Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

New 45nm AMD CPUs Coming in Q3 2009

Last response: in News comments
Share
May 22, 2009 8:43:17 PM

Ok so I know this an AMD article and this announcement is cool and all -

but really Tom's - it is nearly the end of the month and I still haven't seen news on the new core i7's that I thought were supposed to be released at the end of May. Do we really have to wait until the day they come out to hear about them and research them? Is it that bad to tell us about them a little bit early so we can start making decisions on them? grrr - I've been waiting for THAT news for a while which I thought this article was about at first split second glance then read the 3rd word - AMD.
May 22, 2009 8:54:48 PM

Whats the difference between these new dual core phenoms x2 and athlon x2? It seems theres gonna be a lot of options for cpu buyers. It seems kinda confusing right now.
Related resources
May 22, 2009 9:07:01 PM

IronRyan21Whats the difference between these new dual core phenoms x2 and athlon x2? It seems theres gonna be a lot of options for cpu buyers. It seems kinda confusing right now.

According to a couple different sources, the difference will be that the Phenom line with have an L3 cache, when the lower end Athlons will not.
May 22, 2009 9:13:00 PM

thegh0stOk so I know this an AMD article and this announcement is cool and all - but really Tom's - it is nearly the end of the month and I still haven't seen news on the new core i7's that I thought were supposed to be released at the end of May. Do we really have to wait until the day they come out to hear about them and research them? Is it that bad to tell us about them a little bit early so we can start making decisions on them? grrr - I've been waiting for THAT news for a while which I thought this article was about at first split second glance then read the 3rd word - AMD.

Go yell at Intel's marketing team for not releasing info, not Toms for not making sh*t up.
May 22, 2009 9:24:41 PM

OH YAYAYAYAY 45NM I'M SO HAPPY I CANT WAIT TILL THEY COME OUT!! I'M GOING TO SWITCH MY WHOLE SYSTEM OVER TO AMD!!!!!! YAAAAAAAAAAY
a b à CPUs
May 22, 2009 9:45:47 PM

What, a quad-core Athlon! This is starting to look pretty damn good, but I wonder how they'll differentiate the Phenom X4 and Athlon X4, and what the prices would be.
May 22, 2009 9:50:06 PM

Jesus, they plan launching alot of CPUs lol ... i dont even know what to get now omfg .
May 22, 2009 10:00:16 PM

eddieroolzWhat, a quad-core Athlon! This is starting to look pretty damn good, but I wonder how they'll differentiate the Phenom X4 and Athlon X4, and what the prices would be.

L3 cache. read my previous post.
May 22, 2009 10:50:35 PM

I may be wrong, but I believe I've also heard the Phenom II has better clock efficiency compared to the Athlons.
May 22, 2009 11:10:31 PM

anamaniacI may be wrong, but I believe I've also heard the Phenom II has better clock efficiency compared to the Athlons.



I was under the impression that the new Athlon II processors lacked L3 and are based on the original Phenom design, not the Phenom II. Could some one confirm if this is the case or not at Tom's?
May 22, 2009 11:28:31 PM

Athlon Quads eh? Now I actually wouldnt mind going up to a Quad.
May 22, 2009 11:37:16 PM

The AthlonII chips are PhenomII's with no L3 cache.
May 23, 2009 12:10:11 AM

How is this more competition? AMD is going to release more processors based on a bad design, and this going to make life more difficult for Intel?

The i7 ass-rapes anything AMD can produce, and there's really no way for AMD to compete. It's not just better, it's so much better, and it's not even any bigger. AMD has a seriously bad design on their hands, so more iterations of this bad design are not going to really cause Intel to lose sleep. AMD will get the crumbs Intel does not want, like a scavenging dog hiding under the table hoping something will fall.

When the i5 is released, and moves downstream, AMD will have to move even lower on the food chain. They should stop trying to compete against the Nehalem, for the simple reason they can't.

