DailyTech - AMD Launches 8 New CPUs Ahead of Windows 7 Debut, Targets SFF PCs

Submit News

Hardware AMD Launches 8 New CPUs Ahead of Windows 7 Debut, Targets SFF PCs
Jansen Ng (Blog) - October 20, 2009 8:22 AM

38 comment(s) - last by hyvonen.. on Oct 22 at 2:52 PM

(Click to enlarge)

Six new low power CPUs and two new Athlon II X3 CPUs coming soon

While AMD doesn't have the fastest CPUs in the world anymore, it still offers some very powerful processors at some very competitive prices. It recently launched the first quad-core CPUs for less than $100, and today they are launching eight new CPUs that the company thinks will provide excellent value against the Blue Team's offerings.

AMD is launching the first Athlon II X3 CPUs at 2.9GHz and 2.7GHz. It is also launching six new low-power CPUs; two each from the Athlon II X4, X3, and X2 families. They all have a Thermal Design Power of 45W, 50W less than the regular 95W requirements of most Athlon II X4 and X3 CPUs. There are some significant reduction in clock speed, but AMD is aiming for a different market than regular desktop users.

Computer form factors are getting smaller every year. All-in-One systems like the iMac that integrate the computer into the monitor are becoming more popular, as are Home Theater PCs (HTPC)s and Small Form Factor (SFF) computers. These systems have limited space and thus get very hot since there is limited airflow. AMD wants to get in on this growing market, and to do that they need CPUs with a low TDP.

Some of these CPUs have already been selected by Acer, Dell, HP, and Lenovo for use in new systems that will be available when Windows 7 launches on Thursday.

CPU Name	TDP	Frequency	Price (1K)
AMD Athlon™ II X4 605e	45 W	2.3 GHz	$143
AMD Athlon™ II X4 600e	45 W	2.2 GHz	$133
AMD Athlon™ II X3 435	95 W	2.9 GHz	$87
AMD Athlon™ II X3 425	95 W	2.7 GHz	$76
AMD Athlon™ II X3 405e	45 W	2.3 GHz	$102
AMD Athlon™ II X3 400e	45 W	2.2 GHz	$97
AMD Athlon™ II X2 240e	45 W	2.8 GHz	$77
AMD Athlon™ II X2 235e	45 W	2.7 GHz	$69

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Ads blocking chart

By Mitch101 on 10/20/2009 10:32:30 AM , Rating: 2

Ads are blocking the chart. While I love DT the ads are really getting annoying to a point where I am considering leaving. I know this is probably how you generate revenue but its getting out of control where its starting to feel like the days of popup messages.

RE: Ads blocking chart

By mckirkus on 10/20/2009 11:38:52 AM , Rating: 2

Adblock +?

Parent

RE: Ads blocking chart

By hyvonen on 10/21/2009 2:07:05 AM , Rating: 2

Try that with Chrome.

Parent

RE: Ads blocking chart

By phatboye on 10/20/2009 1:21:35 PM , Rating: 2

The ads are blocking anything for me. Maybe you need to refresh your browser.

Parent

RE: Ads blocking chart

By Mitch101 on 10/21/2009 8:03:15 AM , Rating: 3

They moved the chart to under the ad. They were overlapping there for a while. Could see through some of the ads. But Im going to try the adblock I tend to read using my mouse as a highlighter and with the popups on the words its become too annoying.

Parent

RE: Ads blocking chart

By karielash on 10/20/2009 3:40:51 PM , Rating: 2

Firefox +noscript = your friend = no ads.

Parent

RE: Ads blocking chart

By sigmatau on 10/21/2009 5:18:16 AM , Rating: 2

LOL what ads? Maybe it's your browser?

Parent

Looks impressive

By phazers on 10/20/2009 8:36:29 AM , Rating: 2

Just wonder how this will help their margins. AMD really needs to bring Bulldozer forward and compete at the high end once again.

