backtop

Hardware AMD Releases Five New Processor Models
Jansen Ng (Blog) - January 25, 2010 11:20 AM
Print 50 comment(s) - last by sdfasdgdhasdf.. on Jan 30 at 1:08 PM
Minor speed bumps for the budget-minded

Having lost the CPU performance race, AMD has been focusing on the low and mid-range PC market instead. Today the thorn in Intel's side is expanding its Phenom II and Athlon II lineup with some minor speed increases.

The new Athlon II X2, X3, X4 and Phenom II X2/X4 (energy efficient) families have new siblings that are rated 100MHz higher. AMD says that continual process and engineering improvements on GlobalFoundries' 45nm process have allowed it to release the new models.

The new models use the AM3 socket and are compatible with AM2+ motherboards that have the proper BIOS support enabled. AMD sees them as a good upgrade for budget-weary consumers.

AMD is currently working on several new 800-series AM3 chipsets that are expected to be released in several months. Some will feature integrated DirectX 10.1 graphics, but ATI has recently released several new discrete DirectX 11 GPUs aimed at the value-market that should tempt even the most frugal of gamers.

Several six-core CPUs in the Thuban family should also be released in the second quarter.


 Processor Model

 TDP

 Frequency

 1ku Price

 AMD Athlon™ II X2 255

 65 W

 3.1 GHz

 $74

 AMD Athlon™ II X3 440

 95 W

 3.0 GHz

 $84

 AMD Athlon™ II X4 635

 95 W

 2.9 GHz

 $119

 AMD Phenom™ II X2 555

 80 W

 3.2 GHz

 $99

 AMD Phenom™ II X4 910e

 65 W

 2.6 GHz

 $169



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
AMD
By Nocroman on 1/25/2010 1:15:47 PM , Rating: 4
Who's faster? Geeks will know, I won't care! I have owed Intel and AMD chips. AMD has always given me the best quality for my money. I have had an Intel chip fail, I have never had an AMD chip fail.
For my money AMD give the best bang for the buck.
But if your a mercedes type of person that likes to brag they have the fastest and most expensive, then Intel is the chip for you.
But, if your an adverage person who seeks the best quality for the money and do not care about prestige, AMD is the product for you.
I truely hope Intel and AMD keep up the compitition between themselves. We get better technology, more jobs, and better prices out of the compitition. Ain't America Great!




RE: AMD
By porkpie on 1/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: AMD
By Targon on 1/25/2010 1:37:35 PM , Rating: 2
While Intel does have a CPU advantage, if you look at an all-Intel vs. all-AMD machine, which has the fewest weak spots?

Now, by weak I am not talking about which is the fastest. AMD video that is on the market currently DESTROYS anything Intel has in the field. The new Intel graphics may be a big step up for Intel, but the new AMD integrated graphics will again put Intel graphics to shame.

As far as the heat, my Phenom II X4 955 at 3.5GHz is running at a nice 33 degrees Celsius, which doesn't seem to be all that high to me. The 965 is a known "overclocked chip" with the 140 watt peak draw vs. the 125 watt of the 955, so I don't look at the 965 as a "typical" AMD CPU.


RE: AMD
By Jansen (blog) on 1/25/2010 3:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
The latest stepping of the Phenom II X4 965 has a TDP of 125, while some of the 125W models are now rated at 95W.


RE: AMD
By dnd728 on 1/25/2010 5:18:34 PM , Rating: 4
But then Intel's SSD DESTROYS anything AMD has in the field.
All-AMD won't even boot... ;) :P

(please don't go on adding parts)


RE: AMD
By CHAOQIANG on 1/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: AMD
By ArcliteHawaii on 1/25/2010 4:48:23 PM , Rating: 4
If you're building a low end machine, AMD provides the best bang for the buck. You can get an AMD quad core for under $100 street. That's amazing. If you're on a budget, best to spend the $100 saved on proc and put it towards a graphics card. In this economy, $100 can be the difference between having a machine or not. And if you put the money towards paying your electric bill, $100 can run your computer for a long, long time.


RE: AMD
By CHAOQIANG on 1/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: AMD
By themaster08 on 1/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: AMD
By bertomatic on 1/25/2010 3:18:46 PM , Rating: 3
your numbers are way off bud...

the 73W i5's are DUAL core, not QUAD core.

