backtop


Print 32 comment(s) - last by teckytech9.. on Feb 10 at 7:59 PM

First Socket AM3 CPUs

AMD is launching five new Phenom II CPUs, building on their launch last month of the Phenom II X4 940 at 3.0GHz and the Phenom II X4 920 at 2.8GHz.

Today sees the addition of the Phenom II X4 910 at 2.6GHz to the 900 series. The 800 series is similar to the 900 series, but reduces the shared L3 cache to just 4MB, or 1MB per core. The 700 series has just three cores, but retains the full 6MB of L3 cache, bringing it to 2MB per core.

The uncore, which is comprised of the memory controller and the L3 cache, receives a bump to 2.0GHz. All five of the new CPUs can be used in the new AM3 socket in order to access DDR3, or the older AM2+ socket in order to stay with cheaper DDR2. This versatility allows a user to upgrade their CPU on an AM2+ platform now, then upgrade to an AM3 platform later when DDR3 prices go down. The older Phenom two models are only AM2 CPUs, but AM3 versions are slated to be released in the near future.

DailyTech previously reported on the anticipated launch in December last year.

Processor

Clock Speed

Un-core Clock

L2
Cache

L3 Cache

TDP

Price

AMD Phenom II X4 940

3.0GHz

1.8GHz

2MB

6MB

125W

$225

AMD Phenom II X4 920

2.8GHz

1.8GHz

2MB

6MB

125W

$195

AMD Phenom II X4 910

2.6GHz

2.0GHz

2MB

6MB

95W

$???

AMD Phenom II X4 810

2.6GHz

2.0GHz

2MB

4MB

95W

$175

AMD Phenom II X4 805

2.5GHz

2.0GHz

2MB

4MB

95W

$???

AMD Phenom II X3 720 BE

2.8GHz

2.0GHz

1.5MB

6MB

95W

$145

AMD Phenom II X3 710

2.6GHz

2.0GHz

1.5MB

6MB

95W

$125

AMD Phenom 9950

2.6GHz

2.0GHz

2MB

2MB

140W

$173

(Chart courtesy AnandTech.com) 

AMD is also planning more launches in April and June.

April 2009:

  • Phenom II X4 945 3.0GHz with 8MB total cache on the AM3 socket
  • Athlon X4 615 2.7GHz with 2MB total cache on the AM3 socket
  • Athlon X4 605 2.5GHz with 2MB total cache on the AM3 socket
  • Athlon X3 420 Athlon X3 420 2.8GHz with 1.5MB total cache on the AM3 socket
  • Athlon X3 410 Athlon X3 410 2.6GHz with 1.5MB total cache on the AM3 socket

June 2009:

  • Athlon X2 240 2.8GHz with 2MB total cache on the AM3 socket
  • Athlon X2 235 Athlon X2 235 2.7GHz with 2MB total cache on the AM3 socket




Comments     Threshold


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

It Figures...
By cubdukat on 2/9/2009 3:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
I just picked up a quad-core Phenom 9650 this weekend, and they would have to come out with something newer.

I was actually thinking of stuffing a Phenom II 940 in, but the board's only rated for 95W TDP, and even though some of the reviews have said that 125W TDP chips work in it, I wasn't going to take the chance and void my warranty since I just got the mobo in November.

I'll probably build an all-new system around one of these newer chips and keep the 9650 in my main system. It's so schweet...




RE: It Figures...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: It Figures...
By Motoman on 2/9/2009 6:23:10 PM , Rating: 5
...I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you didn't read the AT article. As I originally noted, in most cases the AMD parts don't match Intel on a clock-for-clock basis, but they are quite compelling when matching price. The conclusion from AT:

quote:
When AMD launched the Phenom II X4 940 and 920 I called it a True Return to Competition. With the rest of the lineup now more fleshed out, it's truly a return to competition. At every price point that AMD targets, it has produced a CPU competitive to Intel's offerings.


Please add something valuable if you're going to reply to a thread...otherwise, troll elswhere.


RE: It Figures...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: It Figures...
By Motoman on 2/9/2009 7:18:12 PM , Rating: 5
...performance at what price? If Via suddenly came out with a CPU that was 5 times as fast as an i7 clock-for-clock, but it costs $5,000, would you buy one?

...or, on the other hand, do you think "hmmm, I have about $150 to spend on a new CPU...I wonder what's available at that price point, and where I can get the most performance for those dollars?"

So, no, you're not exactly wrong - there's a great amount of interest in having the all-out fastest CPU out there. But very few people have unlimited budgets - so for the vast majority of users, CPUs are judged by their price/performance ratio. In this regard, AMD is looking pretty good once again.

...and for the record, the benchmarks *do* show that AMD is competitive at each price point. Hence, the reason why AT came to that conclusion.