RE: Looks impressive

By StevoLincolnite on 10/20/2009 8:44:20 AM , Rating: 2

It honestly doesn't bother -me- personally how much profit AMD makes on each processor, however having said that, I'm loving the Rebirth of the Athlon line and it's awesome Price/Performance in the low-end/mid-range segments.

I can't actually bring myself to quantify a purchase of a Pentium/Celeron processor anymore with the Athlon X2, X3 and X4 processors which are usually cheaper and offer more performance.

I'm very interested to see how the cards fall with the Core i3, and the costs of the overall platform, last time I checked the Socket 1156 based motherboards still featured a small price premium over a socket AM3 based board, so the processors will in my eyes need to offer similar prices with a fairly large step in performance in order to consider such a platform upgrade.

Parent

RE: Looks impressive

By EasyC on 10/20/2009 12:16:05 PM , Rating: 2

I've been faced with the task of building some SFF pcs as of late. I can tell you first hand that altho AMD's processors are indeed cheaper...the boards are not. I have a plethora of LGA 775 mITX boards to choose from while AMD has maybe a handful. Not to mention the Intel boards can be quite a bit cheaper.

That said, I'm not an Intel fanboy by any means. If AMD can manage to get some cheaper boards made, I'll gladly make the switch next time I need to make a SFF PC.

Parent

RE: Looks impressive

By StevoLincolnite on 10/20/2009 1:25:42 PM , Rating: 2

If you compare socket 775 with Socket AM3, then I agree the socket AM3 boards are far more expensive.

However, I find that going to the Socket AM2+ boards and whacking in an AM3 processor is equally as effective, and the boards are usually price competitive with socket 775, but they also give you vastly more upgrade options, as you can use newer CPU architectures with the boards and offer better performance over Intel GMA decelerators.

Parent

RE: Looks impressive

By Alpha4 on 10/20/2009 4:11:48 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
...offer better performance over Intel GMA decelerators.

Haha! Too true.

Parent

RE: Looks impressive

By Taft12 on 10/20/2009 1:35:46 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I have a plethora of LGA 775 mITX boards to choose from while AMD has maybe a handful.

Not sure what universe you live in, but Newegg currently shows 3 AM2+ ITX motherboards and 4 775 ITX motherboards.

I will admit I'd trust a board manufactured by Intel before one by Zotac (assuming you are building for a business customer)

Parent

RE: Looks impressive

By deeznuts on 10/20/2009 3:19:32 PM , Rating: 2

There are other sites dedicated to small form factor boards etc.

Parent

Too much price compression IMO.

By Amiga500 on 10/20/2009 8:41:07 AM , Rating: 2

Surely it is bound to cost them more to produce that many disparate parts rather than rationalising the lines and providing less options.

Although, I guess they know what they are doing...

RE: Too much price compression IMO.

By Hieyeck on 10/20/2009 8:56:10 AM , Rating: 2

Most of the change is simply a small tweak to the core to run faster by default. Due to variances in manufacturing, some lines just come out better and can run at higher speeds. So why not make a quick buck and sell it at higher speeds.

That and a little extra ink on your marketing materials.

Parent

RE: Too much price compression IMO.

By BSMonitor on 10/20/2009 6:17:21 PM , Rating: 1

But essentially we have 6-10 CPU's (not sure where prices on Phenom II X2's and X3's and old Athlon X2's fall) that give you +/- 5% performance depending on the app. And all of them with this $70-110 range... The average consumer is not have a clue nor care what you mean by Phenom II X2, Athlon X2, Athlon X4, Phenom II X3, Athlon II... They are going to buy whatever is on sale in the ad.

All these crazy different flavors of the same Phenom II core just to compete with a single Pentium (aka Celeron) processor from Intel... Not even a full blown Core 2 or Core 2 Quad... Let alone a Core i5 / i7.

Essentially this is fluff at it's finest.

Parent

AIO?

By Visual on 10/21/2009 5:37:39 AM , Rating: 2

I wonder, which is this hugely successful AIO model that the states have and the rest of us don't?

