AMD's new sub-$100 low-power (45 W) dual core processor defines a new segment in the efficient desktop computing market. How does it compare to Intel's $100 Pentium Dual Core 2160?

Are you guys going to review the 65 nm Turion 64s any time soon? I have seen them start to pop up in retail laptops like the HP tx1000z and am curious how their power consumption goes compares to the Core/Core 2 Duo and the Pentium Dual Core laptop chips.

$90 is very cheap... until you compare it to a $60 X2 3600+.

It seems AMD is phasing out the older style X2 3600+/3800+s, so I think people should grab em while they still can at existing prices. 8)

As for the two chips reviewed, at stock speeds it really is a toss up between the BE-2350 and E2160, it appears the E2160 is slightly faster overall but it is also slighty more expensive.

To be honest, the overclocking results are slightly disappointing from both camps... 2.5GHz from the BE-2350 and 2.88GHz from the E2160. I was hoping for more, seeing as though people have been claiming 3GHz overclocks from existing X2 3600+s. This is a slightly disturbing trend as it seems to me that AMD's low voltage chips don't overclock very well. The previous 35W EE X2s showed this trait, and the trend is continuing with the latest BE chips.

Meanwhile, the E2160 is relatively new and doesn't really have a big enough userbase to really gauge it's 'overclockability', however it does appear to have a rather random spread compared to the larger cache C2D chips - I've now seen 2.88GHz - 3.5GHz overclocks from this chip from various reviewers. Oh well, who feels lucky?

I think this says a lot for the maturity of 65nm. Intel is a little faster, but AMD is much better for power use.

I would also say that bodes well for the TDP of the Barcelona derivatives. If they can bring Kuma in at this TDP, it will put Intel in a similar position as AMD was in when sandwiched between Netburst and Core 2.
I mean that's if you believe that Kuma will be 80% faster than X2 in FP and 30% faster in INT.

This paragraph best summarised the BE-2350 against the new Pentium Dual-Core line:

"As expected, the test system with the Pentium Dual Core E2160 was efficient, but it could not reach the low energy requirements of the Athlon X2 BE-2350. At the same time, the Pentium came slightly ahead in many of our benchmark runs, and it is more overclockable as well. While the Athlon X2 BE-2350 failed to reach 2.6 GHz reliably, our retail Pentium Dual Core E2160 managed to go as fast as 2.88 GHz reliably. This is particularly impressive as it comes from a default clock speed of 1.8 GHz, while the Athlon X2 runs at 2.1 GHz."

The BE-2350 is great for those who are very heat conscious, but even then, the difference between the 65w and 45w is nothing compared to 90w and 125w (Athlon vs NetBurst). Maybe it would be more so in the laptop segment, but Intel has lower power chips in the laptop segments, so much so that if one really didn't want heat for their HTPC, they could buy a Core Duo with a Core Duo ready motherboard.

Finally, the PDC outperforms the BE-2350 at stock speeds and can overclock further and easier too (also generating less heat at overclocked speeds).

Best thing for AMD to do now is to release K10.

You likely already know this and just wrote Core Duo by mistake in your post, but I'll be a tool and point it out anyway. The newer Intel Mobile Chips are Core 2 Duos and not Core Duos, and yes they would be a good choice for a HTPC.

Dung

Amd does indeed pretty well regarding the power saving features. And their offer is quite cheap too. While i can see how that might be connected to their maturing 65nm technology, i fail to see the connection between the Barcelona derivatives and this?

Amd does indeed pretty well regarding the power saving features. And their offer is quite cheap too. While i can see how that might be connected to their maturing 65nm technology, i fail to see the connection between the Barcelona derivatives and this?


Barcelona is the third or fourth rev of 65nm. That means that it's "native to 65nm" design should take more advantage of the additions to 65nm (DSL 4 stressors etc.) that AMD has made.

Amd does indeed pretty well regarding the power saving features. And their offer is quite cheap too. While i can see how that might be connected to their maturing 65nm technology, i fail to see the connection between the Barcelona derivatives and this?
I don't think there is any connection between this and the Barcelona. The article just shows AMD is still alive (and mostly well) in terms of power saving and cost.
I hope to see the X2 used in ultra-lightweight notebooks. That should blow the doors off the Pentium-M.

Hey does any one know what temps these chips be at idle and under load. I got a new e4300 a few weeks ago and it idles at 28oC and hasnt got past 33oC under load.... will these new chips be much lower at stock cooling??

Nobody really knows how hot the new architecture really is. A big factor is the clock speed. If AMD sells Barcelona at 1.6 Ghz, i wouldn´t expect it to be hot. At 2.6 (if it is released at that speed at all) it will be a lot warmer. But that is a guess.

AMD did quite well with its 65nm transition - at least with it´s basic chips in the 1.9 to 2.6 Ghz range. They still don´t seem to be able to manufacture 3 GHz parts in 65nm though, not to mention anything beyond that barrier. Either they are tweaking their whole product offering on 65nm towards energy efficiency or there is no real benefit to be gained from one chip to another. Given the monstrous size of the logic part of the new Barcelona architecture i really, really doubt that AMD even tries to be as energy efficient as it is with their other chips. To get it running, and that at a decent speed, should be their highest priority. Energy efficiency might be a selling point when it comes to big servers (i.e. cluster) but if they are clocked too slow they simply can´t compete.

I don't think it's that surprising that AMD is able to make these... they've been selling what is essentially the same CPU for several years now. If you make the same product for a long enough period of time you're going to get really good at making it. I think these processors will fill a certain niche, but that's not going to pay the rent. Good luck AMD!

Yea making a CPU is so easy even a caveman can do it.

I'm curious to know where you're coming from. Are you just wanting to compare temps or do you in need of a very low heat-output system? On one hand, a low TDP processor like the new AMD under review will not be a blow torch because it draws very little current.

I just built a new HTPC but wanted it to have enough power to run HD formats and not require lots of loud fans it also acts as a media server so low energy usage comes in handy too...hence the need for a cool chip im just wondering if there would have been much difference in me waiting for these new chips... and i know they are not strong enough to decode HD streams thats what my passive 8600gts is for

That's totally not the issue here. If you have an office with a hundred workstations doing business apps, no overclock will be required and CPU speed is not critical when you're looking in the ballpark of 2GHz. The numbers speak for themselves - for non-demanding apps such as the typical office, AMD is the current efficiency leader.

I'm guessing that a good passive CPU cooler and one quiet case fan should do the trick with one of the new EE CPUs.

I think I'm sold on the AMD as I have a Celeron 2.8 in my current HTPC and it is both baking and having a hard time with more complex bitstreams what with all the AV, ZA, and other software it must take care.

But where can I buy the new AMDs? I can't find them on PriceGrabber or NewEgg.