Feeds

AMD extends Turion mobile chip line

Top and bottom

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

AMD has added a pair of Turion 64 mobile processors to its CPU line-up. Most attention appears to be focused on the top-end ML-40 chip, but there's a new MT-28 at the bottom to the range, pitching Turion into lower-priced notebooks.

The ML-40 is a 35W part, while the MT-28 consumes up to 25W. The two chips are clocked at 2.2GHz and 1.6GHz, respectively. The top-end chip contains 1MB of L2 cache, the lower-end part 512KB. Both support 400MHz DDR SDRAM.

The ML-40 comes in at $525, well above the $354 it is still charging for the previous top-of-the-range Turion chip, the ML-37. The MT-28 is priced at $159. All prices are per processor when sold in batches of 1000 chips.

HP was the first PC vendor to ship a notebook based on the ML-40, the Compaq nx6125, AMD said. Like the new Turions, the HP machine is available immediately. ®

Related stories

VIA unveils C7-M notebook processor
AMD steals Q1 market share from Intel
AMD expands Mobile Athlon 64 line-up
Euro notebook PC sales boom
Benchmarks haunt AMD's Turion
AMD tweaks mobile chip roadmap

Related review

Acer TravelMate 4401LMi Turion notebook

Whitepapers

Why and how to choose the right cloud vendor
The benefits of cloud-based storage in your processes. Eliminate onsite, disk-based backup and archiving in favor of cloud-based data protection.
Getting started with customer-focused identity management
Learn why identity is a fundamental requirement to digital growth, and how without it there is no way to identify and engage customers in a meaningful way.
10 threats to successful enterprise endpoint backup
10 threats to a successful backup including issues with BYOD, slow backups and ineffective security.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
The hidden costs of self-signed SSL certificates
Exploring the true TCO for self-signed SSL certificates, including a side-by-side comparison of a self-signed architecture versus working with a third-party SSL vendor.