AMD’s Danube, Nile platforms stream out into 135 laptops

You know those rumors about AMD snagging over 100 design wins for upcoming mobile products? That number was a little off, as it turns out. AMD has now officially pulled the wraps off of its Danube and Nile platforms, and it claims no less than 135 design wins: 109 for Danube, the mainstream design, and 26 for Nile, which is aimed at ultra-thin laptops.

We’ve known about Nile and Danube for some time. Both platforms gather 45-nm microprocessors, DDR3 memory support, and a new M880G chipset with DirectX 10.1-class Radeon HD 4200 integrated graphics. The updated hardware should be most striking in Nile-based notebooks, since AMD’s previous ultra-thin platform still had crusty-old 65-nm processors. Check out this little comparison table:

Source: AMD.

The company tell us Nile can switch quicker to deeper sleep states than its predecessor. Coupled with the move to 45-nm, that ability translates to some nice drops in power consumption. Nile purportedly chews through 22% more instructions per clock than AMD’s second-gen ultra-thin platform, too.

Here’s a look at the five processors AMD has launched as part of Nile, a.k.a. the 2010 Ultrathin Notebook Platform:

Processor Cores Clock speed Cache (L2) HT TDP
Turion II Neo K665 2 1.7 GHz 2 MB 3.2 GT/s 15 W
Turion II Neo K625 2 1.5 GHz 2 MB 3.2 GT/s 15 W
Athlon II Neo K325 2 1.3 GHz 2 MB 2.0 GT/s 15 W
Athlon II Neo K125 1 1.7 GHz 1 MB 2.0 GT/s 12 W
V series V105 1 1.2 GHz 512 KB 2.0 GT/s 9 W

And, for the sake of completeness, here are all the Danube (sorry—2010 Mainstream Notebook Platform) CPUs:

Processor Cores Clock speed Cache (L2) HT TDP
Phenom II X920 Black Edition 4 2.3 GHz 2 MB 3.6 GT/s 45 W
Phenom II X620 Black Edition 2 3.1 GHz 2 MB 3.6 GT/s 45 W
Phenom II N930 4 2.0 GHz 2 MB 3.6 GT/s 35 W
Phenom II P920 4 1.6 GHz 2 MB 3.6 GT/s 25 W
Phenom II N830 3 2.1 GHz 1.5 MB 3.6 GT/s 35 W
Phenom II P820 3 1.8 GHz 1.5 MB 3.6 GT/s 25 W
Phenom II N620 2 2.8 GHz 2 MB 3.6 GT/s 35 W
Turion II N530 2 2.5 GHz 2 MB 3.6 GT/s 35 W
Turion II P520 2 2.3 GHz 2 MB 3.6 GT/s 25 W
Athlon II N330 2 2.3 GHz 1 MB 3.6 GT/s 35 W
Athlon II P320 2 2.1 GHz 1 MB 3.6 GT/s 25 W
V series V120 1 2.2 GHz 512 KB 3.6 GT/s 25 W

A few extra noteworthy details: AMD quotes 21.3GB/s of memory bandwidth for the Phenom II processors above and 17GB/s for everything else (V120 excepted, since AMD oddly doesn’t quote a memory speed for that product). A little arithmetic suggests those two figures translate to maximum DDR3 memory speeds of 1333MHz and 1066MHz, respectively. AMD also says all of the aforementioned Athlon II- and V-series offerings have 64-bit floating point units, compared to 128-bit for the Turion II and Phenom II offerings.

With 135 Danube- and Nile-based laptops in the pipeline, we probably don’t need to tell you where to look. Nevertheless, the launch press release specifies that notebooks will debut today and continue to roll out throughout this year from vendors like Acer, Asus, Dell, HP, Lenovo, MSI, and Toshiba. All of these laptops should feature the Vision Technology badge, which AMD claims to have fashioned to make PC shopping easier for consumers. The Vision label was first applied to the Tigris platform last September.

Comments closed
    • potatochobit
    • 9 years ago

    where can i buy a laptop with Phenom II X920 Black Edition

      • pogsnet
      • 9 years ago
    • StashTheVampede
    • 9 years ago

    Would love to buy one of the mobile parts from Newegg and make a desktop system out of them. Low power and four cores!

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 9 years ago

      No kidding. What I have to wonder is, in this day and age, why do we even have “desktop parts” and “laptop parts?” They’re practically the same thing for both Intel and AMD, but the desktop versions are universally several times more wasteful.

      You can pay a premium for 45w TDP desktop quad-cores, but your idle power will still be stuck at 40w at best, just the same as with any other CPU.

      Meanwhile, these laptops would have to be in the 10w range, WITH the screen on…using basically the same hardware.

      I get really tired of all the talk about new desktop parts being “more efficient” when they often use more power overall than whatever came before.

      Just the other day, someone tried to argue with me that the CULV Core iXs are guaranteed to have better battery life because they’re “higher performance per watt.” It’s amazing what the “efficiency” spin has people believing.

        • MadManOriginal
        • 9 years ago

        What’s amazing is that you write the same stupid complaints over and over and over in as many comment threads as possible. If you think that greater performance with the same power draw (or less) is not ‘more efficient’ then you are a moron.

          • Welch
          • 9 years ago

          I don’t know about his saying the same topic over and over again….. but lets be honest with ourselves here.

          The only time a higher performing part, that uses the same exact amount of power in a single instant, is more “efficient” (power consumption wise) is when its doing something time based, such as encoding or decoding. Otherwise two different processors that have the EXACT SAME power draw but different performance aren’t any different in their efficiency when your talking about something like gaming where you get something like 3 or 4 FPS difference. The bottom line was that you still got the same job done, playing through the game, for the same power cost. The reason I mention this is that I’m quite sure he was talking about its power.

          Now if your talking time based computing like I mentioned before, then sure….. he’d be an idiot to say its not more efficient.

    • Arag0n
    • 9 years ago

    Phenom II N930 4 2.0 GHz 2 MB 3.6 GT/s 35 W

    That’s the best option from my point of view for a Desktop replace. Good enought CPU performance with core-scaling for multicore aplications in a nice TDP.

    With value on mind, I guess that this is the best option:

    Turion II Neo K665 2 1.7 GHz 2 MB 3.2 GT/s 15 W

    Almost the same core clock, but with a much better TDP. Long battery life in a budget laptop. I can see this CPU in 12-14″ laptops for 400$, a blow for any Atom netbook of 9-10″.

      • NeelyCam
      • 9 years ago

      l[

    • adisor19
    • 9 years ago

    I really hope Apple will shove one of these in the next MacBook Air. I just don’t see them putting an i3 with its crappy graphics in it any time soon.

    Adi

      • blastdoor
      • 9 years ago

      Seems quite plausible…

      Amazing how Intel is screwing up with Apple. I think there is every reason to believe that Apple would have happily remained Intel-only in Macs, but somehow Intel can’t help but create opportunities for AMD by doing something stupid. This isn’t on the same stupidity scale as P4+Itanium, but it’s still pretty stupid.

        • shank15217
        • 9 years ago

        I don’t get your point, if Intel doesn’t have a good GPU solution, they cant do much.

          • blastdoor
          • 9 years ago

          They could refrain from integrating it into the CPU. They could give NV a chipset license. That’s what they had done up until recently, and it kept everybody perfectly happy. They chose to stop doing that.

      • shank15217
      • 9 years ago

      I think Apple will wait till AMD’s first fusion product to shove it in their macbook air line. I hope fution brings better graphics performance than their IGP. It needs to match Nvidia’s discrete notebook GPU performance at the same power envelope.

    • A_Pickle
    • 9 years ago

    The integrated HD 4200 alone makes these platforms more desirable than their Intel integrated counterparts. I wonder how these changes will translate into power savings? And I wonder if these notebook platforms have some kind of Optimus-like graphics switching technology? I thought AMD was looking into that.

      • NeelyCam
      • 9 years ago

      Yeah, that’s what I was thinking. Better graphics: yes. Decent battery life: TBD.

        • Game_boy
        • 9 years ago

        Battery life won’t be much better than Tigris which was also Phenom II based. Llano is when we can judge whether AMD is serious about lowering mobile power consumption.

          • mesyn191
          • 9 years ago

          Chart says ~2hr more battery time over older platform. Given the power efficiency improvements they’re listing that doesn’t sound outlandish.

      • Ayreon
      • 9 years ago

      “And I wonder if these notebook platforms have some kind of Optimus-like graphics switching technology? I thought AMD was looking into that.”

      Maybe that’s what they mean by “muxless” PowerXPress?

        • Kurotetsu
        • 9 years ago

        I was wondering what the heck that was. Thanks for pointing that out.

    • ltcommander.data
    • 9 years ago

    Sigh. I guess Intel isn’t the only one who likes indecipherable product naming schemes.

      • rogthewookiee
      • 9 years ago

      yeah, exactly what I was thinking

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 9 years ago

      They should all say X2/X3/X4 and the clock speed in the specs for any laptop that uses one. That’s all you really need to know.

      When does the jumble of numbers and letters every really matter?

        • lex-ington
        • 9 years ago

        It matters when the confusion of consumers lead to sales of more pricier products.

        A.) Confuse the hell out of consumers

        B.) Have B&M sales drones trained to downplay lower priced products and confuse consumer even more

        C.) Sell higher priced product . . . . .a.k.a. . . . .MAKE BIG PROFIT

        For a grand total of “Keep company alive after paying investors big dollars”.

    • dpaus
    • 9 years ago

    I could be very happy with a 14″ laptop using either of those Phenom II BEs, as long as it has Dual-link DVI or Displayport video out, so that I can drive an external 30″ LCD. Add an HDMI port to either of the above and I could be in laptop heaven.

    Congrats to AMD – for a company that many had written off two years ago, they’ve done quite the turn-around.

    • masaki
    • 9 years ago

    Scott, please stuff Cyril’s suitcase with these.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 9 years ago

    Man, one of those Phenom II X920s would beat the pants off of most any dual-core system as the basis for a mobile audio workstation. And my guess is that it’d do it at around $1k, which is retardedly cheap for such a machine. (though they’re not giving prices here, I’m just guessing)

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 9 years ago

      Core i7 quad-core laptops have been $900 for a while. Those have a $380 CPU.

      These had damn well better be cheaper than that. $380 at the minimum for a specific type of CPU isn’t exactly AMD style.

      The biggest advantage to me is that their quad-cores will have integrated graphics, whereas the Intel ones are literally incapable of it, and all come with discrete cards that kill the battery.

        • axeman
        • 9 years ago

        But a $900 i7 laptop is probably pretty lousy if the processor is worth 380 of that.

          • OneArmedScissor
          • 9 years ago

          That doesn’t mean the big manufacturers are paying $380 for each one they put in there, though. It’s exactly the price increase that should be expected going up from a $700-800 Core i5 laptop.

          The point is that AMD does not slap $380 prices on PC CPUs, these do not need a graphics card, so it’s perfectly reasonable to expect some models to be available in the $700-800 range.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            You know, I just realized something (and I feel stupid not thinking about it before). Comparing CPU price/performance doesn’t really make sense; one should compare system price/performance.

            Even if that i7 would cost you 50% more than that Phenom X4 and give you “only” a 30% performance increase, once you factor in all the other crap your system needs (mobo/case/memory/hddsdd etc.), the total system price difference might be only 25%, in which case it makes sense to pay for that faster & more expensive CPU: you get a 30% faster system for 25% extra cost.

            • WaltC
            • 9 years ago

            OK, but suppose the performance difference is effectively 0% for >90% of the apps you will run, and battery life is maybe ~10%-20% better with the AMD system? At that point the system costing ~50% more is not even close to being a bargain. I think that the notebook argument has to include the notion that people buying notebooks of any description have an entirely different checklist than people building desktops. I’m not personally interested in notebooks of any description and never have been…;) But it seems obvious to me why AMD has garnered as many notebook design wins as it has.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 9 years ago

        holy cats. I totally missed that. $900 Toshiba with GT330M graphics? That’s nuts. Too bad it’s only 1366×768. Tha’td be good for occasional use, but I’m used to my 1080p monitor now. Don’t think I could give that up for extended periods.

        Guess these Phenom machines would have to be $800 to compete.

          • OneArmedScissor
          • 9 years ago

          Lenovos, HPs, and Dells have been hanging around there, too, but they’re always that resolution at that price point. Even so, those are their own niche, high end, platform and there are tons and tons of options available, without breaking the bank.

          I’d expect even more options of the AMD range, since they should be the same chipset and socket whether they’re $400 or $1,000, making it very simple for the OEMs to spam us with different models.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 9 years ago

            Man, this makes me want a new laptop. Haven’t had one as my primary machine for several years (Powerbook 1.33GHz G4 was the last one and I got rid of that in 2005), and I miss being mobile.

          • mesyn191
          • 9 years ago

          The PhII X620 would probably be nearly perfect for a budget gaming system. Just needs a 5850 or so and hopefully it’ll be under $900. It’d be fantastic if we saw some “cheap” gaming laptops with a similar CPU and a mobile 5730 for under $700.

          That may sound crazy at first, but you can find i5 based laptops with 5730’s in them for under $900 right now.

    • Hattig
    • 9 years ago

    The V105 surely makes VIA’s Nano entirely pointless?

    • crose
    • 9 years ago

    How are these compared to what Intel has been selling for some time?

    • sweatshopking
    • 9 years ago

    things are looking up!

      • satsuper
      • 9 years ago

      Yeah good stuff from AMD at least they are bringing some form of competition back to the laptop market place even though it wont beat Intel in performance or battery life.

    • BlackStar
    • 9 years ago

    At last, low power laptops with decent drivers. Optimus might have been a solution here but it hasn’t really caught yet.

    Anything but Intel IGPs!

    • yes
    • 9 years ago

    they should put this in my thinkpad x100e. athlon mv-40 is just terrible to culvs

      • codedivine
      • 9 years ago

      Well unfortunately they will not put those in your x100e. Nor in mine 🙁
      But at least I have the L335 version and the MV-40.

    • Hattig
    • 9 years ago

    Looking like a good product launch to me. Far more respectable power consumption and battery lives. Lots of products too. Could make them some money finally.

    • Farting Bob
    • 9 years ago

    Doesnt stand out to me, i guess price will be a huge deciding factor. With that many laptops planned though, i guess AMD have been pretty aggressive.

    • StuG
    • 9 years ago

    Looks promising, possibly they will capture the middle section between “really low power” and “best of the crop” for the laptop department.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This