Intel's QuadCore i5 is 2.66 GHz, 95W and $200
AMD's Phenom II 910e is 2.6 GHz, 65W and $170
AMD's Phenom II 945 is 3.0 GHz, 95W and $161
AMD's Athlon X4 620 is 2.6 GHz, 95W and $ 95

Seems to me AMD has the price/thermal/performance advantage right now. (Hyper-threading is mostly useless marketing fud, and even must be disabled under certain conditions)


RE: AMD
By themaster08 on 1/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: AMD
By silverblue on 1/25/2010 4:48:24 PM , Rating: 2
Umm... the i5-750 doesn't feature HT.


RE: AMD
By themaster08 on 1/25/10, Rating: 0
RE: AMD
By Sillarra on 1/25/2010 8:18:05 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
However, the Core i5's have hyperthreading


Yes you did.


RE: AMD
By themaster08 on 1/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: AMD
By silverblue on 1/26/2010 8:04:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Core i5 series are more comparable to the latest Phenom II's, considering that they're both quad core, both have dual-channel memory controllers and both are similarly priced.

However, the Core i5's have hyperthreading, more cache (some models) and lower TDP (the latest models as low as 73w compared to the 140w (125w on later models) of the Phenom II X4 965).


Here's where the confusion arose.

All dual core i5s feature HT, however the quad core i5 750 doesn't, and that's the only quad core in the range. For 4 cores and HT, you need the i7-8xx series.

The i5 series as a whole should have a lower TDP than AMD's current offerings, considering that a) the 750 is clocked lower than competing AMD designs, and b) the other i5s are dual core. Even with the graphics core added in, a good proportion of the chip is 32nm and as such will use less power, plus AMD don't use the same gating technology as Intel so there's less power bleed on Intel CPUs.


RE: AMD
By themaster08 on 1/26/2010 2:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
I understand. The way I put it was entirely wrong. I didn't mean it as I put it.

My apologies for any confusion.


RE: AMD
By Calin on 1/26/2010 2:47:18 AM , Rating: 2
"Hyper-threading is mostly useless marketing fud, and even must be disabled under certain conditions"

Actually, it must not.
Hyperthreading in the original Pentium 4 processors was indeed able to bring performance down, and it was capable to block the running of some applications licensed for single processors.
As of now, I dont' think there is any performance hit with hyperthreading (especially on 4-cores, 8-threads processors).


RE: AMD
By jonmcc33 on 1/25/2010 4:32:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have had an Intel chip fail, I have never had an AMD chip fail.


Fail? What did you do to it. I've never seen an Intel CPU fail. They have had thermal protection from the start.

Never had an AMD CPU fail? Were you not using them back in the Thunderbird days where they had no thermal protection? Numerous instances of improper heatsink installation causing the CPU to burn up and die?

The worst was my old AMD Opteron 165 paired with an nVIDIA nForce4 Ultra motherboard. It was the most unstable pile of garbage I had ever used!

quote:
But if your a mercedes type of person that likes to brag they have the fastest and most expensive, then Intel is the chip for you.


What? You have no clue what you are talking about. AMD and Intel are equal in the price vs performance market.


RE: AMD
By bighairycamel on 1/25/2010 5:32:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The worst was my old AMD Opteron 165 paired with an nVIDIA nForce4 Ultra motherboard. It was the most unstable pile of garbage I had ever used!
That's funny because I upgraded several months ago from that exact system to an i5. I loved the Opteron, don't get me wrong, but I probably spent 5 times longer trying to get it stable by tuning the right frequency/voltage combo with the proper memory timings than I did with any other system to date.

As to the original TC, these are not cars. I didn't choose an intel to inflate my e-ego, I chose it because I specifically set an $800 budget and I wanted the best performance for that price. The closest AMD offering at the time was the 965 Black Edition, which would have saved me a whopping $20 for roughly 75% of the performance. Not everyone with an intel is out to see how far he can stretch his epeen.


RE: AMD
By Targon on 1/25/2010 6:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
And this is the flaw that some people have, trying to pin chipset problems on the CPU manufacturer. NVIDIA is a third party chipset manufacturer, so if you had problems, why would you blame the CPU manufacturer?

Now, NVIDIA also makes chipsets for Intel processors, so by your logic, if you had problems with the system and getting it to run properly, it would be the fault of the Intel processor?

I have had a lot of BAD experiences with the nForce 4 series of chipsets, and it is why I am looking forward to seeing NVIDIA get out of the chipset business. While NVIDIA may have been better than VIA, that doesn't say much.

As far as performance goes, the 955 black edition will overclock as well as the 965 would, but it starts with lower power demands, so is really a better deal in my opinion. Clock it to 3.5 GHz EASILY with the stock cooler and thermal tape, or 3.7-4GHz with better cooling. For the price, AMD isn't in bad shape.