RE: It Figures...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: It Figures...
By Cypherdude1 on 2/9/2009 10:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
On the above chart, AMD's newest, fastest CPU, the AMD Phenom II X4 940, runs at 125W .

On this machine, I have an AMD T-Bird 1400 which uses 65W typical with a peak of 72W. I use it mainly for browsing the 'Net, writing emails, and playing MP3's and DVD's. I rarely use more than 30% CPU power for these tasks. I initially had problems keeping the temperature down, running at 49°C. I bought, at the time, an advanced SwiftTech MCX462U heatsink which uses a quieter 80mm fan, something also new at the time. It's been running at a cool 41°C ever since.

My point is, if the AMD Phenom II X4 940 (blah blah blah) runs at 125W, doesn't this mean it runs really REALLY toasty, enough to boil water at 100°C even? If the X4 940 runs hot, won't this reduce its lifespan? A hot CPU also runs less stable, giving you BSOD's, IPF's, etc...

If you gain anything from my post, you should realize just how long a high quality mobo, Abit KG7, high quality PSU, Enermax 431 watts, and a cool running CPU can last (knock wood). This system has been running 8 hours a day, every day, since October 2001 and I have no problems with it. When I build a new system, I like to keep it for a long time and I expect it last (forever?). ;^)


RE: It Figures...
By Motoman on 2/10/2009 1:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
Your T-Bird would run right up to 100 degrees Celsius and quickly thereafter blow up, if your heatsink fan failed. Or if you were silly enough to turn on the PC wihout a heatsink installed - would take about .000002 seconds for the Thunderbird to go from room temperature to whatever temperature it is that silicon melts at...and then it would melt.

In all cases, it's up to you (or the system builder) to ensure that proper heatsink/fan combos are used to keep temps within a normal range. 40C or lower is ideal...but realistically, 60C or less isn't likely to significantly lower your CPUs life expectancy...make sure to use your BIOS settings for temperature warnings and shutdowns though. Often those settings start at 70C.


RE: It Figures...
By Sungpooz on 2/9/2009 11:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What PC builder is only going to allocate 150 bucks to his CPU ? The most crucial component in the whole damn build ! Are hobo's and people on Welfare suddenly in the PC building business ??


What idiotic American commuter is only going to spend 25,000 dollars on a car? The most crucial component to getting things done?! Are hobo's and people on Welfare suddenly driving cars ??

Yea, pretty idiotic.


RE: It Figures...
By zpdixon on 2/10/2009 1:21:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

What PC builder is only going to allocate 150 bucks to his CPU ?

The ASP (average selling price) reported by Intel and AMD is actually below $150. So you belong to the minority if you buy $150+ CPUs.


RE: It Figures...
By riku0116 on 2/10/2009 2:37:09 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
What PC builder is only going to allocate 150 bucks to his CPU ? The most crucial component in the whole damn build ! Are hobo's and people on Welfare suddenly in the PC building business ??

Actually, for a gaming rig, the CPU isn't really all that important. For instance, a system with a $130 E7300 paired with a decent graphics card like the $150 HD 4850 has very little fps to gain even by upgrading to an i7 costing 2 times as much. This is because once you go past a certain threshold in resolution, the performance of most 3d games become limited by the graphics subsystem.

So please excuse us lowly peasants if we happen to prefer not to spend $150+ on a cpu when we can get by running COD4 at 90+ fps on a 1080p res monitor with a $130 E7300 (or in this case the similarly priced X3 710).


RE: It Figures...
By croc on 2/9/2009 8:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you should read Anand's review. He did quite a few 'real world' benchmarks on which to make that claim, and if you actually read the review, he wasn't really 'generous' at all.


RE: It Figures...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: It Figures...
By Noliving on 2/10/2009 3:05:46 AM , Rating: 2
No they get your point but you seem to be missing their point. You are correct in that nothing Amd has can compete with the i7's but then again the AMD processors provide enough performance for games and other applications to run smoothly and at a competetive price.

What you end up with is that on average the AMD processor cost half as much as the intel processor but it is only slower by as much as 30%. Then you include the cost of the motherboards which are cheaper than intels motherboards. AMD offers a better bang per buck.

Basically is this, intel processors cost twice as much as AMD's but you are only getting 30% more performance. Is it worth it to pay twice as much money for 30%?


RE: It Figures...
By Motoman on 2/10/2009 11:18:00 AM , Rating: 1
...the best part about your comments? You make the rest of us look like geniuses. Thanks! :)


I just read the review at AnandTech...
By Motoman on 2/9/2009 1:10:42 PM , Rating: 3
...overall, seems like AMD is back in the game, especially when looking at the price points.

