Yukon Ho AMD shows off new ultraportable roadmap

Yesterday, AMD announced that its integrated CPU+GPU Fusion processors wouldn't debut until 2011. Instead, we'll see a plethora of new mobile parts and chipsets rolling out of Sunnyvale through 2009, including new mobile platforms codenamed Congo and Yukon. Both will debut in the first half of 2009, with Yukon positioned as the most netbook-like solution. AMD isn't really using that term, however, and is attempting to position these products as "full-featured" ultraportables with form factors that more closely resemble the Macbook Air.

Let's pause a moment, and define a few terms. Yukon and Congo are high-level terms that refer to an overall platform. Congo, the higher-end version, will use AMD's upcoming Conesus CPU. Conesus, shown below, is a 65nm, dual-core CPU with 1MB of cache (presumably 512K per core), and will support DDR2. Combined with the Congo platform, it will carry an RS780M GPU, the SB710 southbridge, and will support at least some of the Radeon's HD decode features. Yukon is the low-end variant of Congo and will be paired with a low- end Conesus-derived CPU, codenamed "Huron." This new chip will pair up with the RS690E video core and an SB600(?) southbridge.

I dropped in that question mark because I'm having a hard time seeing the logic for an SB600 in an ultraportable or mini-notebook. SB600 used more power than SB700, offered less connectivity, and was a bit buggier than the SB700 and SB750 that have since replaced it. I've no doubt it can do the job, but it's an odd choice for an netbook ultraportable. AMD is targeting a sub-25W TDP for both of these platforms. Granted, that's well above Intel's Atom, but disclosing total platform TDP as opposed to CPU TDP alone is a more accurate representation of how much power the shipping product is going to require.

As for Huron and Conesus, a quick check of AMD's existing product line yields several interesting possibilities. AMD currently has two embedded solutions that might fit Yukon's power consumption profile. The first is virtually a guaranteed fit—it's an integrated Athlon 64 2000+, with a 1GHz core clock, 512K L2, and an 8W TDP. I say "guaranteed," in this case, because if AMD can't deploy a motherboard chipset+IGP that draws less than 16W, the company has no business in this space to begin with. There's also an embedded Athlon 64 2600+—single-core, 15W, 512K of L2 cache. That's a bit tighter of an envelope, but it's still potentially possible.

Conesus is a bit trickier. AMD currently only has just one mobile core in the 25W space, the QL-62 (2GHz, 1MB L2 cache). Then again, since this is a 25W part at 2GHz, it shouldn't be too hard to knock 500MHz off the core, trim the voltage, drop the system bus from 3600MHz to something in the 2GHz range. The reason I'm spending so much time discussing current options, for the curious, is because I seriously doubt Conesus or Huron are actually new CPUs. They might be respun for lower power consumption (we know AMD's 65nm process technology has improved in that regard, based on current Phenom TDPs compared to what the company originally shipped), but the CPUs themselves, I think, are likely to be K8 derivatives.

I have seen some questions on whether or not AMD could ship this sort of part in time to compete with Intel's Atom refresh next year, but again, I don't think that's an issue, for reasons of power consumption and the fundamental performance differences between an out-of-order execution engine and an in-order design. Attempting to compare the two, at this point, smacks more of an inherent desire to grab onto something that's currently popular (Atom) and associate it with something new (Huron/Conesus) even if the two have very little in common.

Resource - Ars Technica