Maybe someone confused DTR laptops with an AIO desktop?

review 435

By The0ne on 10/20/2009 11:54:01 AM , Rating: 1

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlo...

Why not be consistent and post website reviews while you're at it?

makes no sense.

By drewsup on 10/20/09, Rating: -1

RE: makes no sense.

By nafhan on 10/20/2009 9:35:12 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
why would I buy a 605 for almost $50 more, other than lower power consumption

You would buy it for the lower power consumption. They're charging more for chips binned to run at lower voltages.

Parent

RE: makes no sense.

By ExarKun333 on 10/20/09, Rating: -1

RE: makes no sense.

By just4U on 10/20/2009 11:57:44 AM , Rating: 5

What do you mean old tech? The Phenom2 and Athlon2 have not been around for very long. 8 months or there abouts?

Considering the entry costs of the I5 AMD's cpu's are a excellent low cost alternative. Not quite as fast but still quite powerful in their own right.

Parent

RE: makes no sense.

By hyvonen on 10/21/09, Rating: -1

RE: makes no sense.

By hyvonen on 10/22/2009 2:52:40 PM , Rating: 1

Um... why would I get rated down to -1 for stating the obvious? A bunch of AMD fanbois raving about their supercheap CPUs...

Guys: you don't understand business. The more you want AMD to cut their chip prices, the deeper AMDs loss will become. Already these chips are 2x larger than Intel's equivalently priced and performing chips; hence, they will cost more to make. This is why AMD isn't profitable, and Intel is.

And this will only get worse for AMD once Intel's 32nm Westmeres will come out. Westmere runs faster, the chip is smaller and less expensive to make... AMD has no chance of competing profitably. Sure, they can cut the prices and fanbois are happy, but they are already losing money at current prices. The end game is near.

Now that I've explained why, let me reiterate:

"Enjoy the party while it lasts. Westmere will come soon to put an end to this AMD silliness."

If you have a solid argument against this statement, you're justified to downrate - I'd like to hear the argument, though. Without a good argument, downrating is just dumb.

Parent

RE: makes no sense.

By Targon on 10/20/2009 3:24:03 PM , Rating: 3

You seem to have missed the difference in design. The Athlon 2 is NOT a name change of the old products. The short version:

Back when the original Phenom design came out with quad core, the design clearly did not provide enough of a performance improvement for most people. At that point, the older dual-core Athlon 64 X2 chips were still there.

Then, AMD released a massive improvement with the Phenom 2 line, starting with the 940 and going from there. It may not have made AMD competitive for the highest end processors, but the Phenom 2 WAS enough to give the new chips enough "bang for your buck" to make people want to buy them. In addition to this, being able to use the new architecture in most socket AM2+ and even many AM2 motherboards made the Phenom 2 a good chip to upgrade to.

In time, it made sense to release new processors with the updated designs to replace the older Athlon 64 X2 processors. And that is what you are seeing with these new processors.

Now, you may not see ANY reason to buy a dual core processor, but the market for the average consumer would make these new chips do the job. In addition to this, due to the price/performance of the new chips, you now have a choice in the low-cost segment:

Intel processors which are faster, but also include the pathetic Intel graphics.

AMD processors which are fast enough for most people, but will have either NVIDIA or AMD graphics in the system.

Note that when people want to watch an AVI file or DVD on their computer, which GPU do you think will do a better job, an Intel or AMD? For the same low-cost computer($350-$450 tower), which do you think most home users would feel is better for their web browsing, going to youtube, etc?

It really is a bit of a toss-up for your average consumer, isn't it? If a netbook can provide enough power for many people on the road, would they REALLY care on the desktop if the price is right, as long as the machine feels responsive enough?

Parent

RE: makes no sense.

By OCDude on 10/20/2009 9:36:12 AM , Rating: 2

Well you answered your own question!

The biggest reason someone would go for a 605 is for an HTPC.

Parent

RE: makes no sense.

