AMD's Duron replacement

SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
edited August 2003 in Science & Tech
The Eastern European web site AMD.com.ua has reported that AMD is soon expected to begin shipping a new low-end budget CPU, codenamed 'Appalbred', the alleged successor to the Duron.

Apparently, the new CPU will intially come in three forms, a 1400, 1600 and an 1800, priced at $32, $39 and $47, respectively. AMD.com.ua is supported by Austrian electronics distributor Chi Electronics, which numbers AMD amoung its suppliers, so it should know what the chip maker is up to.
AMD's official price list contains just two desktop Durons, at 1.2GHz and 1.3GHz, priced at $39 and $44, respectively. If the Appalbred information is correct, it would indeed appear to be a Duron replacement - or at least a new core for the old brand.

Motherboards that will support Appalbred include offerings from MSI, ECS, Asus, Asrock, Shuttle, Biostar, Gigabyte and FSI.

Appalbred-compatible chipsets include a number of 266MHz frontside bus parts, suggesting that that's what Appalbred operates at.

Original Report:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/32397.html

Comments

  • TheSmJTheSmJ
    edited August 2003
    Whats' the point? The 1700+ AthlonXP can already be had for ~$40.
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    TheSmJ said
    Whats' the point? The 1700+ AthlonXP can already be had for ~$40.

    Not all boards supports both Duron and XP i think. Or applebread or whatever it´s called.

    Heat is another issue. Durons runs much cooler than an XP 1700 so the Duron is a great buy for huge offices with small cases and limited cooling. Smart move i must say.
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited August 2003
    Well I just came across a Duron Model 8 on AMD's site; it has clock speeds of 1400, 1500 and 1600MHz, so that must be this new CPU. It puts out 57w of heat maximum, with typical ratings of 45.5, 48, and 53w for the 1400, 1500 and 1600, respectively.

    However, the old Model 7 does not run cooler than a 1700+
    The maximum power ranges from 42.7w (900MHz) to 60w (1300MHz) with typical values of 39.2w (900MHz) to 55.2w (1300MHz). The TBredB 1700+ has a typical rating of 44.9w and a maximum of 49.4w. The 1700 actually runs cooler than the Duron.
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    Very weird. I just slapped in a 1700 here and i have never had so high temperatures before. 12C warmer than the 2100 at same volts and speed. Are those ratings in comparison with the cellys or are they true clocks?
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited August 2003
    Didn't see anything- I think those are the actual clocks. You'd have to check the AMD Duron Model 8 whitepaper on AMD's website...
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    If they are actual clocks, then the wattage comparison with the 1700 is unjustified.
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited August 2003
    Mack, let me revise that statement, because rereading your post, I'm not sure what you meant.

    The NEW Duron, at 1.4GHz, typically puts out less heat than a 1700+. The other two new chips put out more heat than the 1700+, and the maximum power dissipation for all 3 is higher than the 1700s.

    The OLD Durons put out more heat than the 1700+ does.
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    Ok, ditch my theory then. Maybe all sub 2100 athlons will dissapear very soon in favour of the Durons?
  • SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
    edited August 2003
    I understand the need for a budget CPU, but I, especially in recent years, feel that the price difference between the Durons and the low range Thunderbirds\XP's is and has been negligible. With that and the performance differential between AMD's budget and standard CPU's, I fail to see why any consumer would go for a Duron or its type. Even, the major PC manufacturers hardly ever opt (at least from what I have seen) for Celerons or Durons anymore (at least not fiercly), and haven't for a long time.

    In this case I think Intel is more on top with its budget and mainstream CPU pricing, but that I suppose is only really because the P4 costs so much in comparison to the Athlon XP. Nevertheless...

    If I had to pick one thing I think AMD needed to work on, it would have to be the marketing and pricing strategies of their budget CPU range. Hopefully with the release of these new chips, AMD can finally get it right.

    Though, all this is partly moot anyway, because I'm never gonna buy one.:D Why settle for less, when you can have more.;)
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited August 2003
    I thought these new 'Durons' were Bartons that couldnt cut it at 512 cache?
  • Straight_ManStraight_Man Geeky, in my own way Naples, FL Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    They can, and that will be rolled into the Durons shortly. How??? They are old Athlon core design, one gen back. Athlon64's are seen as close equivalents to the 1 and 2 way Opterons, and as an example of how fast Los Alamos Labs (federal lab, part aerospace and part nuclear research and computing design of nuclear stuff) thinks they will give bang for buck, they are putting 3300 total 244's into two clusters now being built. That much is openly in the IT press now several places.

    Expect next gen Duron very soon after the Athlon64 full release, or simultaneously with it (essentially, this is a relabel\name change for Duron from Athlon of close to current gen-- I do not have hyper fine details, though, just stuff from Germany since I read German also. Fab is in Germany AFAIK that is running batches for test samples). Duron will be the 32 bit line mostly now, other than custom bulk orders from OEMs with successful designs that want the name for current gen on their marketting. I am excited about this for the builders. AMD is literally pushing a full gen move inside of 6-9 months.
  • SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
    edited August 2003
    I thought these new 'Durons' were Bartons that couldnt cut it at 512 cache?

    The below linked to report, indicated that Barton rejects may become some form of budget or OEM CPU, possibly named Duron, but I believe that report was equally speculative as it was factual. Only time will tell what is gonna be what, and what it's gonna be not. I suspect though that this report and the below one, both have some part to play in the Durons future, or its succesors.

    http://www.short-media.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2511

    Update:
    http://www.short-media.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2628
Sign In or Register to comment.