There's at least one vendor pre-selling these AM3 chips at decent prices, but I can't find anyone selling, or pre-selling, AM3 motherboards. With CL7 DDR3 1333 4Gb kits going for $70 right now, I'd pop for a CPU, mobo, and RAM for a new rig...but don't want to bother doing it with an AM2+ mobo when the AM3 units should be out *any day now*...




RE: I just read the review at AnandTech...
By Shida on 2/9/2009 2:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
OMG dude yes!. I'm currently in pause of building my rig (I'm currently stuck with PSU and Case) and am waiting for an AM3 mobo with a 980a chipset from Nvidia.

but despite the mention in the article, when the mean performance, do they actually mean OC performance or just standard performance period?


By just4U on 2/10/2009 12:19:46 PM , Rating: 2
As a comparison, I'd say the PII 920 is Equal to a Q9450. It's definitely faster then my Q6600 at stock speeds. I can''t honestly notice any difference between it and the 9550 until you start getting into the numbers game with benchmarks, fraps ect. Very competent cpu.

I haven't even bothered to overclock it yet.


RE: I just read the review at AnandTech...
By Shida on 2/9/2009 2:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
OMG dude yes!. I'm currently in pause of building my rig (I'm currently stuck with PSU and Case) and am waiting for an AM3 mobo with a 980a chipset from Nvidia.

but despite the mention in the article, when they said AM3 mobos are something to wait since performance is not up to par, do they actually mean OC performance or just standard performance period?

Because I'm not OCing.


RE: I just read the review at AnandTech...
By Motoman on 2/9/2009 2:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
At stock speeds, the AMD parts give good performance at their relative price points. While, in most cases, AMD hasn't caught up to Intel on a Ghz-to-Ghz basis, at similar price points the AMD stuff is pretty compelling again.

They do seem to have pretty good overclocking potential too though...for those who are into it.


By Shida on 2/9/2009 2:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
Ah okay. Thanks. Ugh...now I have to wait for March!


By just4U on 2/10/2009 12:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
At stock speeds it's pretty comparable to 9x, 8x, and beats out the older Core2's from what I see. The big thing for many of us, is it adds another option. (to be fair) Amd was lacking in their X4 lineup prior to the Phenom2 and it just wasn't viable at a similiar price point.

For some it really don't matter who's on top though and thats fine. They go with Intel or Amd because of brand loyalty. The rest of us however, just go with what we figure to be the right choice at the time of purchase.


TDP
By Moishe on 2/9/2009 9:13:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
All of the new processors are rated at a 95 watt Thermal Design Power


Then why does the table have 125W for the 940?

Go AMD... we need more competition.




RE: TDP
By SpaceOddity85 on 2/9/2009 9:40:54 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
quote: All of the new processors are rated at a 95 watt Thermal Design Power

quote:
Then why does the table have 125W for the 940?


Ummm...because it's not new?


RE: TDP
By StevoLincolnite on 2/9/2009 9:42:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Go AMD... we need more competition.


I agree, seems like the Athlon brand is going to live-on as well, probably the processor to combat the Celeron and Pentium brands, will be interesting to see how they bench with the reduced cache, and how well they overclock.


RE: TDP
By teckytech9 on 2/10/2009 7:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
probably the processor to combat the Celeron and Pentium brands...

Try competition for the Core i7 brands instead. Remember how just a few weeks ago that Intel dropped their prices on the i7 lineup by 40% when AMD introduced their first batch of Phenom II X4 940 & 920s. Using the AM2+ sockets will please existing owners of these boards and provide for an economical upgrade path.

More bang for the buck, of course.


RE: TDP
By cfaalm on 2/9/2009 3:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
The 940 is not AM3, it's AM2+.


710 price apparently $125
By ET on 2/9/2009 11:20:04 AM , Rating: 2
Sites other than AnandTech mentioned this price.




RE: 710 price apparently $125
By Jansen on 2/9/2009 6:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
I checked the info I have from AMD and it is indeed in there.

Thanks for pointing that out.


Review at AnandTech
By The0ne on 2/9/2009 3:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
link for those interested in the review

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...




RE: Review at AnandTech
By Jansen on 2/9/2009 5:40:38 PM , Rating: 2
The link was already in the first sentence of the article.


65 watts?
By rburnham on 2/9/2009 10:04:38 AM , Rating: 3
Hopefully we will see some 65 watt or less quad-cores from AMD. I am hoping to upgrade my HTPC and a low-watt quad-core would be perfect for it.

I am enjoying my Phenom II 940. Keep up the good work AMD!




"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner
Related Articles
DDR3 Will be Cheaper, Faster in 2009
January 20, 2009, 8:51 AM
AMD to Announce Phenom 2 This Thursday
January 7, 2009, 4:20 PM













botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki