Six New Phenom II And Athlon II CPUs From AMD

For the third time in 2010, AMD is adding more speed to its processor lineup. But this time, both the Athlon II and Phenom II CPUs are being included. We spill the beans about the new dual-, triple-, quad-, and hexa-core chips in today’s article.

It’s no secret that we’re on the verge of seeing a whole new generation of processors from the AMD/Intel duopoly. Bobcat, Bulldozer, and Sandy Bridge are some of the processor architectures the chip giants will introduce between now and the second half of 2011. From what we’ve already seen and heard, these new designs are going to be real game-changers.

However, months are like years when it comes to technology, and product refreshes are always welcome when they bring more performance to the table. We've already seen mobile-based demos of AMD's upcoming technology, but there has been little indication of how the company's new desktop parts will perform. Until that happens, we're left to play with existing Phenom II and Athlon II models. Similarly, though Intel talked a big game at IDF, its Gulftown-, Lynnfield-, and Clarkdale-based processors remain the only viable competition for anything AMD launches today. We'll have to wait for late 2010 to get a more concrete indication of how Sandy Bridge fits into the market.

AMD has delivered speed bumps across the Athlon II line twice this year, and the company is doing it one more time with six new processors released today. But it’s not just the Athlon II lineup that AMD is updating this time. We’re getting the first new quad-core Phenom II in just over a year, and we even have our hands on a fresh Phenom II X6.

Before we get into the benchmarks of these speed-bumped chips, let's dig a little deeper into their technical specifications.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
75 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • eklipz330
    aznshinobiDo I hear comeback from AMD? Hopefully the Bulldozer shows results with the AM3+/AM3r2 in benchs.

    this is hardly a comeback, they simply filled in segments on the price range with not-so-new products. a little bump in speed, probably better binned, and a few more bucks. seems like the logical thing to do at this point, until bulldozer anyhow
    18
  • cleeve
    MoreCores...1075T can not, and it's more expensive than i7 920.


    At $145, he 1075T is $40 cheaper than any Core i7 I can find online.
    10
  • Other Comments
  • aznshinobi
    Do I hear comeback from AMD? Hopefully the Bulldozer shows results with the AM3+/AM3r2 in benchs.
    1
  • gkay09
    Good article and the 1075T is a good addition to the 6-Core line...
    And most of all, thanks for confirming that all the current socket will be replaced next year including AMD.
    7
  • scifi9000
    I'd love to see these new chips pitted against the T1000 processor.
    1
  • eklipz330
    aznshinobiDo I hear comeback from AMD? Hopefully the Bulldozer shows results with the AM3+/AM3r2 in benchs.

    this is hardly a comeback, they simply filled in segments on the price range with not-so-new products. a little bump in speed, probably better binned, and a few more bucks. seems like the logical thing to do at this point, until bulldozer anyhow
    18
  • duk3
    I'd rather it was a 970T at 3.6 ghz with turbo up to 4.1ghz.
    Then again, who wouldn't?
    -6
  • Gin Fushicho
    I'm still waiting for Bulldozer, I hope that Bulldozer makes AMD king again. If so I'll buy another AMD system. I've been waiting since the early Dualcore Windsor cores.
    4
  • spentshells
    nothing new here good on AMD if they keep the prices the same
    the 645 and 450 are really crazy good deals
    4
  • Anonymous
    Our 6 or their 4... Yeah, I'll still take i7 4 cores over these crappy 6cores. Not to mention, the i7 920 can be pushed another 50% in speed, 1075T can not, and it's more expensive than i7 920.
    -22
  • cleeve
    MoreCores...1075T can not, and it's more expensive than i7 920.


    At $145, he 1075T is $40 cheaper than any Core i7 I can find online.
    10
  • TheStealthyOne
    Yay! :)
    3
  • idoln95
    are these temps with stock cooler? they seem to be a big off...


    oh sorry, missed the minus ambient part...

    wow, thats kinda hot.... (30C ambient in here :( )
    -1
  • RazberyBandit
    CleeveAt $145, he 1075T is $40 cheaper than any Core i7 I can find online.

    I think you meant $245, Don.

    I find it great to see the Phenom II 970 still capable of Cool'n'Quiet idle mode while overclocked. C'n'Q doesn't work on my 720BE at any speed over 3.2GHz. Is that something common to the C3-Stepping models?
    0
  • AMW1011
    Holy shit, 3.5 Ghz stock. I know it really doesn't mean much, but I still like the sound of that.
    9
  • scrumworks
    Sandra is very bad synthetic benchmark. It clearly favors Intel architecture and the differences are not that dramatic in real world applications. With enough bribes you seemingly can get nice optimizations.
    9
  • dirtmountain
    A very well written article. It covered all the bases and was very informative. Damn good work, it's why people check in at Tom's Hardware.
    3
  • jgv115
    I'm happy that my Core i5 750 stands up to 2 updates (speed bumps) of the Phenom II 955 (the 965 and 970). It even beats the 1075T!

    I think the 750 is still the better CPU in it's price range.
    2
  • liquidsnake718
    Yeah there should hve been at least a core i3 fo good measure against the AMD 2's...
    0
  • L0tus
    Very cheap tactic to lure the uneducated masses who will think that clock speed is king.

    As far as gaming goes, an i5-750 at stock speed still craps all over these chips...and guess what? The i5 can also be easily overclocked! By yourself!!! OMGWTFBBQ1!1!
    -12
  • ThePeacemaker10
    How are the StarCraft 2 benchmarks possible? I NEVER drop below 55 fps and I'm using an Athlon II X3 445 with an HD 5750 and 4 GB of RAM. I don't get it.
    3
  • ThePeacemaker10
    ThePeacemaker10How are the StarCraft 2 benchmarks possible? I NEVER drop below 55 fps and I'm using an Athlon II X3 445 with an HD 5750 and 4 GB of RAM. I don't get it.


    I should also mention I'm running on High with 1680x1050 resolution.
    1