thoughts on new AMD Athlon LE processor?

[OhioGuy]

I've been looking at the various processors out there for nearly 6 months
now, and in the past week became aware of a new release from AMD - the
Athlon LE CPU.

45 Watts
2.44 GHz speed (may overclock to roughly ~ 2.8 GHz)
$50 shipped from Newegg
AM2 platform
1 Megabyte L2 cache
3 year warranty (full box version, with heatsink & fan)

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I bought 3, primarily because:

A) I don't need multi core support at the moment, since most of the software
I use wouldn't benefit from it

B) I leave my system on 24 hours a day to record HDTV programming. This
will save me 1.1 Kilowatt Hours a day, or about $5 per month on electicity.
That means the processor will be FREE (pay for itself) after just a year

C) It's roughly comparable to an Athlon X2 3800 out of the box (but not
after overclocking it)

D) when I DO decide to upgrade to dual core in a year, or year and a half,
the current $160 dual core processors will be dirt cheap, and I'll still be
able to sell this thing for $35 with a 1.5 or 2 year warranty on it

 

[DonC]

I've been looking at the various processors out there for nearly 6 months
now, and in the past week became aware of a new release from AMD - the
Athlon LE CPU.

45 Watts
2.44 GHz speed (may overclock to roughly ~ 2.8 GHz)
$50 shipped from Newegg
AM2 platform
1 Megabyte L2 cache
3 year warranty (full box version, with heatsink & fan)

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I bought 3, primarily because:

A) I don't need multi core support at the moment, since most of the
software I use wouldn't benefit from it

B) I leave my system on 24 hours a day to record HDTV programming. This
will save me 1.1 Kilowatt Hours a day, or about $5 per month on
electicity. That means the processor will be FREE (pay for itself) after
just a year

C) It's roughly comparable to an Athlon X2 3800 out of the box (but not
after overclocking it)

D) when I DO decide to upgrade to dual core in a year, or year and a half,
the current $160 dual core processors will be dirt cheap, and I'll still
be able to sell this thing for $35 with a 1.5 or 2 year warranty on it

I'm not sure you can answer my question but I'll ask it anyway.

I'm running an Athlon XP 3000+ at 2.167GHz (No OCing) with FSB= 333MHz.

I'm getting the itch to do a major upgrade to take advantage of SATA 3.0
drives, cheaper DDR2 memory, etc. I started out assuming a 64 bit
dual-processor CPU was the obvious way to go. But I'm running Win XP
Professional (32 bit) and don't think I'd currently realize much benefit of
a dual-processor. I am not a gamer. Adobe PhotoShop is probably my most
intensive application.

What performance both could I expect to see? I'm in no hurry to upgrade to
Vista; have it on my laptop and like XP much better.

Thanks

 

[Paul]

I'm not sure you can answer my question but I'll ask it anyway.

I'm running an Athlon XP 3000+ at 2.167GHz (No OCing) with FSB= 333MHz.

I'm getting the itch to do a major upgrade to take advantage of SATA 3.0
drives, cheaper DDR2 memory, etc. I started out assuming a 64 bit
dual-processor CPU was the obvious way to go. But I'm running Win XP
Professional (32 bit) and don't think I'd currently realize much benefit of
a dual-processor. I am not a gamer. Adobe PhotoShop is probably my most
intensive application.

What performance both could I expect to see? I'm in no hurry to upgrade to
Vista; have it on my laptop and like XP much better.

Thanks

This is a separate question, Don. You should have started your own
thread, to get an answer tailored to you.

A dual core does give a benefit in WinXP. Tasks can be split between
the two cores. There are always background tasks running on Windows,
and load balancing means your user process could use one core, while
the background stuff runs on the other. So there will be a benefit.

Photoshop is dual core aware. There are two kinds of filters in
Photoshop. Some are only single core aware. Some others are dual
core aware. So some of your filters will double in speed, even
at the same clock speed.

Considering the class of machine you have currently, you might not
subjectively see a difference in the desktop. Where you see the
difference, is when you use a stopwatch, to time how long it takes
to do some stuff. "Grinding tasks" will complete in less time.

For example, in Photoshop, it is possible to record a sequence of
commands, and rerun them. Or batch process a bunch of files.
With your new dual core, this will zip along.

In terms of AMD options, if you are an AMD fan, the 5000 Black Box
edition, has an unlocked multiplier. So you can overclock it if you
want. Apparently there is some new stepping being offered for that
processor, and it overclocks pretty well. "Black Box" edition
processors do not include a heatsink and fan, which spoils the
economy of the purchase.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16819103194

The 6000+ runs at 3GHz and is a dual core. If you aren't interested
in overclocking, that might be the processor for you. The 6000+
will come with a cooler. The 6400+ is another Black Box edition.

Finally, if you wanted even more performance, something like an
Intel E6850 or a Q6600 (quad core), are pretty decent upgrades.

Intel and AMD pricing can be seen here. Retail prices may be
higher, and these lists will give you some idea of the extra
profit margin.

http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/processor_price_list.pdf
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_609,00.html?redir=CPT301

HTH,
Paul

 

[Paul]

I've been looking at the various processors out there for nearly 6 months
now, and in the past week became aware of a new release from AMD - the
Athlon LE CPU.

45 Watts
2.44 GHz speed (may overclock to roughly ~ 2.8 GHz)
$50 shipped from Newegg
AM2 platform
1 Megabyte L2 cache
3 year warranty (full box version, with heatsink & fan)

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I bought 3, primarily because:

A) I don't need multi core support at the moment, since most of the software
I use wouldn't benefit from it

B) I leave my system on 24 hours a day to record HDTV programming. This
will save me 1.1 Kilowatt Hours a day, or about $5 per month on electicity.
That means the processor will be FREE (pay for itself) after just a year

C) It's roughly comparable to an Athlon X2 3800 out of the box (but not
after overclocking it)

D) when I DO decide to upgrade to dual core in a year, or year and a half,
the current $160 dual core processors will be dirt cheap, and I'll still be
able to sell this thing for $35 with a 1.5 or 2 year warranty on it

First of all, download these docs.

AM2
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/33954.pdf

Previous sockets
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/30430.pdf

There are two power numbers of interest. "TDP" is what is advertised on the
site you buy the processor from. That is the power consumed at 100% utilization.

The second number of interest, is what power does it draw when it is idle.

Check out "Halt/Stop Grant" and "Min Pstate", and multiply the current in the table
by Min P-State voltage, like 1.1V or whatever. Add in the I/O power as well.

As an example, consider this device. You cannot really find these, but it is
fun to pretend. See PDF page 23 of the 33954 document and ADD3800IAA5CU, a
35W TDP processor. 2.0A * 1.000V + 3W I/O power totals 5W or so in idle.
And it is a dual core.

http://products.amd.com/en-us/DesktopCPUDetail.aspx?id=65

http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS5266283568.html

"Although "shipping" for nearly a year, short supplies have resulted in street
prices upwards of $400 for the retail box version."

Remember that other parts of the computer draw power, and some chipsets
are now a power sucking embarrassment.

Just some trivia,
Paul