HP divulges Intel Power consumption
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/4708/
"HP has made a slip and (probably) inadvertantly published power consumption numbers for upcoming Intel cores in a presentation about thermal management in datacenters. The PDF can be found here .
The quite interesting bits begin on P19 though, where you find Potomac, the 8MB cache Prescott with a 115W TDP. Not bad at all considering where Prescott is with 25% of the cache. Tulsa, the dual core variant comes in at 175W, and you can almost hear AMD exec giggle when you mention it in print. Dempsey, the DP version with less cache comes in at at a (gack) much more reasonable 150W.
But wait, it gets better. Woodcrest, the 4M Merom based Xeon has a 70W TDP, which is a little higher that the 60 or 65W I have been hearing for Conroe, but this could simply be the conservative calculation that Mr Blade was talking about earlier. The best part it that Whitefield, the four core, 16MB cache CSI bearing Xeon is listed as 100-130W TDP. It is also listed in '06, which falls into the 'not a chance in hell' category. It may be talking about the unnamed four core Woodcrest variant, but until Intel decides if is going to do it with MCM or JAB, there is little use in talking about features."
Wow, sorry for that paste. Woodcrest is looking sweet, but on the other hand, Tulsa is at 175W. Ouch. Intel, NetBurst's coffin is wide open and waiting -- it's just waiting for Darwin to reach out and push NetBurst in.
If Apple never ships a Netburst product I will not care. The Merom based product is going to be worth the wait. AMD will be safe on the desktop for another year.
"HP has made a slip and (probably) inadvertantly published power consumption numbers for upcoming Intel cores in a presentation about thermal management in datacenters. The PDF can be found here .
The quite interesting bits begin on P19 though, where you find Potomac, the 8MB cache Prescott with a 115W TDP. Not bad at all considering where Prescott is with 25% of the cache. Tulsa, the dual core variant comes in at 175W, and you can almost hear AMD exec giggle when you mention it in print. Dempsey, the DP version with less cache comes in at at a (gack) much more reasonable 150W.
But wait, it gets better. Woodcrest, the 4M Merom based Xeon has a 70W TDP, which is a little higher that the 60 or 65W I have been hearing for Conroe, but this could simply be the conservative calculation that Mr Blade was talking about earlier. The best part it that Whitefield, the four core, 16MB cache CSI bearing Xeon is listed as 100-130W TDP. It is also listed in '06, which falls into the 'not a chance in hell' category. It may be talking about the unnamed four core Woodcrest variant, but until Intel decides if is going to do it with MCM or JAB, there is little use in talking about features."
Wow, sorry for that paste. Woodcrest is looking sweet, but on the other hand, Tulsa is at 175W. Ouch. Intel, NetBurst's coffin is wide open and waiting -- it's just waiting for Darwin to reach out and push NetBurst in.
If Apple never ships a Netburst product I will not care. The Merom based product is going to be worth the wait. AMD will be safe on the desktop for another year.
Comments
Prescot and Athlon 64 are around 90W now.
The Turion 64 is 35W @ 2.2GHz, Sossaman (desktop twin of Yonah) is expected with 31W @ 2GHz (LV version 15W @ 1.67GHz).