Unless AMD launches a competitive dual core Opteron EE, Yonah will be the only choice for dense racks needing ~30W and 15W CPUs. I think it's a market that, while small, is lucrative and growing.
The problem is that Yonah isn't DP or MP. Opteron DC EEs and HEs have the capability to be put 2 and 4 to a 1U rack. Yonah can't do this. Also the 4GB limit further limits their use. As does the not having AMD64. 1P Yonahs in 1U servers has a lower performance density of than 4P SC Opterons or 2P DC Opterons in 1U servers not to mention 4P DC Opterons in 1U servers. Power is used by other components like power supplies, fans, disks, memory, interconnect both on board and between servers. 42 1P Yonah 1U servers per rack only has 84 cores per rack. 42 4P DC Opteron 1U servers per rack have 336 cores per rack. Furthermore we do not yet know how much power at the 12V VRM side Yonah will require at what speeds.
With Opteron and the various A64s, Turions and Semprons, we know what they consume and at what speeds they do it at. Toledos (normal Opteron x75s and X2 4800+s (2.4GHz, 1MB L2 each)) use 86W by measurement during May 2005 running 2 Prime95 processes (www.lostcircuits.com), Manchesters (A64 X2 3800+ (2GHz, 512KB L2 each)) use 47.2W running same, Venice (A64 3800+ (2.4GHz, 512KB L2)) uses 30.8W running 1 Prime95 process and Toledo (A64 FX-57 (2.8GHz, 1MB L2)) uses 60.4W running same. Given the typical VRM efficiency of 84% ( http://www.powermanagementdesignline.com/products/161600289 ), we get 72.2W, 39.6W, 25.9W and 50.7W respectively. Those figures are well below the listed AMD TDP max for each, 110W, 89W, 89W, 89W.
Scaling these dual cores down to HE (2GHz) and EE (1.6GHz) speeds can be done in two ways, straightline from current speeds to idle speeds (C&Q off), looking at one Prime95 process uses versus 2 and using the c*f^2=P method. Toledo (1 Prime95 process) uses 63.6W at VRM 12V (53.4W at VRM Vcc) and at idle uses 24W (20.2W). Using the first method for 2GHz HE nets us (72.2W-20.2W)*(2GHz/2.4GHz)+20.2W = 63.5W, not likely. The second method for 2GHz HE nets us (72.2W-53.4W)*(4.8GHz-2.4GHz)*2GHz*2+20.2W = 51.5W, possible. The first method and second method neglect the voltage differences and the effect of leakage reductions thereby.
Trying the last one for the 1.6GHz EE case, we get 45.3W, unlikely. Modifying the second method for voltage drops (multiplying result by ((1.2V (HE) or 1.1V (EE))/1.4V (norm)), we get 44.1W and 35.6W. If we further modify method two for voltage drops squared, we get 37.8W and 28.0W, much more likely. They will do until real tests are performed. And thats with processors built on or before May 2005. 7 months of process refinements and respins could reduce this further.
Going from deficient to even is part of the "turning around" process, and I think Intel will make this transition. In H2 2006, they will transition from even to ahead.
H1 2006 won't get them to even and late H2/06 might get them to even, but I won't count on it as that hopes AMD won't make any progress during the next year. In any case, when independent third party sites get the chance to test the new CPUs OTS, off the shelf, we will have enough data to truly have a good discussion and/or debate.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