I'd like to see them put some real effort in dual cores, real dual cores, not sodomized quad-cores that are too expensive to sell profitably as a dual-core. Although a PoS design, the Phenom II comes closer to the Penryn than it does the Nehalem, and with a big cache, and some high clock speeds, they might eek out an existence there until they can come out with the Bulldozer, which hopefully can compete in a meaningful way.

They should try to win market share where the processor doesn't matter. Where the processor is important, Intel will win because it's much better. Much better. But, if they can make the processors cheap enough, they can still sell them cheap enough and make money. They also make good integrated graphics platforms, so that gives them a real advantage over Intel in the platform. But, really, they should forget about performance and focus on cheap right now. When the Bulldozer comes, then move back up. With the pathetic Phenom II, it's just not going to work. It's amazing it's the same size as the i7, and gets destroyed by it by such a wide margin. It's shameful.
May 23, 2009 1:07:20 AM

ta152h said it right, Sadly. The only "real" thing that AMD have against Intel is the integrated Graphics.
May 23, 2009 1:16:04 AM

ta152hHow is this more competition? AMD is going to release more processors based on a bad design


I stopped reading right there because you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. The Phenom II is a excellent processor and is very competitive with current Intel processors in performance at their current price ranges.

I just purchased a X4 955 BE because it was killing Intel processors at the same price segment and actually comes close to or outperforms the i7 in the areas that matter to me. (Gaming and multimedia are the X4 955's strong points.) I could not justify an extra $150 to buy the i7 when the performance that matters to me is very close between the two.

Get your facts straight before coming on here and spouting you senseless rantings.
May 23, 2009 1:42:39 AM

Good they need to stop using up all that silicone making their obese sized chips vs to intel quad cores..
May 23, 2009 2:38:39 AM

ta152hHow is this more competition? AMD is going to release more processors based on a bad design,


lol dude the mainstream does not need an i7 or even a high end i5,heck a gamer would be very well satisfied with a 940 be,the phenom 2 processors offer optimal performance at solid price points,the i7 really only beats the phenom 2 in multi tasking and most ppl dont even notice these differences in the real world unless they r enthusiasts or professional video editors,you talk as if just because the i7 is more powerful everyone should buy that,you are probably one of those moronic "gamers" who goes out and buys the gtx 295 to play on a 17 inch monitor,fuk outta here
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2009 2:43:57 AM

@soonerproud

There is a big difference between enthusiast and fanboi.

You’re as bad as those who justified buying Intel chips during the net burst era.
May 23, 2009 2:48:34 AM

@guk

There was nothing fanboyish about my comment. Go read the reviews here at Tom's and other sites and you will see what I wrote is absolutely correct.

BTW, I own Intel processors too.
May 23, 2009 2:51:42 AM

Definetly interesting...
I will be looking forward to the new price points. I don't know if anyone has the links, but Xbits has the dual core specs and a few benchies here

@ta152h...Not everyone wants to pay twice the price for a 20% or 30% increase on benchies. We live in the real world.
May 23, 2009 4:32:54 AM

From the sounds of this we will be able to put together some spectacular budget overclocker systems this summer. I don't think that AMD is even aiming to out perform the Core i7 at this point, their engineers probably work with sensibility in mind. Whats the point of making a car that can move 300mph when so few people are capable of driving one that fast.
May 23, 2009 4:39:39 AM

soonerproudI stopped reading right there because you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. The Phenom II is a excellent processor and is very competitive with current Intel processors in performance at their current price ranges.I just purchased a X4 955 BE because it was killing Intel processors at the same price segment and actually comes close to or outperforms the i7 in the areas that matter to me. (Gaming and multimedia are the X4 955's strong points.) I could not justify an extra $150 to buy the i7 when the performance that matters to me is very close between the two.Get your facts straight before coming on here and spouting you senseless rantings.


Sooner, no offense, but you don't know anything about processors. The Phenom II is the same size as the i7, and doesn't even approach the performance of it. It's roughly as expensive to make, can not clock as high, and has much lower IPC. How is that anything but a bad design?

