NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Sager & Clevo Notebook Forums › Sager & Clevo Notebooks › Clevo D900K (Athlon Dual Core Laptop) Sager XXXX Specs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Clevo D900K (Athlon Dual Core Laptop) Sager XXXX Specs - Page 5  

post #81 of 140
6/25/05 at 11:54am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karma
Those are NOT 1600Mhz FSB. That is marketing/advertising. What they are referring to is the 800Mhz Hypertransport in both directions (ergo, 1600Mhz). But it is not really 1600Mhz at all. It's not even a FSB, but a Hypertransport connection between the CPU and the RAM. A64 CPU's have no official FSB.

Intel has a FSB still, but not AMD.
With the AMD64 technology, there is no need for a "Front Side Bus" because the Memory Controller is on the die of the CPU itself, but if you were to compare the speed of the Hypertransport with an FSB, it'd be either Duplex 800MHz or 1000MHz (later ones have 1000MHz).

I also hope those are not the final specs for the D900K, because having a 2GB limit, as well as a VIA chipset would make it stupid to have in a very high price range.

Also, the current shipping VIA K8T890's do NOT support dual core.
Quote:
The K8T890 chipset, VIA's first PCI Express Athlon 64 chipset, was announced to have full support for dual core Athlon 64s two months ago. However, motherboard manufacturers are telling us now that the current revision of the K8T890 doesn't support dual core AMD CPUs properly.
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/...spx?i=2444&p=5
post #82 of 140
6/25/05 at 11:58am
intel is making a baddddd move with this...
post #83 of 140
6/25/05 at 12:39pm
Only the current shipping VIA K8T890 mainboards are not dual core ready - with a new K8T890 chipset revision the dual core support should be there.

I am also hoping for a spec change. A DTR notebook like the D900K should be equiped with a high performance nForce4 ultra chipset. This chipset works stable and has much better onboard features (SATA II, Gigabit Ethernet, Hardware Firewall, NCQ,...).
post #84 of 140
6/25/05 at 3:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotorhead
Direct quote copy and pasted from Anandtech:

"AMD's dual core Athlon 64 processors will work in all current Socket-939 motherboards with merely a BIOS update. The same level of compatibility obviously isn't true for Intel's dual core solutions. You'll need a new motherboard to support the Pentium D and Pentium Extreme Edition chips, and thus, Intel shipped us a board based on their soon-to-be released 955X platform."

Another interesting quote from the same article for the previous discussion:

"Contrary to what we've reported earlier, the only difference between the Pentium D and the Pentium Extreme Edition is the presence of Hyper Threading; mainly, the Pentium D doesn't have it, while the Extreme Edition does. Both chips will only use a 800MHz FSB, they both have the same cache sizes, and they only differ in the presence of HT. "
Keep in mind that in that statment AMD was referring to desktops, not notebooks. All notebooks have another requirement for compatibility: TDP. The Thermal Design Properties of a CPU refers to the amount of heat that it produces, and even though a notebook might have a motherboard that can support the pin-count of a CPU, that doesn't mean it has the chassis to support cooling the CPU. Luke and the other esteemed workers at PCTorque had gone through problems a few months ago trying to get the A64 3700+ to play nice in the 4750, but even while using AS5 and BIOS updates it created too much heat and noise (fans on 100% all the time).

Having a socket 939 motherboard in a notebook won't mean that you can have a FX-57 in a notebook (TDP ~150W by itself), or possibly even a X2 4800 (TDP ~110W) outside of an R&D dept at Clevo. Just that you could use CPU's with a different socket type and dual-channel RAM.
post #85 of 140
6/25/05 at 3:11pm
What is the TDP of the Intel 570? I was under the assumption that it was far higher than any amd design.
post #86 of 140
6/25/05 at 5:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karma
Having a socket 939 motherboard in a notebook won't mean that you can have a FX-57 in a notebook (TDP ~150W by itself), or possibly even a X2 4800 (TDP ~110W) outside of an R&D dept at Clevo. Just that you could use CPU's with a different socket type and dual-channel RAM.
I have heart that the new FX-57 has a 90nm structure and so the TDP will be in the same region as that of the A64 4000+. So it should be no problem for the D900 barebone.

Right now all AMD processors (dual core versions included) have a less or nearly equal max. TDP as the fastest clocked Intel single core processor (P4 Prescott).
post #87 of 140
6/26/05 at 6:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinzon
I have heart that the new FX-57 has a 90nm structure and so the TDP will be in the same region as that of the A64 4000+. So it should be no problem for the D900 barebone.

Right now all AMD processors (dual core versions included) have a less or nearly equal max. TDP as the fastest clocked Intel single core processor (P4 Prescott).
The newer 90nm non-FX CPU's have a TDP of 67W, which would fit in nicely to notebooks. The FX and X2 series are still at 89W and up, which can be difficult to get into a DTR.

The FX-57 & new FX-55 are on 90nm. The FX-57 hasn't been announced yet, but is rumored to still have a TDP of 125W.

The X2's have a TDP of 110W. The 130nm FX-55 is at 104W, and the 130nm 4000+ is at 89W.

Remember that PCTorque/Sager had troubles with anything higher than 89W.

But all of that is much less than a Prescott running at 150W!
post #88 of 140
6/26/05 at 11:16am
How could they have trouble with anything higher than 89 yet they are shipping a 3.8 P4 in both the hotter 570 and the cooler 670 and they run well over 89?
post #89 of 140
6/26/05 at 1:31pm
The troubles with the 89W TDP was in the 4750 chassis. Which will be discontinued when the new D900K comes out with the 9880 / D900t Chassis. So their should be no problem with Dual core processors or FX processors since the D900T / D900K Chassis can handle a 570 Prescott.
post #90 of 140
6/26/05 at 3:23pm
TDP rumours aren't always based on facts. Look at the rumours about the GeForce 7800.
post #91 of 140
6/26/05 at 7:31pm
A Tomshardware article about some new RAM coming at the end of the year that will give us 2GB Ram modules

http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews...24_120651.html
post #92 of 140
6/27/05 at 3:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by YuriSEAL
TDP rumours aren't always based on facts. Look at the rumours about the GeForce 7800.
Of course. BTW, Extremetech has a preview of the 90nm FX-57, including the TDP: 104W.

Athlon 64 FX-57 Preview

That's not bad, but it certainly means that if Clevo wants to accomodate all of the 939 processors (including the X2 4800+), then they'll have to make enough changes to increase the chassis' ability to dispurse heat better than the 4750 did. Much better, in fact. They'll have to go from 89W max to 110W max, and not make it a dustbuster.

That's a 20% increase in efficiency, at the very least.
post #93 of 140
6/27/05 at 9:43am
I have found a review of the new Athlon64 FX-57 at X-bit labs:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...64-fx57_3.html

The new processor (San Diego 90nm core) consumes under load only 73.4W. That is around 34W less than the FX-55 with 130nm structure (Clawhammer core). So it will absolutely no problem to equipe the D900K with the new FX series processors .

The review is very interessting. The FX-57 sets some new gaming records .
post #94 of 140
6/27/05 at 12:48pm
The review from Tomshardware also shows that the FX-57 under max load uses just a little more power than the Intel 660 at idle . . . so I think the 900 chassis is well up to the task of handling any heat that the AMD chips put out.
post #95 of 140
6/27/05 at 4:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinzon
I have found a review of the new Athlon64 FX-57 at X-bit labs:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...64-fx57_3.html

The new processor (San Diego 90nm core) consumes under load only 73.4W. That is around 34W less than the FX-55 with 130nm structure (Clawhammer core). So it will absolutely no problem to equipe the D900K with the new FX series processors .

The review is very interessting. The FX-57 sets some new gaming records .
Why AMD would say it's 104W and Xbit says its 73.4W? You'd think if it was lower then AMD would be touting it's power consumption at launch as a benefit, right?
post #96 of 140
6/27/05 at 4:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotorhead
The review from Tomshardware also shows that the FX-57 under max load uses just a little more power than the Intel 660 at idle . . . so I think the 900 chassis is well up to the task of handling any heat that the AMD chips put out.
That's not a good comparison at all, because the AMD notebook chassis' are different from the Intel notebook chassis' and have very different cooling capabilities.

The 9880 handling a 3.6Ghz Prescott and the 4750 barely handling a 130nm 3700+ should have told you of that.

You know, none of us would be talking about any of this if Clevo had better designed the AMD chassis. We know notebooks can handle the heat, they just made a design that wasn't too forward thinking. So they had to start from the beginning, leaving all of us waiting in the wings......
post #97 of 140
6/27/05 at 5:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karma
Why AMD would say it's 104W and Xbit says its 73.4W? You'd think if it was lower then AMD would be touting it's power consumption at launch as a benefit, right?
Remember that the TDP in the AMD specsheet is the max. TDP (worst case) of the processor.
AMDs 90nm structure is very sophisticated and so the power consumption of the X-bit review sounds realistic.
post #98 of 140
6/27/05 at 6:46pm
Karma . . . This thread is about putting the AMD in the 9880 chassis?? (You know, different mobo and chip, same big box) So you are losing me . . . We are not saying that we should put try and do this in the 4750 chassis.
post #99 of 140
6/27/05 at 10:03pm
The Clevo 900k would be in the 900 chassis. The one used for the 9880.

And, for your information, the Intel and AMD notebooks weren't different by necessity. The 4750 and 4790 were in the same chassis, and I seem to remember hearing about even worse TDP issues with the 4790. They were different, most likely, because Intel told Clevo about how much their cash-throwing department would love to see their best chassis/top model devoted to Intel processors.
post #100 of 140
6/27/05 at 11:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ActuaryTm
the "legs" of the iCurve can in fact block the fan vents on the machine bottom, and thereby limit ventilation in general.
Actually not really, it fits it perfectly. This thing is so durable too. It's defintely not going to slip off either. Even when I push the laptop from the back, it slides the icurve forward with it.

Beating both the XPS2 and 9880 with non-stop gaming..


The fan to the left IS blocking it about less than a 1/4 of the diameter, but the passive cooling it does provide is better than leaving it flat or elevated by a book or what not.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sager & Clevo Notebooks
This thread is locked  
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Sager & Clevo Notebook Forums › Sager & Clevo Notebooks › Clevo D900K (Athlon Dual Core Laptop) Sager XXXX Specs