Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Portables Intel Hardware

First Intel Yonah Laptop Announced 271

Posted by CowboyNeal from the hot-off-the-presses dept.
Lam1969 writes "IDG News Service reports NEC will release its first laptop based on Intel's Yonah dual-core processor in the first quarter of 2006, for just under $2,000. According to AnandTech, Yonah performance is comparable to AMD Athlon 64 X2, and is more efficient than the AMD chip in terms of power consumption."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Intel Yonah Laptop Announced More

First Intel Yonah Laptop Announced

Comments Filter:

  • Great (Score:3, Funny)

    by Lifewish ( 724999 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @06:46PM (#14323265) Homepage Journal
    Where can I get this without Windows preinstalled?

    • Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The Lost Supertone ( 754279 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @06:48PM (#14323282) Journal
      From Apple after MacWorld San Francisco

      • More on that (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mnemonic_ ( 164550 ) <jamec.umich@edu> on Thursday December 22, 2005 @06:54PM (#14323321) Homepage Journal

        "Reliable sources have further confirmed recently to Think Secret that new iBooks and Mac minis--as well as iPod shuffles--will debut at Macworld Expo San Francisco next month. Apple's new Mac mini and iBook are expected to be among the first--if not the first--systems to feature Intel's new mobile processor, code-named Yonah. [thinksecret.com]"
        • Wouldn't it make sense to base the powerbooks and powermacs on intel chips? They are alot faster than the 1999 era G4's? I am aware professionals use specific software still for the powerpc but Apple would lose a ton of sales.

          Someone like me would laugh and get the ibook with the faster processor than purchase a powerbook. I dont care about the hideff screen and damn the pentiumM would smoke anything by Motorrola away. Not ot mention I could run windows on it and run my win32 software if needed.

          • Re:More on that (Score:3, Informative)

            by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 )
            Uhhh. Powermacs don't use G4s anymore. Nor do the iMacs.

            Both of those lines use the IBM 64bit G5 chip.

            • Re:More on that (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Billly Gates ( 198444 )
              I'm bad. I was thinking of the current powerbooks actually since I would be buying a laptop.

              but hell if Apple is dumb enough to price the low end macs with the hot fast chip then I will buy one dammit! :-)

              I don't need dual core but it would be nice. My guess is apple would disable one of the cores for their I-lines.
              • Even if the ibook is faster with the new chip, it would be dumb for apple to upgrade high end first. The OS and software aren't ready. As buggy as 10.4 is on a ppc, i doubt the intel build is going to be very stable at first. They need some patches on it before i buy a new mac with an intel chip.

                • Re:More on that (Score:3, Interesting)

                  by Golias ( 176380 )
                  As buggy as 10.4 is on a ppc

                  *boggle*

                  10.4 on PPC Macs is perhaps the least-buggy OS it has ever been my pleasure to witness. I've got multiple systems running it, and have yet to see a crash, either on my systems or anybody else's.

                  If you consider it "buggy", what is your other computer that does better? An abacus!?
          • There isn't a lot of professional intel OS-X software to take advantage of the new platform yet would be my guess...

            • Re:More on that (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Guspaz ( 556486 )
              A lack of support for a platform that doesn't currently exist in retail isn't exactly a big deal. Besides, Rosetta (a rebranded version of Transitive's incredibly impressive QuickTransit emulator) has made big gains over the past few months, and it isn't even out in retail yet.

              Sure, some apps are not going to run incredibly well under Rosetta, but when you consider that we're talking about going from a slow single-core G4 (first Mactels will be notebooks, it seems) to a speedy dual-core Yonah, I think that
              • This would be very similar to what happened to legacy 680x0 apps when the first-gen Power Macs appeared on the scene - a 680x0 app would run much slower than a native PPC-compiled version, but because the PPC 601s had clock speeds that were twice that of the fastest 68040, most apps still ran faster on a Power Mac 6100 than they did on a Quadra 950. The exceptions were mostly 3D rendering apps, as the emulator didn't emulate the 040's FPU.

