Q3'05 AMD Roadmap; DDR2 and New Sockets for AMD
by Kristopher Kubicki & Jarred Walton on July 21, 2005 1:47 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Mobile and Transportable Processors
AMD has been trailing in the mobile performance per Watt competition ever since Intel launched the Pentium M. While they have announced a name change to their Mobile Athlon 64 lineup, they still appear to be using a low power Athlon 64 derivative as opposed to something designed from the ground up for the mobile sector. The good news is that AMD's base designs are generally far less power hungry than Intel's Pentium 4, so a separate design isn't really required. Like Intel, AMD has three categories of mobile processors. First are the DTR models which are essentially just desktop parts put into a laptop, although they may run with slightly lower voltage requirements. The next level up the mobility scale is referred to as Transportable, and the power requirements are 62W or less. Finally, the true Mobile parts are classified as either 35W or 25W parts, with the 25W targeting the Thin and Light category of notebooks. The DTR processors can basically be any of the regular desktop parts, so we'll skip that segment and start with the Transportable chips.
| AMD Transportable Roadmap | ||||
| Processor | Core Name | Clock Speed | Socket | Launch Date |
| Athlon 64 4000+ | Newark | 2.6 GHz 1MB | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| Athlon 64 3700+ | Newark | 2.4 GHz 1MB | Socket 754 | Now |
| Athlon 64 3400+ | Newark | 2.2 GHz 1MB | Socket 754 | Now |
| Athlon 64 3200+ | Newark | 2.0 GHz 1MB | Socket 754 | Now |
| Athlon 64 3000+ | Newark | 1.8 GHz 1MB | Socket 754 | Now |
| Sempron 3600+ | Albany | 2.2 GHz 128K | Socket 754 | Q1'06 |
| Sempron 3400+ | Albany | 2.0 GHz 256K | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| Sempron 3300+ | Albany | 2.0 GHz 128K | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| Sempron 3300+ | Georgetown | 2.0 GHz 128K | Socket 754 | Now |
| Sempron 3100+ | Albany | 1.8 GHz 256K | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| Sempron 3100+ | Georgetown | 1.8 GHz 256K | Socket 754 | Now |
| Sempron 3000+ | Albany | 1.8 GHz 128K | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| Sempron 3000+ | Dublin/Georgetown | 1.8 GHz 128K | Socket 754 | Now |
| Sempron 2800+ | Dublin/Georgetown | 1.6 GHz 256K | Socket 754 | Now |
| Sempron 2600+ | Dublin/Georgetown | 1.6 GHz 128K | Socket 754 | Now |
At the high end of the Transportable segment are the Athlon 64 Mobile parts. All of these parts feature 1MB of L2 cache, and most have been available for some time. AMD has recently transitioned from the older 130nm Odessa core - basically a lower power version of the Clawhammer - to the 90nm SOI Newark core. The only new Mobile Athlon 64 part is the 4000+, which runs at the same clock speed as the FX-55 processor but only supports single channel memory. As virtually any socket 754 board should have no trouble supporting these mobile variants, 754 owners looking to upgrade for additional CPU performance might be interested in checking out these parts. The price is generally a bit higher, and a switch to socket 939 is probably the better course of action if you can manage it, but a change from the 1.8 GHz 512K 2800+ to the 4000+ would provide a substantial boost to performance.
The Mobile Sempron is also undergoing a change from the older Georgetown core to the new Albany core (and before Georgetown was the Dublin core). You might still see some of the older core versions out there, but the Albany core is the preferred model, as the 90nm SOI provides much better power and thermal characteristics. While the desktop Sempron parts are slated to get 64-bit support, the mobile parts will remain 32-bit only for the time being. To quote the roadmap, "AMD will introduce 64-bit enabled Mobile AMD Sempron only when it makes sense for our value notebook customers." In other words, most value notebooks ship with lower end components, so 64-bit addressing isn't going to be terribly important for a laptop with 256 or 512 MB of RAM.
