AMD Athlon X2 BE-2350: Mainstream X2s with 45W TDP
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 5, 2007 4:09 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Those hoping for nail biting, teeth clenching battles should apply elsewhere - the CPU war these days is a one horse race. If reports out of Taiwan are to be believed, initial performance results from AMD's Barcelona fail to impress and we've got at least a quarter before the race can even potentially get competitive. But as we've seen lately, you don't need chart topping performance to bring excitement to the game.
By aggressively cutting prices, AMD actually made most of its product lineup below $300 competitive with equivalently priced Intel offerings. Granted that AMD won't be making a tremendous amount of money by doing this, but the end user stands to benefit, especially those with Socket-AM2 motherboards looking for faster CPUs.
Today AMD follows with yet another affordable CPU introduction; priced at $91 and $86 respectively, the Athlon X2 BE-2350 and 2300 aren't designed to take the performance crown from Intel, but rather they are decent dual core performers with a mere 45W TDP.
These two 65nm processors run at 2.1GHz and 1.9GHz, and are architecturally no different than the Athlon 64 X2s we've been reviewing for a while now. Carefully selected as chips that can run at lower operating voltages and thus lower TDPs, these two processors are designed to be a more available version of the Energy Efficient Small Form Factor X2s that were introduced last year. While they have a higher TDP than the 35W Athlon 64 X2 3800+, AMD insists that availability of these 45W parts won't be a problem. At the time of publication we couldn't confirm AMD's claims, so we'll just have to wait and see. Prior to today's introduction, the lowest TDP widely available from an X2 was 65W, so the release of 45W parts is designed to fill a gap in AMD's product lineup.
At the price points AMD is targeting with the BE-2350 and 2300, Intel doesn't really have a good competitor. While you can get older Pentium 4s for less than $100, you wouldn't really want to from a power and performance standpoint. The closest Intel has to offer is the Core 2 Duo E4300, which we've been able to find online for $113.50, thus making it the best competition we can find. Note that both of these chips are more expensive than the X2 3800+, currently priced at $83 and running at 2.0GHz. The slight premium comes from the lower yield on these chips, and resultant lower TDP.
Keep in mind that Intel's closest competition is more expensive throughout the course of this review, because after AMD's latest price cuts you can truly get some powerful CPUs for less than $100.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
46 Comments
View All Comments
TA152H - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
I'm curious, what would you have considered better options to compare these processors with? Certainly not the Pentium D, since they are anything but efficient in terms of power. That leaves the Core 2, which it was compared with. Were you looking for other models in the Core 2 line or something? I'm just a bit unclear.Where AMD is going is pretty clear, isn't it? The Barcelona/Agena and later Fusion. HT 3.0, etc... Is it enough, I don't know. Clearly it's better than the K8 in term of memory load scheduling, but still not as good as the Core 2.
I never liked Hector Ruiz, and always thought Jerry Sanders was an incredible CEO. He was widely criticized because the company wasn't extremely successful, although he was responsible for the success the past few years because it was his leadership that made these products possible. Every other company that fought Intel died, only AMD survived, and he deserves credit for that. Ruiz seems to have no vision, and he has to go. There is no way the K7/K8 should still be around this late in the game, and they should never have gotten so comfortable with assuming Intel would always screw up. The K7 is now almost 8 years old and outside of the minor changes made for the K8, it's still way too old and outdated. The memory scheduling is worse than the Pentium Pro of 1995 vintage. Ruiz needs to go! If this ass-clown malingers for much longer, AMD will be belly-up.
Regs - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
Marketing.There's a lot of people who think dual core is better or a lot of people who like to think dual core is "future" proof. Besides, Intel can do just the same with a single core...they all ready did.
Bascially it's new ..hot of the presses.. and AMD want's to sell it and people like new.
Lets face it, AMD is not going to regain the performance crown anytime soon. So they're going to sell whatever they can.
TA152H - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
It's unclear to me how this is new, and I'm not talking about AMD taking the performance crown.Your supposition that this will sell because it's new isn't altogether clear to me. It's really not even as good as the 3800 and not very different really. A single core at 20 watts would have been something new, and interesting. Or a 1.4 GHz model that takes 8 watts, or 10 or whatever it would take. I could actually get rid of my beloved Tualatins if they came out with something like that. But no, they come out with a 45 watt part that doesn't really impress anyone in any way. At least do something well, if not performance, then power.
