Report: AMD Prepares Athlon II X4 CPUs for Socket FM2

[tecmo34]

With the A-Series Trinity desktop APUs not set to reach retail till later this year, we are getting our first look of the FM2 Athlon II X4 processors.

Report: AMD Prepares Athlon II X4 CPUs for Socket FM2 : Read more

 

[AgentLozen]

These things better be in the >$100 price range.

The best part about AMD's latest APUs is their integrated graphics. If they put just a plain ol' processor out there, I think it's going to get smashed by anything Intel has in that same price range. That is - without the graphics, I wouldn't buy anything of AMD's over Intel's processor lineup. Especially at a comparable price range.

 

[Pyree]

[citation][nom]chromonoid[/nom]what would be the size of the transistors used to build these CPUs?[/citation]
32nm

 

[AgentLozen]

The article says that these Athlon II's are based on Piledriver architecture, so it's probably 32nm like the rest of them.

 

[rolli59]

Lets see how they compete in price with LGA 1155 pentium CPU's

 

[emad_ramlawi]

yay this made my day . even today the Athlon II x4 that power the AM3 socket and fm1 socket are great performers , sadly there abit outdated with CPU memory channel and performance per clock and high CPU watt usage compared to an i3-2130 , another thing the FM 2 socket will be packed with power saving tecn , just like the FM 1 , and for users that admire that and loves performance \ power efficient \ dollar \ quiet , equation , they will love an quad core on 65 Watt for 100$ and AMD HD 7750 for another 100$ , and PSU + case + RAM + HDD + mobo will be another 220$ , and fore 420$ man you get a good budget strong build , that can do anything , there is no APU that can provide that compete with a 7750 , so it makes perfect sense for users whom want a budget quit and efficent build (there is silenced 7750 as well i reckon cooler master 212 or any other tower cooler will semi-silence that 65 watt CPU)

just my 2 cents

 

[serendipiti]

I Feel that this article justs asks: hey guys, it makes sense to get a trinity APU, disable the graphics core and sell it for 10 bucks less ?
And probably, it makes no sense (well in fact if this "disabling" can be reversed then it makes a lot of sense... 10 bucks cheaper APUs

 

[gonzosquirrel]

Doubtful that you would be able to re-enable the graphics core, but I agree with the thought that AMD is just trying to sponge up some funds from wherever they can. The Athlon II 750K shouldn't list any higher than about $80.00. Although it is in socket AM3, you can still buy a Phenom II 965 for $100.00 and it will be a better chip.

 

[horaciopz]

So if this comes with a Piledriver architecture but without cache L3, we will have a FX4100 cheaper and still able to overclock. It means quad cores for under $100 able for overclocking. As bench said about the Trinity cores, those have about 15% IPC over Bulldozer, so it's not too crazy to say that a better performance FX4100 and cheaper will be OK for some budget builders that just want to get into the overclocking world. I like that !

 

[colinp]

Wouldn't it make more sense to call this the Athlon III, since it is a completely different architecture to Athlon II?

It does make sense for AMD to try to sell these, since they are probably harvested from chips with duff GPUs. Better to try to sell them for a few bucks than for them to go to land fill. These might be nice little chips with some overclock headroom to go with the better memory controller than the AM3 Athlon II.

Tom's did a comparison between the Athlon II and Phenom II a few years back to show the effect of L3 cache, so it'd be great to see a repeat of that once Piledriver has been released.

 

[Cazalan]

It makes you wonder if the rumor is true that there's a problem with manufacturing the trinity desktop chips. GF said their 32nm production was at full ramp.

To already be offering GPU disabled versions when they have the FX series looks very odd.

 

[SkateZilla]

having no GPU on the same chip will actually lower the Load temps of the Socket and APU (well CPU).

 

[Kamen_BG]

Hopefully those new Athlon's will be faster than a Phenom 965.
Otherwise they need to be priced really low to compete.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

It makes you wonder if the rumor is true that there's a problem with manufacturing the trinity desktop chips. GF said their 32nm production was at full ramp.

To already be offering GPU disabled versions when they have the FX series looks very odd.

Yep, this does sound like the familiar yield problems Llano had on GF's 32nm process, since these supposedly have a disabled GPU. Llano was delayed around 9 months IIRC from midsummer 2010 to March 2011, only selling in volume summer of 2011. And Bulldozer's delay as well seems to be linked to some problem between AMD and GF in implementing a new design with GF's design rules..