In the future, the Mobile platform will also transition to DDR2 support, only the thin and light notebooks will use socket S1 rather than socket M2. S1 appears to mostly be targeting a smaller package size, as it will also be a dual-channel DDR2 platform with support for the security and virtualization enhancements. Two code names appear on the roadmap for S1 parts, the Taylor core will be a dual core Turion 64 processor with security and virtualization support while the Keene will be a single core part without Pacifica and Presidio technologies. For the full size notebooks and desktop replacements (DTR), M2 will be used and the Trinidad core bears the Mobile Athlon 64 moniker with specs identical to Windsor - though cache sizes could differ, we admit. That means dual core, dual-channel DDR2, and security plus virtualization technologies. A Mobile Sempron part based off of the Richmond core drops the virtualization support and runs on a single core. All of these DDR2 mobile parts are scheduled for a Q1'06 release. Having mentioned the Taylor core and Turion 64 brings us to the next group of mobile processors.
| AMD Turion 64 Roadmap | ||||
| Processor | Core Name | Clock Speed | Socket | Launch Date |
| MT-44 | Lancaster | 2.4 GHz 1MB | Socket 754 | ??? |
| ML-44 | Lancaster | 2.4 GHz 1MB | Socket 754 | Q4'05 |
| MT-42 | Lancaster | 2.4 GHz 512K | Socket 754 | Q1'06 |
| ML-42 | Lancaster | 2.4 GHz 512K | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| MT-40 | Lancaster | 2.2 GHz 1MB | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| ML-40 | Lancaster | 2.2 GHz 1MB | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| MT-37 | Lancaster | 2.0 GHz 1MB | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| ML-37 | Lancaster | 2.0 GHz 1MB | Socket 754 | Now |
| MT-34 | Lancaster | 1.8 GHz 1MB | Socket 754 | Now |
| ML-34 | Lancaster | 1.8 GHz 1MB | Socket 754 | Now |
| MT-32 | Lancaster | 1.8 GHz 512K | Socket 754 | Now |
| ML-32 | Lancaster | 1.8 GHz 512K | Socket 754 | Now |
| MT-30 | Lancaster | 1.6 GHz 1MB | Socket 754 | Now |
| ML-30 | Lancaster | 1.6 GHz 1MB | Socket 754 | Now |
| MT-28 | Lancaster | 1.6 GHz 512K | Socket 754 | ??? |
| ML-28 | Lancaster | 1.6 GHz 512K | Socket 754 | ??? |
We had a small article on the Turion 64 Launch, but there hasn't been a lot to say since then. OEMs haven't been quick to jump on the Turion bandwagon, though there are laptops with the processor available now. The Turion naming scheme is similar to that of the Opteron in that a two digit model indicates relative performance, with higher numbers being better. The second letter indicates suitability for mobile use, with "A" being less suitable and "Z" being ideal. On present models there are only two letters used, L and T, and they correlate to the typical maximum power requirements. "T" models have a maximum TDP of 25W while the "L" models have a maximum TDP of 35W. While both are higher than the 22W rating of Pentium M parts, the T variants ought to perform similarly with Cool n' Quiet enabled. As you can see in the table, the number designation at present is the same for similarly clocked Turion chips, though the T models (model Ts?) will cost more.
All of the Turion parts currently use the Lancaster core, which is a 1MB socket 754 part made on 90nm SOI. As we mentioned before, dual core Turion parts made with the Taylor core will move to socket S1 in mid 2006, competing against the dual core Yonah parts from Intel. Which part will actually be better is anyone's guess right now, as we expect both platforms to offer several improvements over current mobile parts. The one advantage that AMD does have is 64-bit support - we haven't heard anything about Yonah support EM64T yet, so we would guess that initial shipments will remain 32-bit. With Longhorn also scheduled to ship in 2006, the move to 64-bit applications may finally pick up steam in the mainstream market. Turion isn't the only low power processor AMD has, though, so let's take a look at the Thin and Light Sempron parts.
| AMD Low Power Mobile Sempron Roadmap | ||||
| Processor | Core Name | Clock Speed | Socket | Launch Date |
| Sempron 3400+ | Roma | 2.0 GHz 256K | Socket 754 | Q1'06 |
| Sempron 3300+ | Roma | 2.0 GHz 128K | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| Sempron 3100+ | Roma | 1.8 GHz 256K | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| Sempron 3100+ | Sonora | 1.8 GHz 256K | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| Sempron 3000+ | Roma | 1.8 GHz 128K | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| Sempron 3000+ | Sonora | 1.8 GHz 128K | Socket 754 | Now |
| Sempron 2800+ | Roma | 1.6 GHz 256K | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| Sempron 2800+ | Dublin/Sonora | 1.6 GHz 256K | Socket 754 | Now |
| Sempron 2600+ | Roma | 1.6 GHz 128K | Socket 754 | Q3'05 |
| Sempron 2600+ | Dublin | 1.6 GHz 128K | Socket 754 | Now |
All of the Thin and Light Semprons have a TDP of 25W, the same as the Turion MT chips. They also run on socket 754, like the Turion, though future parts will move to S1. Previous Mobile Sempron chips have used the Dublin and Sonora cores - mobile variants of the Newcastle and Paris desktop cores, respectively. The interesting thing is that the earlier Dublin-based Mobile Semprons used to bear the Athlon XP name, even though they were Athlon 64 derivatives since they ran on socket 754. AMD is now switching to the Roma core, which is the Mobile version of the Palermo core. It adds SSE3 support to the design, among other small tweaks. Most of the Roma chips should be available shortly, with the only new model being the Sempron 3400+ scheduled for early 2006.
There are a lot of overlapping code names and models in AMD's mobile sector, and to be honest we're not exactly sure what differences - if any - exist between the Turion Lancaster and the Mobile Athlon 64 Newark. They may be identical with the difference being binning, or there may be some small architectural tweaks that separate them. The same holds for the Albany vs. Roma and Georgetown vs. Sonora comparisons. But enough about mobile chips; let's get on to the last sector.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
51 Comments
View All Comments
Zebo - Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - link
Hehe I hear ya this new format is confusing to say the least.. I much prefered the "flat" version. :)Anyway isolating CPU power today is faily trivial to do since all modern CPU's are fed by the 12V 4 or 8 pin dedicated auxiliary power connector. For specfic methodology please look here: http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_venice/5.shtml">http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_venice/5.shtml
JarredWalton - Saturday, August 6, 2005 - link
SO the 4-pin ATX12V is *only* for the CPU and the CPU doesn't draw power from anything else? Damn, learn something new each day! I guess a clamp around the two +12V lines would be able to measure the current with moderate accuracy.KristopherKubicki - Sunday, July 24, 2005 - link
Zebo: We have one coming up... And yes; Turion can't compare to Pentium M per watt.Pentium M isn't worthwhile outside of mobility; and no one argues it's an awesome mobility chip. Turion is nice, but AMD has an incredibly long way to go to catch up in the mobile sector. Expect an AnandTech review in the near future, although it's going to have a desktop focus.
Kristopher
Zebo - Sunday, July 24, 2005 - link
"AMD has been trailing in the mobile performance per Watt competition ever since Intel launched the Pentium M. "How do you know? You refuse to do a turion notbook review. Actually it's been 6 months since you've done a moblie review what's up with that? I sent anand an email, never heard back from him.
Anyway lets look at someone who HAS done the legwork;) :P Albeit not anandtech high quality standards.. just a few synthetics and batt life similarly equiped.
http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/hardware/notebooks/0,...
I know Intel fans think the Pentium M is the second coming of christ but the numbers simply don't bear that out.. Turion, at least in acer form, is very competitive performance and battery wise with the Pentium M, indescerable really, and it's usually cheaper.
Like this sweet little MSI jobber... Purdy and only $700
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/print.php?cid...
.. it's about time for Anandtech to clear up the noise with a real review don't you think?....
JarredWalton - Saturday, July 23, 2005 - link
20 - The current is reported from the AMD specs listed in the roadmap. While there will certainly be parts that run at lower power output than the maximum we've listed, the highest performing parts will likely approach those values.Maybe someone with a better knowledge of electronics can verify this, but just because the socket can supply 80 Amps on current 939 boards doesn't mean the CPU has to use all 80 Amps, right? It's like a water pipe going to the house: it might provide enough water pressure to run all the sinks at once, but the individual sink may never use that much water.
Anyway, 80 A * 1.4V = 112W. Revision E 939 is as follows: X2 chips have a TDP of 110W, meaning they can use everything the socket provides. FX-939 can use 104W, and the single core chips are 89W. Revision C/D used higher voltages but lower Amps and had FX-55 at 104W, FX-53 and other single cores as 89W. 60A * 1.7V = 102W, roughly the value listed for FX-55. The 1.5V chips were 90W in comparison.