          • Re:More on that (Score:2, Interesting)

            by NixLuver ( 693391 )
            I know someone already pointed out that your objection about the powerBOOKS is at least reasonable, although "smoke" is subjective and, actually, blatantly inaccurate as stated - A $2500 X86 laptop is probably faster than my 17" Powerbook. However, I have to point out that there is nothing in the X86 worldview that will beat the Powermacs, dollar-for-MIP. Particularly the $3200 Quad (dual dual core) 64 bit G5 PowerMac. It's also fairly difficult to beat the iMac (although it can be matched) G5's dollar-for
            • "It's also fairly difficult to beat the iMac (although it can be matched) G5's dollar-for-mip, at $1700 for a 64 bit machine with a 20" wide-screen LCD included."

              What if I never want to put more than 4GB of RAM in it (and therefore only need 32 bits), and already have monitors? Then it's really easy to beat it.

              I can't wait for Intel PowerBooks, though.
              • What if I never want to put more than 4GB of RAM in it (and therefore only need 32 bits)

                [gates]
                After all, 4 GB should be enough for anybody.
                [/gates]

        • It makes more sense to differentiate the two by giving PowerBooks the dual-core, with iBooks getting the upcoming single-core Yonah. And that'd certainly go a long ways towards keeping the iBooks cheap.

          If this NEC is supposed to be $2k, that strongly suggests a dual-core mac notebook would be well out of the iBook price range, but right in line with PowerBook prices.

          Powerbooks were upgraded recently, but it was a pretty meager bump.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fermion ( 181285 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @08:02PM (#14323749) Homepage Journal
        Although I am really bummed that the Mac is going to hobbled by a legacy processor with legacy hacks, I think we will have fun playing the game of who has the computer with more value. As has often been suggested, when comparing major vendor to major vendor, Apple has never really been overpriced.

        Take this for instance. The NEC machine is 2000, with 512Mb, 100 Gig, 14 inch screen, and the other bells a whistles n would expect. The only real weakness is that it priced with XP toy, so it will cost $150 to get the pro version. Why anyone would sell a $2000 machine with XP home is beyond me.

        OTOH, a current mac with similar specs is also $2000. When Apple moves to intel, we can assume that they will stay with these similar specs and similar price. Therefore we can expect to get a Mac, possible with a bigger screen, but smaller hard disk, not to mention built in Airport, for the same money. To make matters better, the extra $150 goes a long way to putting 1 gig RAM in slot A, which leaves the other slot free for an additional gig. And of course lets not forget that XCode and WebObjects are now free.

        I am sure we will see Dell undercut the price with tricks such as rebates and the XP Home maneuver, but in the end list prices for the MS Window machines are sure to continue to be higher.

  • Yonah? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 22, 2005 @06:48PM (#14323277)
    Oh yeah ebonics. As in "Yonah need alot a dough to buy one."

  • Yawn (Score:2, Insightful)

    by superpulpsicle ( 533373 )
    What is clear is that even when AMD had the superior product, it didn't gain massive market share. So same shit different day. At the end all the oems flock to the company that can mass manufacture.

    • Re:Yawn (Score:2, Informative)

      by Eightyford ( 893696 )
      I agree with you about AMD's technical superiority, but the Pentium M was, and is an excellent product. The 1.3 ghz Centrino I bought 2 1/2 years ago is holding up better than any of the other computers I've purchased.
    • What is clear is that even when AMD had the superior product, it didn't gain massive market share. So same shit different day. At the end all the oems flock to the company that can mass manufacture.

      What it seems is that the OEMs will go with the company who can mass spin. "Yonah performance is comparable to AMD Athlon 64 X2, and is more efficient than the AMD chip in terms of power consumption.". Yeah right, please. Yonah is a 32 bit chip. There is no way in hell it can approach the performance of a 64 bit
      • You might be right, but the benchmarks do seem to indicate that this is a fair statement to make. Do you have any benchmarks, tests or information to the contrary?
      • 32-bit datapaths will always be faster than 64-bit datapaths! If you aren't addressing more than 4GB of RAM and don't need 64-bit arithmetic, then a 32-bit processor can definitely be faster than a 64-bit.

        Then there is cache footprints. 32-bit code will pack more tightly into caches resulting in higher performance.

        • Re:The company that can mass spin (Score:5, Funny)

          by carlislematthew ( 726846 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @07:56PM (#14323708)
          But 64 bit is TWICE as many bits. Therefore is is TWICE as good, and TWICE the speed.

          You must have a 32 bit brain or something...

        • '' 32-bit datapaths will always be faster than 64-bit datapaths! If you aren't addressing more than 4GB of RAM and don't need 64-bit arithmetic, then a 32-bit processor can definitely be faster than a 64-bit.

          Then there is cache footprints. 32-bit code will pack more tightly into caches resulting in higher performance. ''

          How many addressable integer registers and MMX registers does an x86 chip in 32 bit mode have?
          How many addressable integer registers and MMX registers does an x86 chip in 64 bit mode have?

          An

          • x86 chips in 64 bit mode run quite a bit faster for reasons that have nothing to do with 64 bitness at all. The instruction set has been changed to give access to twice as many registers, and that gives 15 to 20 percent more speed.

            You make a good point, but register fills/spills are not the bottleneck in most apps. Amdahl's Law.

        • Not exactly like that, although there is a lot of truth in what you said. Where you where wrong? Nowhere. Better question is "What you forgot to mention".

          A lot of code consists with memory block moving (and those are the most time cunsuming parts usualy too). This happens a lot faster on 64-bit (register is larger and you move larger block in one cycle). Every time you move or reallocate memory. For example, string functions are mostly this kind of logic. Then another one it is mapping one bitmap over anoth
          • Memory copying will be memory-bound. It doesn't matter if the register holds 64-bits or 32-bits. You are bound by the DRAM bandwidth which is completely independent of whether or not the ISA is 32-bit or 64-bit.

      • You can tell that to all the ultrasparc3's sitting in the corner of my old office's basement. Oh yeah, and my dreamcast, too.

  • As for the laptop itself (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FireballX301 ( 766274 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @06:49PM (#14323294) Journal
    Other than the newfangled dual core processor everything else is kinda marginal. XP Home? 512 mb? Not for 2000 USD.

    As a serious question though, who's going to be doing renders and such where dual cores really shine, on a laptop? Can anyone tell me applications of dual core for a on-the-go computer?

    • applications of dual core for a on-the-go (Score:5, Funny)

      by fredistheking ( 464407 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @06:55PM (#14323329)
      personal heating device?

    • Re:As for the laptop itself (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @06:58PM (#14323346) Journal
      NEC said the LR900 will be based on Windows XP Home Edition, come with 512MB of main memory and a 100GB hard-disk drive. It will have a 14.1-in. LCD, DVD Super Multi drive (DVD-R/+R, DVD-RAM, DVD-RW/+RW), 802.11a/b/g Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. The machine will weigh about 2 kilograms, and the battery will provide enough power to last about four hours.

      NEC intends to put the machine on sale sometime in 2006 for around $1,945 in its basic configuration

      This isn't a laptop, it's a desktop replacement.

      I wonder about the small monitor, RAM and XP Home though. I guess you have to make some compromises to keep the $$$$ down.

      • This isn't a laptop, it's a desktop replacement.

        For that price and those crappy ram/hd/lcd specs, I'll stick with my current desktop.

        • For that price and those crappy ram/hd/lcd specs, I'll stick with my current desktop.

          And you'll probably be sticking in one place too.

          • Considering that the poster I was replying to said they felt the target market wasn't "laptop" but "desktop replacement", yep.

            This isn't a laptop, it's a desktop replacement.

            Its overpriced and underpowered.

            Computers are all over the place. I can access my data from anywhere. Why should I have to settle for a cruddy, overpriced "desktop replacement" that has much less drive space (I've got 2/3 of a terrabyte) and much less display space (I'm using dual 19-inchers) running a much less capable OS (I'm

      • This isn't a laptop, it's a desktop replacement.

        Unless it has a 7,200rpm hard drive in it - I doubt it does - then it's absolutely nowhere near being a desktop replacement. As far as my experience with laptops/desktops goes, the biggest reason for a "slow" laptop has nothing to do with the CPU - it's all disk-bound and the hard drive is the major limiting factor.

        • That is something I can agree with. I have a 15k scsi in my other puter and goddamn does that system fly.

          I imagine that the laptop they're talking about is the baseline model.

          Undoubtedly you can add another $1,000 worth of options to add RAM, speed up the HD, get a bigger monitor, better video card(?), super long life battery...
          you know what i mean.

      • defintion time? (Score:3, Informative)

        by imsabbel ( 611519 )
        Since when are 2kg and >4h battery time laptops desktop replacement parts?

        Last time i looked, those used desktop cpus, were >3Kg and usually run about an hour...
      • This isn't a laptop, it's a desktop replacement.

        How do you figure that? You point out the lack of RAM and monitor yourself? Sure, a 100 GB disk is a lot (didn't know that 2.5" went that high), but the rest is pretty standard for a laptop. 512 MB RAM is not enough if you ever come near, say, the Eclipse IDE. The fact that the optical drive reads and writes pretty much everything that size and shape of a CD is just a question of a chip and a laser-LED (which are just more expensive, not heavier or more powerc
      • Under 5 pounds with a 14" screen is not a desktop replacement, it is a thin and light laptop.

        A 7 or 8 pound beast with a 17" screen is a desktop replacement.
    • I work for a company that produces software for radiation simulation for oncology. We need as much power as possible for our apps. Right now we run our systems on dual-package dual-core AMD systems. Laptop solutions are important because many of our users work at multiple clinics and have to take their planning solutions on the road.

      So we'll be buying some of these just about the instant they come out.

      • Also, every software developer (or gentoo user :) will immediately benefit from multiple cores. make -j2.

        Actually I'd bet that within the useful lifetime of a laptop bought now (about 3 years), almost all performance-sensitive apps will benefit from multiple cores, because they're quickly becoming standard equipment.

    • Re:As for the laptop itself (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @07:05PM (#14323396)
      As a serious question though, who's going to be doing renders and such where dual cores really shine, on a laptop? Can anyone tell me applications of dual core for a on-the-go computer?


      Many people don't want PC Towers of any size anymore, they'd rather have a notebook. Just like they don't want CRT montiors vs. LCD. Or normal CRT TVs vs. Plasma. Etcetera. For many reasons - aesthetics. It's easier to move (Americans move an average of every 7 years). It takes up less space, for a cramped apartment or just to dispose of (something Europeans think a lot about in both cases).

      Thus, the notebook isn't a on-the-go computer anymore (Why pay for 2 computer systems anyway if you aren't a gamer, etcetera.) It's the main computer. This is reinforced by the fact that notebook sales exceeded PC sales for the first time this year.

      BTW, dual-cores aren't only handy for rendering. They are handy for responsiveness, it's most obvious when a process hogs the CPU and makes everything else slow to a crawl - including but not only when trying to kill said process if it turns into a zombie. On a dual-core, that's not a problem.
      • ...when trying to kill said process if it turns into a zombie

        What you really need are multi-threaded zombie processes!

      • BTW, dual-cores aren't only handy for rendering. They are handy for responsiveness, it's most obvious when a process hogs the CPU and makes everything else slow to a crawl - including but not only when trying to kill said process if it turns into a zombie. On a dual-core, that's not a problem.

        I agree with you. When I had a dual 2GHz G5, I would periodically notice that the fans would slowly ramp up to full speed. I could open a terminal and notice that one of the processes had gone postal and was at 1

    • As a serious question though, who's going to be doing renders and such where dual cores really shine, on a laptop?

      Dual cores (like dual processors) start to shine as soon as you're doing any sort of interactive multitasking. For people using their laptop as a full time machine, that's important.

    • Final Cut Pro, on a PowerBook, in the field, while filming "Lord of the Rings".
    • "Can anyone tell me applications of dual core for a on-the-go computer?"

      Running any multitasking OS (such as Windows).
    • As a serious question though, who's going to be doing renders and such where dual cores really shine, on a laptop?
      Just remove "on a laptop" from your sentence and re-read it.

      If laptops were ever limited to certain applications, they sure aren't now.

    • >> Can anyone tell me applications of dual core for a on-the-go computer?

      The Yonah core does not have SMT (a.k.a. Hyperthreading). So having 2 cores will allow you to run 2 simulataneous threads of execution and will make your computer feel more responsive.
    • "...who's going to be doing renders and such where dual cores really shine, on a laptop?"

      I give talks with my laptop, usually about some sort of algorithm, and usually with an implementation. I would love a faster computer. I currently use a 12" 1GHz iBook, which is slow, athough it has great battery life for the weight. Before you ask: I need some sort of unix and I don't want to piss around trying to get wireless or sleep mode or whatever working, only to find out it will never work under Linux.
    • As a serious question though, who's going to be doing renders and such where dual cores really shine, on a laptop? Can anyone tell me applications of dual core for a on-the-go computer?

      Hired content creation guns who are flown across the country to kick ass and save deadlines.

  • Where's the battery backpack ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Gopal.V ( 532678 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @06:52PM (#14323306) Homepage Journal
    What about the memory controller, are they adding the power consumption of that to the CPU - to be properly compared to the integrated system that AMD X2 uses ?.

    A dual-core laptop processor sounds overkill. For me a laptop is merely a shell terminal to log-in to some other box.

    Anyway, good to see Intel go back to the original P3 designs with all this. P4 really sucks totally - hyperthreading or no hyperthreading.
    • For me a laptop is merely a shell terminal to log-in to some other box

      So it doesn't sound like you'll be needing to upgrade then. A five year old laptop would work fine for that application. Some people, though, actualy do work on their laptop.
    • The whole thing seems like crap to me, it's marginally better than the single core one due to a 40% more latency of the memory controller, and yes, it uses less power than the X2, hurray? To bad they aren't comparing to an AMD mobile cpu but a desktop one. A dual core Turion would probably own this one.
    • What about the memory controller, are they adding the power consumption of that to the CPU - to be properly compared to the integrated system that AMD X2 uses ?.

      Parent and moderators, RTFA. The power comparisons [anandtech.com] in the original article are for total system power consumption. Quote:

      In fact, a 2.0GHz Yonah under 100% load consumes less power than an Athlon 64 X2 3800+ at idle.

      Note that these figures are for desktop systems using these chips. Properly engineered laptops using these chips will have lower v

    • "A dual-core laptop processor sounds overkill"

      "A 1 Ghz laptop processor sounds overkill to me"

      "A 2 Ghz laptop processor sounds overkill to me" ...

      BTW, IIRC from some AMD slides 15% of the performance gains of opteron were due to the inclusion of the in-die memory controller. It'd be really interesting what'd happen if intel would add such in-die controller too
    • If it weren't for the P4, a processor like Yonah would never exist (at least, in the form it currently is in).

      The whole PM line draws heavily on technologies that were invented and used in the Pentium 4 since the Williamette series. Even hyperthreading, a technology that IMO is too far ahead of its time to be useful, had its merits. Things like micro-op fusion, advanced cache logic, some of the most advanced branch predictors in the history of modern computing, these are all directly attributable to the

      • As for them going back to the Pentium 3's P6 archetecture; I personally think it's a saddening defeat, not only for Intel, but for us consumers as well. It means that the Pentium 4 simply didn't work, and that in order for computers to get faster, they have to become more effecient. This means no longer can we take it for granted that we can simply turn up the clockrate and expect more performance, at least, not without cooking our expensive new processors. It means that we've entered a whole new era of com

  • desktop, anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @06:52PM (#14323309) Homepage
    So when are these available on desktop machines? It's gonna be hard to pitch buying a laptop instead of a workstation to the IT manager.

  • Less Power Consumption then AMD X2 a desktop CPU (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fallen Kell ( 165468 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @06:59PM (#14323350)
    Come one guys. I sure wouldn't be flaunting the it consumes less power then the AMD X2 spec too much. You are compairing a "MOBILE" CPU core against a "DESKTOP" CPU core. The only reason Anandtech used the AMD X2 as the benchmark and not the mobile Turion CPU is because the dual core Turion CPU's are not out yet, so comparing the performance of the Yonah dual core system against a single core just didn't make sense. Its like saying that a cellphone CPU uses less power then a laptop CPU.
  • So like a newbie I decided to click and read the article. I saw about 10 cookies try to set themselves, and about 6 ads, but for the life of me I cannot find the article. I am sure it was somewhere around there in the flash and car ad, but where? Do I go on a treasure hunt and look for it? Or do I decide that Anandtech is just another place that is not worthwhile to visit.

  • I can't wait for Macworld (Score:4, Funny)

    by ducomputergeek ( 595742 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @07:32PM (#14323552)
    I'm going to Law School this fall and will be looking to replace my G3 iBook. Dual core anything will be a little overkill, but I do a bit of hobby work in Blender 3D (www.blender.org) so that should help. You you imagine an Xgrid of these things? (no apologies to the Beowolf crowd)

  • Question (Score:2, Interesting)

    by adachan ( 543372 )
    Maybe I am wrong, but shouldn't laptop CPU use less power than a desktop CPU? Why is this comparison being made?
    • The question you should be asking is, "Shouldn't a desktop CPU be more powerful than a laptop CPU?"

      The comparison is being made because the Yonah is roughly equivalent to an Athlon X2 in performance while consuming less power.

      Put another way, the Athlon X2 is not more powerful; Intel's performance deficit has been corrected, and we now await a DESKTOP variation of a Yonah with comparable power consumption to an Athlon X2.
    • Let me lay it out for you: this is a desktop system that supports the Pentium M [shuttle.com] (Dothan). It has a 220W power supply, while my 8-year old Pentium 2 450MHz system has a 200W PSU. With that 220W and a 2GHz Pentium M, you could also run a 160GB 7200RPM hard drive, a Geforce 7800GT and an optical drive. Now imagine taking that to the next level; the Yonah is the basically a dual-core version of the Dothan. How many laptop CPUs can power a desktop workstation with half the energy requirements? Not many.

      Anan
      • Allow me to expand on this. People might question Intel's motives with "performance per watt" instead of pure megahertz. In the consumer market, it is a bit more confusing (although I'll bet it helps silent PC's move into the mainstream). In the server market, it's critical.

        Right now, the best datacenters being built have power and cooling capacity for 110W/sq ft, maximum. A standard 19" rack with proper allowances for cooling, access, etc takes anywhere from 20 to 25 square feet (let's use the 25 sq ft num
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • This is NOT a 64-bit CPU! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 22, 2005 @07:59PM (#14323723)
    So how does Yonah's performance compare to the AMD Athlon 64 X2 running AMD64/EM64T software? Yonah can't even run it. That doesn't sound faster to me.

    Read about the benefits Intel ascribes to 64-bit software here [intel.com]. "Processors with Intel EM64T support 64-bit capable operating systems from Microsoft, Red Hat and SuSE." And you won't be able to run them.

    There are some applications where a 64-bit CPU can perform FOUR TIMES more work in 64-bit mode than 32-bit mode. One of these is big integer multiplication. Check out Is 32 bits really better than 64?" [swox.com]: "If we instead would compare an Athlon XP and an Athlon 64, the latter would be almost 4 times faster. Why 4 times and not just 2 times? Because a 64x64=>128 bit integer multiplication actually performs 4 times more work than a 32x32=>64 bit integer multiplication!"

    If you want a low power 64-bit CPU consider an AMD Turion based notebook. Check out this [laptoplogic.com] article and its conclusions. In particular, "A lot of people see Dothan's 27W TDP & Turion ML's 35W TDP and assume that Dothan is automatically lower power. Intel computes thermal design power as 75% of the maximum load on the chip, while AMD's TDP rating is derived from the absolute worst case power dissipation of the chip. Part of the total system power is also incorporated into AMD's TDP, as the memory controller is located on-chip. Intel's memory controller is built into the chipset and thus draws power not calculated as part of Dothan's TDP. Also while Turion 64 is at idle (800MHz clock speed), it's performance is likely to be higher due to the higher bandwidth data bus. All of these factors contribute to Turion 64 being more power efficient under low load circumstances."

    And the -MT Turions have even lower power consumption: AMD Turion 64 specifications [amd.com].

    My next notebook will not be constrainted to only running x86-32 software.

    • My next notebook will not be constrainted to only running x86-32 software

      "My next notebook will not be constrainted to only running a single core?" (and before you come with links, think for a minute that I do _not_ care about one of those crappy laptops with dual core desktop chips, I want a REAL laptop product, and intel is releasing that fual core laptop before amd)

      I can live pretty well without 64 bits. Yonah looks like it's fast (damn, the same performance than X2 and without a in-die memory controller
    • There are some applications where a 64-bit CPU can perform FOUR TIMES more work in 64-bit mode than 32-bit mode. One of these is big integer multiplication.

      The applications you state are only for huge numbers. That isn't what I would call a standard use for a laptop.

Slashdot Top Deals

...there can be no public or private virtue unless the foundation of action is the practice of truth. - George Jacob Holyoake

Close