AMD has to price them very low, and against Intel's previous generation. The problem is, they are losing money by doing so. It's because the bad design forces them to do this. It's so inferior to the i7, and as Intel moves the Nehalem mainstream it's going to get even tougher. The Phenom II can't even compete clock normalized with the Core 2, and it's a much larger chip.

So, really, try to learn before you post.
May 23, 2009 4:52:40 AM

ta152hSooner, no offense, but you don't know anything about processors. The Phenom II is the same size as the i7, and doesn't even approach the performance of it. It's roughly as expensive to make, can not clock as high, and has much lower IPC. How is that anything but a bad design? AMD has to price them very low, and against Intel's previous generation. The problem is, they are losing money by doing so. It's because the bad design forces them to do this. It's so inferior to the i7, and as Intel moves the Nehalem mainstream it's going to get even tougher. The Phenom II can't even compete clock normalized with the Core 2, and it's a much larger chip. So, really, try to learn before you post.


I am very aware of the deficiencies of AMD's processor design and don't need schooled on the subject. AMD is behind Intel on process technology, but considering the lack of resources compared to Intel the PHII is a very well designed processor. If AMD had Intel's resources, don't you think they would have these issues worked out already? Besides, AMD is not positioning these processors against Intel's high end. They are positioning them against the mainstream segment, which they are very competetive with.

One point you are incorrect on is in some areas the PHII does approach the i7 in performance. If AMD added SMT much like Intel's HT technology, it would be very competetive with the i7 in a lot more benchies.

You should be less condescending to people because they may know more than you think they do.

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2009 5:13:36 AM

@sooner

"I am very aware of the deficiencies of AMD's processor design"

"If AMD added SMT much like Intel's HT technology, it would be very competetive"

"AMD is behind Intel on process technology"

Knowing all this you said

"I just purchased a X4 955 BE"

And you don't think you're a FANBOI???

May 23, 2009 5:24:50 AM

@sumgk

The only people coming off as fanbois are you condescending and arrogant posters.

I purchased the X4 955BE because IT WAS THE BEST PERFORMING PROCESSOR IN IT'S PRICE RANGE AND WAS A EXCELLENT VALUE! With this economy, I could not justify the extra $150 it would cost to upgrade to the X58/i7 platform for very little to no and sometimes LESS PERFORMANCE in the areas I care about. Only fanbois would knock someone for making a wise purchase. I looked at Intel processors in the same price range and they were LACKING IN PERFORMANCE COMPARED TO THE PHII. To get the same performance on the LGA 775 platform, I would have to spend more money I did not have to spend.

Please stop responding to my post if you aregoingto resort to name calling and confront me with a condescending attitude. I will not answer post from you Intel fanbois if you are goingto be rude.
May 23, 2009 6:47:14 AM

wow.... who actually cares about the news? its all AMD or INTEL!
and just annoy the **** out of everyone who DARES to comment...
what for? at least some people are giving usefull information
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2009 6:56:56 AM

@soonerproude

You lit the flames by responding (to someone who wasn't even talking too you) when you posted

"I stopped reading right there because you obviously have no clue what you are talking about"

And

"Get your facts straight before coming on here and spouting you senseless rantings"

And you did this, all in the name of justifying your purchase (of what you clearing concede is an inferior product)

As far as using the lame "in this economy" argument.