I agree with you on one thing though, perception is more important than reality, and dual core is perceived as broadly better, even though for many things it is useless, and almost completely unnecessary for 95% of the people. But, perception matters, so you make a good point. The P7 was born from this as well, so I guess this isn't that bad.
cornfedone - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
...Anandtech jumps right to the top of the FUD spewers.The Anandtech statement below is good for a laugh by anyone in the PC industry with a clue:
"Those hoping for nail biting, teeth clenching battles should apply elsewhere - the CPU war these days is a one horse race. If reports out of Taiwan are to be believed, initial performance results from AMD's Barcelona fail to impress and we've got at least a quarter before the race can even potentially get competitive. But as we've seen lately, you don't need chart topping performance to bring excitement to the game."
Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
I suggest reading the paragraph immediately following that one:"By aggressively cutting prices, AMD actually made most of its product lineup below $300 competitive with equivalently priced Intel offerings. Granted that AMD won't be making a tremendous amount of money by doing this, but the end user stands to benefit, especially those with Socket-AM2 motherboards looking for faster CPUs."
It is true that Intel does currently hold the title for fastest desktop CPUs, but with the recent price cuts AMD is competitive (if you don't overclock) below $300. That's all I was trying to say.
Take care,
Anand
TA152H - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
I agree it's a little overstated, because AMD processors are terrific for the vast majority of people, and their prices are terrific too.I think he meant to say (and I apologize to Anand if I'm putting words in his mouth, because I hate when people do that to me) is the PERFORMANCE DESKTOP CPU war, etc... I think most people will understand that is his meaning, and he's right. Obviously, again, most people can get by extremely well with AMD's processors, and the servers by virtue of their superior system architecture still do quite well in four socket systems vis-a-vis Intel products. But, right now, the Core 2 is generally a much better processor than the Athlon 64. In a few, rare instances it is not, and in most instances it doesn't matter. But, it still is in most.
SilthDraeth - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
I can't remember a single post you have made that was anything but trolling.lopri - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
It's really puzzling to see all these articles published @AT today. Are you guys trying to catch up with the delayed articles? (Then again the UVD issue is fairly recent, I think?)First of all, we have E2140 and E2160 to compete with the AMD's new offerings. They have been available for more than a couple weeks now so I am not sure why this article is dealing with new AMD CPUs (which are not yet availble) and different class Intel CPUs. If anything, I would think these new offerings from AMD are meant to compete with E2xxx series.
Also I would like to see NF680i along with P965/NF590 in the power consumption chart. For all purposes and intents, that'd give a better idea where things are standing. P965 and NF590 are completely different in its function/capability as well as target audience. Another consideration is that people who purchase these low-power CPU will probably look for more power efficiency when they make decisions on motherboards.
(scratching head..)
Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
I'm not sure what's puzzling about today's articles? Gary is in Taiwan reporting on Computex and the NDA lifted today on the X2 BE-2350, which is why you see these articles on the front page.The E2160/E2140 will be good competitors to the new BE chips, but we simply don't have any in-house to test, and as I mentioned above the E2160s appear to be selling for close to the same as the E4300. I'd actually say that today, the BE-2350 is more a competitor for remnant Pentium Ds in the marketplace than anything from the Core 2 lineup.
I don't think it makes sense to go higher end in the chipset comparisons, one thing I'm working on now is comparing integrated platforms to look at power consumption (and performance) for those systems that won't be used for high end gaming.
Take care,
Anand
TA152H - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
Anand,I completely agree, you should be testing IGPs with these low power processors, because that's what will almost certainly be paired with it. Or, in the worst case, fanless discrete video cards. In fact, I don't think it would be completely out of place to build a whole system to be as quiet and low power as possible. You might even want to take a look at the VIA/Centaur chips. I bought one of these mules about a year and half ago, but it's just so slow even in power/performance I went back to a K6-III+. They are probably better now.
I know you guys are allergic to fanless power supplies, but they work really well (I love them), and if you pair it with a low power system (which is only natural), they are terrific. You pair these low power processors with an IGP, or low power discrete card, stock voltage memory, and a notebook hard disk (I did this with my VIA, and it saves a ton of heat and isn't horribly slow) and you have a really low power system that is quiet. If you listen to music on your PC, or TV, or movies, this is an ideal setup. Even the alien zappers must do this sometimes, so I think it would make for an interesting review, especially during the summer when these machines can make rooms really hot.