I'm all for some low-power (15-45 watt) dual core 45nm variants (and AMD desperately need better mobile variants), but beyond that, I don't see how AMD can justify processors much below (performance wise) their current offerings.

So some quick googling leads me to believe the athlon 64x2 architecture launched around 2005 ( couldnt find a specific date ) and everyone knows the core 2 thrashed it. Intel perfected that winning architecture by adding more cache and lowering power consumption while vastly increasing clock speeds. While AMD has yet to do any of these things. For the record, adding 2mb of L3 cache does nothing for rendering or anything outside of multitasking. And when compared to the massive boost intel put into the core 2's at L2 ( 12mb ) , which runs at a much higher frequency, its simply left in the dust. Where is the AMD that innovated, brought us the 64bit CPU, led the industry and at times dared to threaten intel's grip on the market. I want my old AMD back. I want a new architecture, I want to be able to brag about having an AMD cpu, and not have to settle for Intel. Intel has moved on, although im not fond of Hyper-threading and the shift to larger L3 caches, why hasnt AMD?

Make Phenom that main CPU, make ATHON II your "celeron" and come up with a new name...

McNuggetOfDeath,

The current Athlon series are way, way different architecture than they were in 2005. AMD doesn't completely change the product line's name because it got little bumps in performance, or a core change - because they have different cores in them all the time.

Athlon is the new Duron/Sempron just as Pentium is the new Celeron. I don't like that at all, but at least they aren't reversing the process like NVIDIA, calling an old 8800 a new gtx250.

If these chips are all less than $40-50, they are still a viable alternative to anything Intel produces, considering you can't get Intel under $50 unless you go with the Atom (which cannot perform with desktop chips). Even now you can get OEM Athlon X2s for under $50.

My 4850E was/is $60 and far outperforms an Intel

Nice site, Tom's.

Continuing what I was saying, my $60 AMD CPU (4850E OC) performs on par with Intel models approaching $200 in games.

I -really- need to find a new tech news site.

Yes you do, for the technologically under-educated. Your 45W 2.5Ghz X2 performs on par with a 2.2-2.3Ghz Pentium Dual Core/Core 2 Duo. Thanks for playing.

This is a bad way AMD stepping in! I'm sure of it!
Hey, AMD, Step up, With INNOVATION! Can't you just make something strong? you are not china! you are AMD!
[ not a fanboy, using intel's Q6600, happy with it, just sick of the intel's monopoly! ]

Phenom IIs are much too expensive for AMD to really sell them in the sub $100 CPU market. The point of these athlons is that they should be considerably cheaper to make than the Phenoms while still offering enough performance to compete. In this respect at least Intel's dual die solution really paid off as opposed to a monolithic quad core die.

Thanks for not reading my edited version, prick.

Thats a horrible performer; 2 generations behind. Get a E5200 and it will crush your processor, OC better, and is about the same price. Are you still claiming you FX5200 is the king of GPUs too? LOL

It's about platform, clocks, and software configuration.

Like it or not, my $60 CPU, a few generations behind, outperforms an E8400.

Again, we're talking 3D programs.

Your insane I must say Dipper. I have a 5000+ BE and it's not even close to a E8400.

This may be a noob question: Any chance we see these in laptops?

LOL, you are a fool my friend. Go troll somewhere else with your FUD. The e8400 destroys your cpu. Maybe you shouldn't have dropped out of HS? McD is calling...

all i can say is WHY????

AMD should improve the memory controller ......

Nah man it's not a noob question, questions is how I learned.
Of course we'll see these in laptops, desktop versions first though.

How to justify them? No normal office-PC needs more performance. It offers everything most people need @50$.



Agreed.



They didn't perfect it; the large cache just hides it shortcomings (no integrated memory controller -- unfortunately software developers optimized their stuff for that crutch). The power consumption (also the mainboards are pretty hungry) and the clock speeds helped indeed -- thanks to 45nm.



1. They don't need that much cache (see above)
2. 12MB L3-Cache in 65nm? Talk about production yield rate... 45nm were indeed missing, but I can't blame AMD for having less money for R&D (especially considering Intels contracts with OEMs).



Lack of money. It could be better for sure. Nevertheless the Phenom II offers great value for the money -- just like their graphics card. I don't need Intel right now.

I am playing Empire: Total War, Independence War campaign. I am always short army, navy and money. I guess this is what AMD feels everyday.

Since the phenomsaren't that expensive,I'd probably go with a phenom over an athlon 2.
It's a bit like 5-10 years ago, choosing a computer with an Athlon XP processor or choosing a Duron processor.

Will the phenom II work on my Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe mb? (Obviously a after a BIOS update )

It's not officially supported but you can try.