If you are broke, no big deal. But instead of trying to be an enthusiast
"Dude, you should have bought a Dell"
May 23, 2009 7:07:58 AM

ta152hHow is this more competition? AMD is going to release more processors based on a bad design, and this going to make life more difficult for Intel?The i7 ass-rapes anything AMD can produce, and there's really no way for AMD to compete. It's not just better, it's so much better, and it's not even any bigger. AMD has a seriously bad design on their hands, so more iterations of this bad design are not going to really cause Intel to lose sleep. AMD will get the crumbs Intel does not want, like a scavenging dog hiding under the table hoping something will fall. When the i5 is released, and moves downstream, AMD will have to move even lower on the food chain. They should stop trying to compete against the Nehalem, for the simple reason they can't. I'd like to see them put some real effort in dual cores, real dual cores, not sodomized quad-cores that are too expensive to sell profitably as a dual-core. Although a PoS design, the Phenom II comes closer to the Penryn than it does the Nehalem, and with a big cache, and some high clock speeds, they might eek out an existence there until they can come out with the Bulldozer, which hopefully can compete in a meaningful way.They should try to win market share where the processor doesn't matter. Where the processor is important, Intel will win because it's much better. Much better. But, if they can make the processors cheap enough, they can still sell them cheap enough and make money. They also make good integrated graphics platforms, so that gives them a real advantage over Intel in the platform. But, really, they should forget about performance and focus on cheap right now. When the Bulldozer comes, then move back up. With the pathetic Phenom II, it's just not going to work. It's amazing it's the same size as the i7, and gets destroyed by it by such a wide margin. It's shameful.



I love it when nerds try to compare dick sizes
May 23, 2009 7:19:56 AM

@sumyco: My beef is not with ta152h as he posted in kind to the way I posted to him, but was not calling me names or accusing me of being something I'm not. I never called him names or a fanboi.

My beef is with posters like you who put people down and resort to name calling.

Quote:
And you did this, all in the name of justifying your purchase (of what you clearing concede is an inferior product)


Again, it is not an inferior product to the processors it is in direct competition with. I never conceded it was inferior to the Intel processors in it's price range. Stop trying imply something I never said to begin with.

Quote:
As far as using the lame "in this economy" argument.

If you are broke, no big deal. But instead of trying to be an enthusiast
"Dude, you should have bought a Dell"


This is precisely the condescending and arrogant attitude I am talking about here. I am an enthusiast and I know many enthusiast, including Intel fans that love these processors from AMD. Just because you are blinded by loyalty to anything Intel, does not mean the rest of us should be. You should be grateful that there is competition in the CPU market. Do you honestly think that you would have the Core 2's or the i7 processors without the pressure AMD put on Intel a few years ago?

The economy argument is not lame when there is 8.9% unemployment and people are trying to stretch every dollar. It is only lame to insensitive people who could care less about the suffering of others.

If Dell built a PC the way I wanted at the price I was willing to pay for it, I would buy one in a heart beat. The reality is I got far more PC for my money than Dell could provide at the same cost I paid.


a b à CPUs
May 23, 2009 7:27:07 AM

sumycoBut instead of trying to be an enthusiast"Dude, you should have bought a Dell"

That throws bang-for-buck out the window. How is that a good idea if he's "broke"?

I would much rather a Phenom II rig at current Australian prices (emphasis on "Australian", before you go posting Newegg links). For $500 I can get 4-6GB of DDR3 and an AM3 CPU and motherboard. $450 or so for AM2+ (no need for new RAM). On the i7 side of things, I get higher performance (although I'd see no tangible difference) but I'm shelling out over $900 for it. The issue is that X58 boards are priced higher than what I'd pay for a gold nugget of the same size, being 3/4 the cost of the i7 920 itself.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2009 8:01:19 AM

You don't need to buy computer in excess of 2 grand to be a true enthusiast.
But if you think 9 hundred is too much for a system, then you are clearly not and enthusiasts. (I can sympathize)

You don't need to buy a computer in excess of 3 grand to be a true enthusiast.

But if you think 9 hundred is too much for a system, then you are clearly not and enthusiasts.

Analogy:
It’s the difference between the guy who has a drawer full of car magazines and Jay Leno. One is an enthusiast, the other wishes he could afford to be.

Now imagine the magazine guy telling Leno why he thinks his Ford Focus was a better price/performance purchase than Leno's Ford GT.
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2009 8:17:45 AM

jukkiBut if you think 9 hundred is too much for a system, then you are clearly not and enthusiasts.