RE: AMD
By AstroGuardian on 1/26/2010 8:29:23 AM , Rating: 1
Mercedes type of person? Prestige? Ain't America great?

Are you from Mars? You obviously don't have a clue what are you talking about...


Intel i5
By killerclick on 1/25/2010 3:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
i5 and i7 are great CPUs, unfortunately you need a new ($100-ish) motherboard for them as well as DDR3 RAM (tough luck if you have fast DDR2). I'll just replace my old Athlon X2 4000+ with an Athlon II X4 620 for $90 and I'm good for two years or so.




RE: Intel i5
By bug77 on 1/25/2010 5:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
Still, chances are if you really use more than two cores, you'll need either an i5 or an i7. Quad-cores are really not meant for users on a budget (imho).


RE: Intel i5
By xaders on 1/25/2010 6:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
any new intel i3/i5/i7 are all AMD clone CPUs. since intel used integrated memory controller and x64 extension & etc. it is all AMD technology when it was explained when intel & amd with their settlement basically, most of intel current CPUs has AMD technology because they shared each other x86 patents.

these are some improvement but nothing new to beat intel.


RE: Intel i5
By Pryde on 1/26/2010 4:47:36 AM , Rating: 2
roflmao

and who made the x86 instuction set?
and who had the first integrated memory controller?
and who had the first 64-bit cpu?

certainly wasen't AMD.

- x86 made by Intel.

- The first Intergrated Memory Controller was DEC Alpha 21364.

- Super computers have been using 64bit since the 60's and RISC based processors in the early 90's.

Intel was forced to share its x86 instruction set.

AMD started producing clones as a licensed second-source manufacturer of 8086 and 8088 processor for IBM. IBM's policy at the time was to require at least two sources for its chips.

AMD is a leech on the microprosser world stealing others designs.


RE: Intel i5
By Kim Leo on 1/26/2010 5:56:36 AM , Rating: 2
lol you fanboys, poor intel was forced by ??(The man!) to give their instruction set to AMD? So it wasn't the fact that AMD acted as a second supplier of x86 processors to IBM that they got permission to use it? no of course not.

You are playing who had the idea first bs, but facts are that without AMD you wouldn't have these nice processors today, the competition has really given us the consumers nice products on both sides in price and performance, if only Microsoft have had the same competition I can promise you we would have some interesting variations of operating systems.

Oh and why is it that Intel agreed to pay AMD for these antitrust charges if all AMD does is stealing and copying?

I will admit my bias, I've always seen AMD as the inovator and somewhat "underdog". my desktops have always been AMD, I've been satisfied with them never have I had an unstable CPU. And yeah I know you will say AMD didn't do any of it first but notice how you twist things to fit what you are saying, I could twist it as well and say, AMD was the first who brought 64 bit to x86, wich would be true actually, and AMD was the first to use intergrated memory controller in a x86 cpu, but again I don't really care who had the idea first, I care about getting something that works and see competition thrive and deliver us better and better produts.

btw. I have had two Intel based laptops, they work great! although I really would like Intel to make something nice in on-board graphics, but they were stabile and quick.


RE: Intel i5
By Pryde on 1/26/2010 11:02:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
lol you fanboys, poor intel was forced by ??(The man!) to give their instruction set to AMD? So it wasn't the fact that AMD acted as a second supplier of x86 processors to IBM that they got permission to use it? no of course not.


AMD had permission to create clones of Intel CPUs, they did not have an x86 license.

Intel cancelled this agreement in 1986 after IBMs policy changed, refusing to share technical details of the i386.

AMD challenged Intel's decision to cancel the agreement and won in arbitration.

Intel disputed this decision. A long legal dispute followed, ending in 1994 when the Supreme Court of California sided with AMD.

quote:
You are playing who had the idea first bs, but facts are that without AMD you wouldn't have these nice processors today.


Without what Intel had in the 30 years before AMD introduced their own x86 CPU we would be years behind where we are now.

People say Intel just copied AMD with IMC, Multicore, HT, 64bit but AMD copied these from someone else first.

I just find it very funny that the OP xaders claims Intel CPUs are clones of AMD when AMD got into the CPU market by making Intel Clones. Competition is great for the end consumers. I just believe people are giving AMD to much credit for one good design.


RE: Intel i5
By HrilL on 1/26/2010 12:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
Got to love the fanboys
quote:
and who made the x86 instuction set?

Intel made x86. Who made the first x86_64 CPU? AMD
quote:
and who had the first integrated memory controller?

Not Intel. Who made the first x86 CPU with an integrated memory controller? AMD.

