Arnawa Widagda, Contributor, Jakarta
Last week, one of the PCs I have around the house broke down. After some tinkering, I realized the problem was with the hard drive. Thankfully, the data was still intact, but I had to reinstall Windows plus the necessary drivers and other software. The whole process took about an hour, then I decided to clean the case, heat sink and fans from all the dust that had accumulated in these past few years.
That particular PC uses an AMD Athlon XP running at 1.8 GHz, with a performance equivalent to an Intel Pentium 4 2.4 GHz. While tinkering with the system, I was pleasantly reminded how cool it is -- around 30 to 35 degrees Celsius. It is undeniably cooler than the 2.0 GHz Pentium 4 processor I have running on another machine or even the 2.8 GHz Core2Duo on my personal work machine -- those processors run at about 45 degrees Celsius. The performance of the Athlon XP system is generally good enough for most applications. Using 512 MB of memory even made it quite responsive running Microsoft's latest Office 2007, though I cringe at the thought of running it with Windows Vista.
All this reminded me of the time I upgraded from that Athlon XP system to an Athlon 64 3000+ and then 3500+ processor. Those processors ran at 1.8 and 2.2 GHz, respectively. Both processors are also very cool, typical temperatures are about 30 degrees Celsius on high loads. Now, to be fair I did use non-stock cooling for the Athlon XP system, but the general trend persists in my experience, AMD processors generally runs cooler than Intel processors.
This seems contradictory to the TDP or thermal design power numbers comparison between AMD and Intel processors. Intel lists Pentium 4 2.0A and 2.4 GHz with 54.3 and 59.8 watts TDP, respectively. AMD lists the AthlonXP and Athlon 64 3000+ and 3500+ with 62 and 67 watts TDP. If you look at various articles on current processors, Intel lists Core2Duo as having a TDP of 65 watts, while AMD lists their equivalent performing Athlon 64 X2 processors at 89 watts. But even before Core2Duo, the difference in TDP numbers between both manufacturers persisted, Intel always lists their processor TDP numbers lower than AMD.
However, after some serious digging, it would seem these two numbers are not directly comparable with each other -- Intel uses ""typical usage scenario"" TDP numbers, while AMD uses ""maximum"" TDP numbers. As a general rule of thumb, you have to add 10 to 15 watts to Intel's TDP numbers to get an estimate of maximum TDP numbers. That means Core2Duo's estimated maximum TDP is around 75 to 80 watts -- not that far off from AMD. This would also explain why I saw lower temperatures from older AMD processors.
In addition to heat and temperature, another gripe I have with Core2Duo processors is the overall system latency. Intel is still using a separate memory controller and will continue to do so with 45nm Core2Duo successors code-named ""Penryn"". It's not until Nehalem that we will see an integrated on-die memory controller in Intel processors. Think the situation will be better with the recently launched Generation 3 chipsets such as P35 and G35? Think again. Early previews show that these chipsets are still not able to provide low enough latencies to compete with AMD's integrated memory controller.
Despite all of this, the Intel's Core2Duo system remains my primary workhorse. Why? Price and performance. At launch time, it is undeniably faster than Intel's previous Pentium 4 processors and anything on AMD's lineup. The Core2Duo E6400, costing around US$ 240 at the time, was more than a match for AMD's fastest, terribly overpriced processor, the Athlon FX 62 or its more affordable desktop variant, the Athlon 64 X2 6000+, which was selling for US$ 549.
However, that is likely to change. Since the initial release of Core2Duo, both manufacturers have made major price cuts and introduced new processors. The latest price cuts have trickled down the channel, so users are now seeing more affordable prices. AMD's latest price cuts are especially interesting and I found the 2.8 GHz Athlon X2 5600+ very tempting indeed. The Athlon X2 5600+ is priced at about the same level as the 2.4 GHz Core2Duo E6400 and E6420, with about the same maximum TDP. More power and heat conscious users will probably be more interested in the 2.6 GHz, 65 watt TDP Athlon X2 5200+ instead, which costs about US$ 10 less. Performance wise, the Athlon X2 5600+ offers about the same level of performance as the Core2Duo E6600, while the X2 5200+ is about the same as Core2Duo E6400.
To put things into perspective, I would brave a guess that most users still factor in performance, price, power usage and thermal properties when choosing a processor -- mostly in that order. Performance, power usage and thermal properties are relatively unchanged until the next update cycle, so manufacturers have to realize that when they do not have enough competitive edge in either area, price will ultimately be the deciding factor. AMD found out that fact the hard way when Intel introduce the Core2Duo. I think they should have announced the price cut sooner, so they could have retained the market share lost to Intel.
What about the future? I think the same still applies to the future. AMD needs to tread carefully and not make the same mistakes. AMD Phenom processors, previously known as ""Barcelona"" need to have either more performance than Intel's Penryn processor or more energy and thermal efficiency for AMD to regain the lead. It certainly will be interesting to see which manufacturer will come up with a quad core, next generation processor with a TDP of 35 watts.
| 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|