 

[darkavenger123]

Selling rejected goods again with bad GPU core. Well, since they're not competing with Intel, i guess it's okay?? LOL.

 

[freggo]

AMD has to do something about their naming schemes.
The average customer has no idea what is what and how it compares to Intel Processors.
And guess what... if in doubt consumers will take the 'Intel Inside" over AMD.

That's a mindset AMD has to overcome if they want to improve their market share.

 

[Guest]

I may be taking this a bit far but it would be cool if every AMD processor except for Opteron could fit FM2 or other FM sockets.

 

[chaz_music]

This does help them with any yield issues, but it will also power down a large section of the die, allowing the rest of the die (the CPU's) to be clocked upward. Either by SKU for profit, or by overclocking. So yes, it does make sense but it requires the user to get a graphics adapter.

I believe that AMD should partner with IBM in the near future and use some of Big Blue's patents to fight against Intel. IBM is the main reason AMD exists anyway, so it would be fitting that they would partner. IBM has some great lithography and integrated circuit patents.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]chromonoid[/nom]what would be the size of the transistors used to build these CPUs?[/citation]

[citation][nom]Pyree[/nom]32nm[/citation]

The nm node is not the size of the transistors. It is the distance between transistors. Transistor sizes vary between different types of transistors even on the same process technology and node

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]gonzosquirrel[/nom]Doubtful that you would be able to re-enable the graphics core, but I agree with the thought that AMD is just trying to sponge up some funds from wherever they can. The Athlon II 750K shouldn't list any higher than about $80.00. Although it is in socket AM3, you can still buy a Phenom II 965 for $100.00 and it will be a better chip.[/citation]

Counting overclocking, the Athlon II 750K is probably better than any Phenom II CPU.

 

[verbalizer]

not interested..

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]darkavenger123[/nom]Selling rejected goods again with bad GPU core. Well, since they're not competing with Intel, i guess it's okay?? LOL.[/citation]

Intel does the same thing with their current CPUs. Sandy Bridge i7s and i5s use the same die, yet they're separate CPU series. Do you think that the i5s don't have faulty IGPs and/or Hyper-Threading hardware and/or cache and/or simply poor binning or whatever else distinguishes them?

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]AMD has to do something about their naming schemes.The average customer has no idea what is what and how it compares to Intel Processors.And guess what... if in doubt consumers will take the 'Intel Inside" over AMD.That's a mindset AMD has to overcome if they want to improve their market share.[/citation]

Consumers have trouble comparing AMD CPUs to Intel? I bet they have problems comparing different AMD CPUs, let alone comparing them to Intel. Yes, AMD really should improve their naming schemes.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Counting overclocking, the Athlon II 750K is probably better than any Phenom II CPU.[/citation]

I'll rephrase: The Athlon II 750K is probably better than any Phenom II x4 CPU when overclocking is considered. The x6s would still win in some well-threaded workloads quite significantly. Heck, even the Llano Athlon IIs can fight with the Phenom IIs when both are overclocked to the max.

With the modular architecture's affinity for very high frequencies, I have no doubt that these Athlon IIs can be pushed farther than a Phenom II x4 CPU can (let alone on the same power usage). Heck, with overclocking, even the FX-4100 can be close to a Phenom II x4. Make a CPU that has an ~15% performance per clock advantage and has even better overclocking ability due to lowered power consumption and it could do substantially better.

 

[verbalizer]

I'll rephrase: The Athlon II 750K is probably better than any Phenom II x4 CPU when overclocking is considered. The x6s would still win in some well-threaded workloads quite significantly. Heck, even the Llano Athlon IIs can fight with the Phenom IIs when both are overclocked to the max.

With the modular architecture's affinity for very high frequencies, I have no doubt that these Athlon IIs can be pushed farther than a Phenom II x4 CPU can (let alone on the same power usage). Heck, with overclocking, even the FX-4100 can be close to a Phenom II x4. Make a CPU that has an ~15% performance per clock advantage and has even better overclocking ability due to lowered power consumption and it could do substantially better.

wrong on all accounts.
FYI - you talk too much. :/

no wonder you get called out on threads a lot.
like that recon-uk thread...
calling 'blazorthon', remember that.

you talk above your own head a lot too.
give it a rest.