By amanojaku on 10/20/2009 9:45:05 AM , Rating: 3

Well, you loose a negligible 300MHz per core, yet you cut your power consumption in half. If this thing saves you $1.33 per month over three years you'll make up the price difference while having a system that can be cooled by a quieter fan.

Parent

RE: makes no sense.

By drewsup on 10/20/2009 10:19:34 AM , Rating: 2

Well, I guess, but the 620/630 is fairly underpowered for a quad core chip due to the L3 cache missing. I guess I'm just wondering what you would use these for. I really like AMD chips, and they have done a great job at clawing back their share of the market, but I wonder how these compare on a price to performance ratio with a good dual core chip? Maybe I'm just confused by "too much of a good thing" syndrome.

P.S. Yes I'm salivating over a system upgrade from my aging 3400+. LOL

Parent

RE: makes no sense.

By amanojaku on 10/20/2009 11:08:00 AM , Rating: 2

I wouldn't say it's underpowered, although the lack of an L3 cache is curious. I know it helped to reduce the die size, power consumption and heat generated, but I know little about the impact on memory performance. I wonder if the integrated memory controller trims the performance gains of an L3 cache, although Intel has quite a large L3 cache in its current CPUs. Considering the target HTPC platform it's likely that it doesn't matter. Cache is most helpful for random reads of the same data set; sequential data access of a data set too large to fit in cache, the most common form of media access, isn't really boosted by a cache.

P.S. I'm riding my Athlon X2 4600 until it breaks. It's been good to me and I want to eek out every bit of performance I can. Until Windows 7. I want a brand new machine for that, my first about five years.

Parent

RE: makes no sense.

By Taft12 on 10/20/2009 1:28:47 PM , Rating: 3

I don't know what "underpowered for a quad core" is supposed to mean, but for God's sake man, it costs $99!!

The L3 cache adds surprisingly little - check out the tomshardware article where they compare the 435 and 720. The Athlon is 100MHz faster and no L3 cache yet most results within a few % of each other.

PS I have a 939 3400+ system too!!

Parent

RE: makes no sense.

By nafhan on 10/20/2009 2:14:59 PM , Rating: 2

I'm probably going to get one of the 425's. I think it's the best value for a budget gaming machine, right now. The article keeps talking about how the 435 doesn't make sense compared to the 620, and I agree, but the 425 is cheaper and almost as fast as the 435.

I've got a socket 939 Athlon x2 3800+, right now. So, it should be a good upgrade!

Parent

RE: makes no sense.

By phatboye on 10/20/2009 1:27:29 PM , Rating: 2

I don't think you get it, read the article. Yes you lose a few MHz and lower power consumption but that is not the reason why these chips are special. It's cause they have a lower TDP than most of their other chips making them more suitable for SFF PCs.

Parent

RE: makes no sense.

By fredthelight on 10/20/2009 10:27:43 AM , Rating: 3

I agree with you, especially since it's quite easy to underclock these CPUs and make the regular ones as power savers as the more expensive ones, as shown on this french website..http://www.hardware.fr/news/lire/20-10-2009/
Reduce Vcore, reduce speed, et voilà :)

Parent

RE: makes no sense.

By xti on 10/20/2009 10:39:05 AM , Rating: 2

thats never going to matter, as people who can do that represent a drop in the well of potential buyers.

Parent

RE: makes no sense.

By drewsup on 10/20/2009 1:53:47 PM , Rating: 2

P.S.
Didn't Toms review say "some" of these had unlocked L3 cache? So the L3 is there, they just disabled it on most of the chips.

Parent

RE: makes no sense.

By nafhan on 10/20/2009 3:26:23 PM , Rating: 2

From what I've heard, there are Athlon II's based on Phenom II's with cache disabled and Athlon II's built as Athlon II's with no L3, and since they are both sold as Athlon II's YMMV when attempting to unlock the cache.

Parent

no good for AMD

By harbin on 10/20/09, Rating: -1

"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer