Report: AMD Stops Shipping Phenom II and Athlon II CPUs

There's nothing like a (seemingly) foolish business decision to follow up a major disappointment.

the phenom iis will be missed.

`I would love if they could produce a run of PII X6 BEs made with 32nm tech with some high clocks (3.8ghz?) for under $200...

I am disappoint.

Get one if you haven't already. The P II's are cheaper than the FX series, and the FX series isn't really any faster than the P II's.

Or just wait for Piledriver and hope it is better. Or just buy an Intel and rule the world. The choice is yours

i guess it is BD or bust. too bad BD is already a bust though

OMG noooo I need to get in shopping mode soon!

Great Bulldozer missed the mark and now you can't get it's better performing (IPC wise) little brother...

What disappointment soo-nad-mee? You have no idea what 8150 can do unless you try it. i5 2500k is a manure when it comes to multitasking. Try opening maybe 10 webpages, playing 1080 movie pause it ... play a game minimaze it, resume movie, tab back to reading web...it is flawless with with 8150. Try that with i5...I did and I though that I'm gonna throw that junk a way...so I give it to my wife for farmville and you know what she said? ...why is my computer slower? She had system with Phenom II 555 before and did not even know that I change her pc guts. The staff I do and the way I do it, AMD is the king of a hill and I wish intel boyz should try it before giving all the glory to intel.

Like it or not the future is with FX. It makes sense to cut out the other lines.

why is my computer slower? because you handed over the pc to your wife after getting a virus from downloading to much porn the night before.

@Maxinexus
If you can feel the difference between i5-2500k and FX-8150, good luck to you, because in real life, there is ms difference, and that is you trolling. AMD fan boy.

AMD is they king of the hill? I have used both processors and I found that the 2500k was faster in pretty much every instance when both were overclocked. Except video transcoding... so I enabled quicksync...

ummm lol? Your basing the opinion on someone who wouldn't recognize a P4, Pentium D, Core2, CoreQ, i7, i5, i3, PII, or BD from one another? Hell, with my older C2Q 6600, I could load Eve Online, minimize it, load any other gpu-intense single player game, swap between the two to que ships and training, or whatever, with 5-10 tabs in firefox open, etc... I think your comment is a lot closer to resembling manure than the i5-2500k. Intel appreciates your purchase though, jus' saying.

Love ya, Cheers~

Sounds like they are dumping inventory so they can do a Bulldozer price drop.

Newegg only has 2 retail PhenomII X4's in stock..The 970, and 980

Individual web pages are stored in idle threads unless javascript on the page is running. Regardless, javascript is single threaded. So having 10 web pages open just generates new page tables and processes in the OS scheduler but arnt any more processor intensive. Likewise, a paused movie is accomplishing the same thing. So you really have no idea how process scheduling works.

Basically, processes in operation have work to do. It is why prime95 is so good, because it is a giant parallel never ending math problem to tax all the cpu cores. All user controlled devices like 1080p decoding, web browsers, etc, are barely ever processor intensive on Atom chips, much less on modern quad cores at 3ghz + frequencies.

not if you seen the linux benchmarks, that should more accurately show what win 8 will do, still not great single core performance, but only the really retarded applications are still single core. though its still a wait and see for win 8, as it may be better or worse than the linux.



in single core, when multi core and multi thread enabled apps came into play it was usualy right in line with its price point, and in some cases beating out the higher priced sandy bridge, on the linux benchmark, there were less hickups than there were on the win 7 ones here, you know, where a mulit core/thread application saw bd bottom out.




you have got to be lie ing, not about the multi task, as i can imagine bulldozer doing that better than an i5, but about the i5 under preforming a what, dual core?

Just when I'm planning to upgrade my Athlon II X4 620 to a Phenom II X4 975... HURRY GET TO DA CHOPPA!!

LMAO with this statement you sound like a bad politician. yea sure it runs with linux but who the hell is going to install linux on a gaming rig for the primary OS. but hey windows 8 id coming out and i know you fanbois have high hopes for that

Whew good thing I got my 1090T a couple weeks ago!

Well, that's one way AMD can eliminate some superior competition to its Bulldozer.

What is this "vendorshave"? Is it the retail equivalent of aftershave? Haha justkidding. Just atypo.

I think what the OP you quoted was getting at was the threading scheduling optimizations for BD that will either be coming in the next kernel patch for Windows 7 (if there is one) or with Windows 8. Just that the Linux distros are able to get this patch out much sooner than MS. It is rumored that these optimizations return as much as a 30% overall improvement to multithreaded performance, much along the same lines as what the hyperthreading optimizations for the P4 did in Windows XP back in the day.

Good thing i got my Amd Phenom II x6 1100T and its running fast with a overclock of 3.9Ghz and the north bridge at 2600mhz. Know need to spend 270$ on a BD when i can have the same performance for 100$ less. Not to mention the benchmarks show my processor at top(compared to BD) when overclocked to this speed which ALL phenom II x6 can do and i'm on stock voltage(a little lower then stock). Benchmarks show my processor beating a 4.5Ghz 8150 at this clock, and its doing it with lower watts=Heat.

I waited all year for BD, i thought it was going to be a comparable product to the sandy bridge, I trusted Amd because they called it the FX and that means beast. I was wrong i never thought the PR department would over through the engineer department at this company but it did. Unless PD is worth it for its price(it does not need to beat Intel) i'm switching to Intel, at least for my desktop. I love APU's for my laptops though average CPU+ a Average video card for a cheap price plus low wattage makes me a happy panda, While having a Perfect processor and a cheap peace of $hit video card makes me a sad panda.

You are killing the Phenom X6 line ? Whats wrong with you AMD? The only CPU better than Bulldozer on legacy software and you are terminating production ?

to me FX is a bad handle to put on anything now because of how bad the nvidia geforce FX GPU's turned out to be

@ Alidan
If a processor performs better on software that does not yet exist then it is a failure. By the time that 'bulldozer' is able to take advantage of win8 there will be both new versions of the i3/5/7, as well as a new version of bulldozer. Besides, MS is claiming win8 will be out next Aug/Sep, which really means Dec/Jan. Nobody wants to wait a year before they get the performance they paid for.

To be completely honest, outside of a high performance environment (whether it is a high-end gaming system or production system), most users would be hard-pressed to discern the performance differences between an i5 2500K and an 8120 FX in real-world, everyday application use. Sure, the i5 may rip an audio track a few seconds faster, is it enough that the average user would really feel like they just wasted a few seconds time?

For high-performance environments, the people using these systems would feel cheated if the difference could only be measured in gnat wing beats per second. But folks of this caliber are used to spending $1200 on a processor and consider it a bargain.

For the rest of us...we might save a few minutes for every ripped DVD, but the reality is that we wouldn't know the difference if we didn't have review sites like Tom's to point out the deficiencies for us.

Zanny: Maybe I do not understand the processes but I do know when the system is flawless and when you have to wait half or one second for system to respond. I have both comps side by side all the hardware is almost identical except I run CF, and have additional X-Fi card. Differences are visually obvious FX handles things better (I run vista ultimate x64). Anyway the issue could also be related to my SSDs because intel platform does not detect them 5 out of 10 times upon cold start. I have to manually set them up in bios but once they are up and running bechs shows similar read speeds for intel and amd platforms as well. Another thing I noticed is that i5 system is working harder. CPU usage for ms essential scan for example goes up to 48% whereas it doesnot go above to 23% with FX.

I think it would be a nice review to see how hard CPUs are working on same applications.

So, this is my experience and like it or not I like FX better than i5.
PS: I'm not AMD fan boy I've intel systems too so bug off haters.

Or they could be focusing on Llano. It doesn't take more than a 2.5GHz dual-core and a Radeon HD 6410 to watch HD video and play casual games, and the market that's buying laptops and slimline desktops is larger than those of us buying high-performance desktop parts. (Plus that market doesn't know the difference between a Pentium II and a Phenom II, all they can tell is if it works or not.)