Who made the first native x86 dual core? AMD Quad core? AMD six Core? AMD

Who invited HyperTransport(Intel calls it quickpath)? AMD

Who made the first x86_RISC CPU? NexGen who AMD bought soon after and they designed their K6 CPU. A more efficient CPU than anything Intel had and was clearly faster clock for clock.
This is also the common hybird design that pretty much all modern CPUs follow today.

Intel was asked to share x86 with AMD in order to gain a large volume contract they were not forced to do anything. They wanted IMB's business so they did what was required to get it.

Intel licensed x86 to a lot of different company's over the years IBM, NEC, AMD, TI, STM, Fujitsu, OKI, Siemens, Cyrix, Intersil, C&T, NexGen, and UMC... They were forced into all these agreements I take it? ROFL.

AMD is in fact the real innovator in the CPU space. Every major design change has come from them.


RE: Intel i5
By Pryde on 1/26/2010 11:23:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel was asked to share x86 with AMD in order to gain a large volume contract they were not forced to do anything. They wanted IMB's business so they did what was required to get it.


Intel was not asked to share the x86 license. It was IBMs policy to have a secound manufacturer. AMD only had permission to create clones, not develop any of their own x86 CPUs.

There is a huge differance between making clones and making your own unique CPU using x86.

AMD was allowed to create 8086 - 80286 Intel CPUs. Intel cancelled this agreement in 1986 after IBMs policy changed. AMD challenged Intel's decision to cancel the agreement and won in arbitration. AMD then reversed engineered the 386 and 486 and made clones.

It was not until after AMD won arbitration that they had the right to create their own x86 CPU but it still took them almost 10 years to do so.

quote:
AMD is in fact the real innovator in the CPU space. Every major design change has come from them.


And x86 wasen't a major design?
8bit?
16bit?
oh wait what about 32bit?
DRAM?
NOR-flash?

All Intel =P

Then you have IBM who created many other great PC breakthroughs including the Hard Disk Drive.

AMD has simply copied others ideas, adapted them onto their x86 CPU and marketed them. It is IBM and Intel who are the real innovators.


RE: Intel i5
By HrilL on 1/27/2010 11:39:52 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not even going to waste my time with you. You simply can't accept the truth. Like a religous zealot that refuses to accept any other views than their own faith.

Clearly you never read my post of your selective mind only comprehended the parts you want. Completely disregarding the facts that were brought up.

No one said Intel didn't innovate but they've surely copied quite a bit from AMD as of late. And that is what innovating really is. Taking multiple ideas and making them better and work together.

Plus Intel is an evil company with absolutely no business ethics. I find it repulsive that you'd actively defend them.


RE: Intel i5
By 1prince on 1/26/2010 12:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
Like the editor, some of these readers have ways to go.

Having lost what race?

The AMD 965 is not competing with the Intel i7.

They are not even in the same league. The i7 use a three-channel memory controller, while the AMD 965 is just minding it's own business running 2-channel DDR3. Wait 'til AMD decides to have a 3 or more memory controllers, then men you can start your engines.

AMD have decided it's just too risky to take the autobahn when the local route will do. AMD is just cruising wisely.

AMD prefer to make all their books rather than to gamble for a blind 9.

No matter how hot the Porshe appears it's not competing with the Bugati, they're just sharing the same road.


RE: Intel i5
By Pryde on 1/26/2010 11:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wait 'til AMD decides to have a 3 or more memory controllers, then men you can start your engines.


AMD would never copy Intels designs, have you not heard AMD are the real innovators.


RE: Intel i5
By 1prince on 1/28/2010 3:26:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD would never copy Intels designs, have you not heard AMD are the real innovators.


I am aware, thanks. AMD is planning for 4-channel memory on their G34 sockets. Desktops will later likely follow.

That's why more was included as the operative word.


RE: Intel i5
By 1prince on 1/26/2010 12:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
Like the editor, some of these readers have ways to go.

Having lost what race?

The AMD 965 is not competing with the Intel i7.

They are not even in the same league. The i7 use a three-channel memory controller, while the AMD 965 is just minding its own business running 2-channel DDR3. Wait 'til AMD decides to have a 3 or more memory controllers, then men you can start your engines.

AMD have decided it's just too risky to take the autobahn when the local route will do. AMD is just cruising wisely.

AMD prefer to make all their books rather than to gamble for a blind 9.

No matter how hot the Porshe appears it's not competing with the Bugati, they're just sharing the same road.


RE: Intel i5
By killerclick on 1/26/2010 3:28:00 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's what they said about air travel and mobile phones.

