Core Athlon 64Ms
- Upcoming 65nm Opterons (both single and dual core)
- Upcoming 65nm Athlon 64s (single, dual, FX)

And there are probably plans for Quad-core Opterons, etc, at 65nm, and so on.

Catch-22

Most have no use for dual cores and devs have no reason to implement support until their customers have them.

Re:Catch-22

I think in this case, it's much like 64-bit. If you build it, they will come. High end performance freaks like to have stuff like that. You can run Winamp and a game at the same time, or who knows what. It's not REALLY useful, but it's useful enough th

Re:Catch-22

Most have no use for dual cores and devs have no reason to implement support until their customers have them.

I don't agree that most people have no use for dual cores. Sure, most applications don't make use of them, but all modern operating systems are multi-tasking and the ability to have one CPU taking care of all of the common busywork while the other one is crunching on whatever your main task is does make a difference.

If you don't believe me, find a dual processor machine sometime and spend some time working on it. It's surprising how much smoother and more responsive it is -- often, a dual-processor machine *feels* faster than a single-processor machine with far more than twice the actual performance. I have a dual 500Mhz PII box that still surprises me every time I touch it. It feels faster than my 1.4 GHz Athlon and seems about as quick to respond as my Athlon64 3400+.

For common tasks, users will find they actually prefer two cores at 1 GHz over one core at 4 GHz. The dual-core machine will be cooler (and therefore quieter) and will often be more responsive, even though it will be much slower at straight-line CPU-bound tasks.

People will like these.

Eh... not really a big deal

Since its just AMD's desktop-replacement line of chips, its the same thing as if Intel putting Pentium Ds in DTR laptops. Besides, Tom's Hardware is the Fox News of tech news, heavily intel/nvidia biased.

Re:Dual core laptops?

keep your pants on. only one CPU core runs when on battery and most likely not even at full speed.

Re:Dual core laptops?

You better keep your pants on; otherwise you could end up with a nasty burn.