It isn't too much for a system, but it is too much for just the CPU, motherboard and RAM.
May 23, 2009 10:25:58 AM

Well in any enthusiast for anything videophile audiophile there are no cost objects the best is the best even if you can't really tell.
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2009 10:31:03 AM

By your definition, the enthusaiast crowd is pretty much limited to a small group of people over at XtremeSystems who have more cash than they could run a bonfire with.
May 23, 2009 11:33:55 AM

People need to understand that mainstream and low end it`s what sells best not the high end, Intel may have the top end performance crown but they don`t make the sells there... main stream and low end it`s what sells best in the CPU/GPU market and in that range AMD has no problems at all compeating face to face with Intel, and Phenom II is a great CPU even for multi task and vide editing, i work a lot with Premiere / photoshop / after effects at the same time and the PII 940 BE that i have does a great job.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2009 2:09:58 PM

Mainstream and low-end sell. But it’s the high-end that gets it sold. (adverstising)

The mainstream and low end profit happen after the company releases its high end section of said architecture to convince the enthusiast community that it's viable.

That’s why companies like Intel and NVDIA usually bring out their high end parts first. They know that the local neighborhood geek’s approval is what the laymen seeks before he makes his purchase.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2009 2:47:54 PM

Is XtremeSystems a good site? I ask because I have been searching for an alternative enthusiast site to lurk.

I’m only here to read about the performance of the latest and very best systems and architecture. Not looking for help with my personal budget problems.

Sites like this one are turning bad. Too many people here sound like tree huggers at a monster truck rally.

It would be awesome to find an enthusiast site where as soon as someone said something like;

"But my Mac is esthetically pleasing"
"No one needs that much ram"
"Why get more than a dual-core"
"I am happy with my low end fanboish purchase of..."

They would instantly get banned.
May 23, 2009 3:25:18 PM

jukkiYou don't need to buy computer in excess of 2 grand to be a true enthusiast.But if you think 9 hundred is too much for a system, then you are clearly not and enthusiasts.


A true enthusiast does not throw out perfectly good components because of some false idea that the more money you spend, the more of a enthusiast you are. I didn't spend $900 (Nor did I have that kind of money. Business is down and funds are not what they used to be.) on a new i7 Dell because I didn't need to spend that kind of money on a worthwhile upgrade.

All I needed was a mobo, RAM, CPU and a new PSU. I sold the old system in a spare case I had laying around and threw in a old 250 GB HD without a video card for the price of the PSU. So all I actually spent on this upgrade was a whopping $380 USD to move up from a X2 4400+ which was one of the best processors on the market when I purchased it. I skipped the Core 2 duo for this PC because quite frankly that X2 performed admirably for over 4 years and was close enough in performance to justify not spending the money to upgrade. (My second PC is a Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0 GHZ)

Car analogies are really horrible to use when describing a PC. The performance gap between a Focus and a Ford GT is a lot higher than 0% to 20%, depending on benchmarks used. (0 to 60 and top speed of the auto in the case of the cars.)

Enthusiast can be budget minded too you know.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2009 3:47:58 PM

sounds like you're rationalizing your purchase.

that's what enthusiast do to their wives and budget shoppers do to themselves. you are doing it to yourself.

any justification of an AMD purchase at this point is just as delusional as an Intel justification 3 or 4 years ago.
May 23, 2009 3:54:00 PM

tankteksounds like you're rationalizing your purchase.that's what enthusiast do to their wives and budget shoppers do to themselves. you are doing it to yourself.any justification of an AMD purchase at this point is just as delusional as an Intel justification 3 or 4 years ago.


What is so delusional about buying the better product in the price range I was looking at? Teenagers without real responsibilities would only consider that delusional. So you think only Intel buyers are smart? You are the delusional one my friend.
May 23, 2009 4:12:13 PM

Look AMD won the P4 vs Athlon generation but they are getting creamed performance-wise in this generation - everyone knows this.