Finally, we have M2 parts slated to use 95A. 95A * 1.3V = 123.5W, indicating that the FX will use all the Amps available. X2 will remain at 110W, so it will either use less of the available Amperage or else it will run at lower voltages. Single core will be 104W, slightly lower than X2. These are all maximums, however, so the mid-range parts probably won't be any worse than current parts; it's AMD building for future parts - they have to make sure that all motherboards can supply the power required by the top chips.
Jeff7181 - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
Thanks for the response Jarred. Your response is accurate, but that doesn't explain this quote from the article.That's impossible unless the revision E San Diego's run on 1.125 volts. I understand 80A and 90W are "worst case scenario's." Still, it can't have a maximum amperage of 80 AND a maximum wattage of 90 because that means the voltage will NEVER be over 1.125 volts.
aldamon - Saturday, July 23, 2005 - link
With regards to your comments on the Newark 4000+:"As virtually any socket 754 board should have no trouble supporting these mobile variants, 754 owners looking to upgrade for additional CPU performance might be interested in checking out these parts."
My 8KDA3J won't support Newarks and as far as I can tell it's just a BIOS limitation. The 8KDA3+ is in the same predicament. It would be nice if Epox would make a effort to support ALL 754 CPUs for our older S754 boards. They're being stubborn so far.
PrinceGaz - Saturday, July 23, 2005 - link
#19 Jarred- you make some good points on whether the 4400+ is really a better buy than the 4200+. Yes I do intend to overclock as I'll be pairing whichever I go for up with a DFI mobo, and a Thermalright XP-90C heatsink (and suitable fan) which I've heard is one of the best coolers, and seeing what I can get out of it.The upcoming 3800+ is tempting as it should be a good bit cheaper, but I'm concerned that what they'll be are all the speed-binned rejects of both the Manchester and Toledo cored X2's that had very little headroom. The Toledo parts would have half the cache disabled of course, providing a further means for AMD to offload rejects with a fault in part of the cache (similar to what they did with .
I think I'll wait and see rather than possibly spend a small fortune on a 4400+ that overclocks no better than a part little more than half the price. Another month hardly matters as I'm not desperate, but it does seem a bit of a waste running my two new 1GB PC3200 CAS2 sticks on an old KT266A mobo at 138 FSB :)
Jeff7181 - Saturday, July 23, 2005 - link
Kristopher Kubicki & Jarred Walton... could you explain something to me?Watts = volts x amps
90 watt CPU running on 1.4 volts = 65 amps (90/1.4=~65)... how'd you get 80?????
JarredWalton - Friday, July 22, 2005 - link
13 - PrinceGaz, I realize that having more cache can be helpful, but in general is the $100 price increase worth the extra 4% performance for the X2 4400+? More importantly (if you're willing to overclock), it's probably $250 more than the X2 CPU that was mentioned above. and still only slightly faster. If I could get my hands on them, I'd like to try overclocking the 4200+ and 4400+. My instinct tells me the extra cache may reduce overclocking headroom a bit, making the two basically equal in performance.18 - I don't think DDR1 will dry up that quickly, so Q2'06 seems reasonable for DDR2. The 65nm parts from Intel are going to be the interesting competition. Pressler/Cedar Mill aren't too special, but Conroe/Merom could present a tought matchup for K8+DDR2. Unless K9 is coming out sooner rather than later, the new architecture from Intel may regain the performance crown for a while. Still, competition is good for us, so whatever happens happens. 200 MHz per quarter is going to be unlikely for a while, though. Some are saying we'll stay in the 2 to 4 GHz range for many many years and just add more cores.
As for DDR2/3 and FB-DIMM, while the base technology may be similar, I'd be surprised if the DIMMs are interchangeable. FB-DIMM is really targeting servers/workstations, where the current 2 DIMM per channel maximum memory is extremely limiting. It won't be quite as fast, but it should allow for 4 DIMMs per channel at least, and possibly more (?). Like registered vs. unbuffered DIMMs, the boards/chipsets/CPUs will either require FB-DIMM or not support it at all I think.