Why not, though? There are plenty of applications that can use four cores and there are bound to be many more in the future. My choices are either get an Athlon II X4 for $90 or get an i5+mobo+DDR3 for $350 that'll give me 50% better performance at best at 3.5 times the money.


RE: Intel i5
By Taft12 on 1/25/2010 8:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
The motherboard costs are pretty close now between AM3 and 1156 - it's the new memory that can be painful to add to the upgrade total if you already have DDR2.

I'd go with AMD for this reason if I had already invested in 3+ GB of DDR2 (luckily I don't need to worry about this since my single-core socket 939 system is all going away when my next upgrade comes)


not bad
By twhittet on 1/25/2010 11:42:21 AM , Rating: 2
2.9ghz quad is a nice speed bump over the 2.6ghz 620 at 95watts. Nothing amazing, but it helps.




RE: not bad
By HrilL on 1/25/2010 12:55:01 PM , Rating: 1
The speed boost is nice but really the cache is what holds this cpu back.


RE: not bad
By Taft12 on 1/25/2010 5:05:41 PM , Rating: 2
Someone link me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think the cache held back much of anything...

I recall reading an article where they tested Phenom vs Athlon at the same clockspeed and proved the cache only provided a couple % points difference for most real-world tasks.


RE: not bad
By HrilL on 1/26/2010 11:34:57 AM , Rating: 2
Gaming is one application where the cache makes a difference. It may not be much but I'll take the extra 10fps it seems to give...


RE: not bad
By rburnham on 1/26/2010 10:28:48 AM , Rating: 2
I am impressed with the TDP drop. My 3 ghz Phenom II is rated at 125 watts. Getting 2.9 at 95 watts is intriguing.


O.E.M.
By blowfish on 1/25/2010 3:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
whilst the fanboys and enthusiasts might argue over this and that, what's of more importance to the cpu manufacturers is what the Tier One pc makers will use. They certainly don't seem to be limited to Intel only these days, so these new releases should help increase the AMD market share, since they undoubtedly score highly in price/performance.

Nice to see the 635 multiplier at 14.5, compared with 14 in the 630. Maybe there's more to come, even if we never see an unlocked BE edition.




RE: O.E.M.
By Targon on 1/26/2010 12:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
The beauty of a $400 AMD based computer tower or laptop is that you will ALWAYS have either Radeon or Geforce graphics in there. This means that for many people, even if the CPU is slower, the machine is better for many people.

It will be a long time before the new generation of graphics chips or processors makes it into ANY system, so for at least the next six months, the overall computer experience will be better with an AMD based machine compared to an Intel at that $400 price point since the GPU CAN make a huge difference in how fast/slow a system FEELS in general usage. Move a window around on the screen, non-Intel graphics have a huge benefit. Light gaming, and AMD based machines also are better.

The real question is how quickly the new Intel processors are that include the new graphics core will become available to consumers, and how much they will cost compared to the AMD systems at that point.


Game over, intel
By bug77 on 1/25/2010 1:54:11 PM , Rating: 3
Your Core2 line cannot compete with these, especially considering the price. Oh wait... it's not 2007 anymore...




When will we See...
By shabodah on 1/25/2010 11:26:46 AM , Rating: 2
The Phenom X3 740 BE? I thought it was going to be released before these others. Has anyone actually seen a Athlon X2 250e in stock anywhere yet, either?




my 2 Cents
By batman4u on 1/25/2010 12:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
i know i am not aware of all costs and targets on AMD but i think if they priced at 99.99 the AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE AMD would destroy competition on budget minded people which is more than 99% of people.

i come to think of this because i recently bought and compared it to my 720BE which i used to love but overclocked for several games and encodings, something i dont have to and havent found the need to in my new 955BE

this CPU is ofcourse no CPU champion but reality is, at stock speeds (undervolted from 1.4 to 1.3) i think nobody needs more beef than this.




Cheap online shopping
By fasfdhfd0000 on 1/29/2010 4:41:13 PM , Rating: 1

http://0rz.tw/oPWXd
can accept the paypal payment.we can ship within 24 hours after your

payment.

accept the paypal
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
http://0rz.tw/oPWXd




Cheap online shopping
By fasfdhfd0000 on 1/29/2010 4:41:18 PM , Rating: 1

http://0rz.tw/oPWXd
can accept the paypal payment.we can ship within 24 hours after your

payment.

accept the paypal
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
http://0rz.tw/oPWXd




Cheap online shopping
By sdfasdgdhasdf on 1/30/10, Rating: -1
"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki