Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan3 who wrote (199368)	5/30/2006 7:03:05 AM
From: manu1	Respond to of 275872

Dan, do you have a link for that? thanks

To: Dan3 who wrote (199368)	5/30/2006 8:05:55 AM
From: eracer	Respond to of 275872

Re: Conroe XE was expected out at 3.3ghz / 65W. What we got was 2.9ghz 85W. I don't know where you got 65W from. You must have it confused witht the regular desktop part. Rumors were that Conroe XE was expected to be 95W. nordichardware.com ocforums.com There doesn't seem to be a problem with power consumption on the 3GHz/1333MHz FSB Woodcrest in the Tech Report review. I doubt the 2.93GHz/1066MHz Conroe XE will be running hot. Perhaps more importantly, there's only a 12 W difference between a single and dual Woodcrest config at idle. That CPU just isn't drawing much power at all. Under load, the difference is 59 W—much less than the 80 W TDP of the 3GHz Woodcrest, and under the 65 W target for the lower-speed Woodcrest processors. techreport.com