The Phenom-II X4s really arent bad processors and are very good options at many price points - they just came a year too late to be competitive high end. We should all be grateful for their existence though or we'd be paying $2000 for i965s and $999 for Q8000s.

How long until AMD has a shot at the performance crown again ... late 2010 but sadly, maybe never. The change in strategy at Intel in reponse to the beating they took a few years ago to the Athlons has produced a much more aggressive company that's really using its superior resources very effectively to put the screws to AMD. Intel going 32nm with its dual-cores later this year is really bad news for AMD. Again, the only real chance AMD had to remain toe to toe with Intel was an IBM buyout and with IBM's current board its clearly never gonna happen.

One last thing to the i7 kicks the **** out of everything peeps. Theyre amazing performance chips but they do have one small flaw - they run really hot.
May 23, 2009 4:15:25 PM

I was going to get myself an Athlon 64 X2 7850, but I think I'm going to wait until these new processors come out.

To all of you Intel fanboys who don't seem to be able to comprehend the concept of price versus performance, shut up. Yes, AMD can't compete with Intel's Core i7s. Everyone knows this. However, it costs a lot more to go with Intel's Core i7 line-up, especially if you already have an AMD system and can just pop in a Phenom II without paying for a new motherboard and hyper-expensive DDR3 RAM. At the lower end, Intel can not compete with AMD in terms of performance per dollar. If you don't believe me, check Newegg. Not everybody wants to pay extra for performance they will most likely not need.
May 23, 2009 4:55:59 PM

enthugkIs XtremeSystems a good site? I ask because I have been searching for an alternative enthusiast site to lurk. I’m only here to read about the performance of the latest and very best systems and architecture. Not looking for help with my personal budget problems.Sites like this one are turning bad. Too many people here sound like tree huggers at a monster truck rally.It would be awesome to find an enthusiast site where as soon as someone said something like;"But my Mac is esthetically pleasing""No one needs that much ram""Why get more than a dual-core""I am happy with my low end fanboish purchase of..."They would instantly get banned.


You seem to think that anybody who isn't a computer enthusiast is axiomatically a worse person than you. This mindset is what makes normal people happy they're not you.

I don't need a ridiculously high-end processor to convince other people my dick is longer than five inches. I need a good processor with a good video card for a reasonable price to play games at high graphics settings with a framerate higher than 40 fps. AMD does this, Intel does not. If I'm going to spend 100% more on a processor made by a company that uses unfair business practices, the performance gain in games had better damn well be better than 20%.
May 23, 2009 5:10:43 PM

Oh, and XtremeSystems has AMD users, too, so if you want to avoid people who aren't as rich as you, you're out of luck there.
May 23, 2009 5:40:56 PM

I own a E6750, but I'm really impressed on AMD that uses 6 MB l3 Cache on a dual core. Do you guys think this cpu is overclockable compare to Wolfdales?
May 23, 2009 5:49:52 PM

blackbyronI own a E6750, but I'm really impressed on AMD that uses 6 MB l3 Cache on a dual core. Do you guys think this cpu is overclockable compare to Wolfdales?


I don't know much about overclocking, but AMD will inevitably release a top-of-the-line Phenom II X2 with an unlocked multiplier, as well as an Athlon II X2 with the same. They always seem to release the top-of-the-line CPUs as Black Editions with unlocked core multipliers.
May 23, 2009 6:01:13 PM

blackbyronI own a E6750, but I'm really impressed on AMD that uses 6 MB l3 Cache on a dual core. Do you guys think this cpu is overclockable compare to Wolfdales?


I don't know if in your case it would be worth the money as a PHII is kind of a sideways move compared to the E6750 clock for clock. If you just have the itch to experiment with over clocking the AMD PHII dual core processor, and you understand that it will not perform much better than what you already have then go ahead and knock yourself out and have fun!
!