AMD Adds FM1 CPUs Athlon II X4 638 and Athlon II X4 641

Status
Not open for further replies.

billybobser

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2011
432
0
18,790
1
Looks interesting, but the disparity between a quad AMD and a dual core Pentium means the Intel is the value leader in anything remotely consumerist.

And if you're a professional, not a consumer, you'll need something pricier (maybe).

Not to mention that FM1 without a graphics core is a particularly odd choice (although, the FM1 boards are very feature rich) given that you're limiting your options taking this route.

My view, if one of these AMD quads could be clocked to compete with a bottom i3, it would be an interesting option.
 

GreaseMonkey_62

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2009
521
0
18,980
0
 
G

Guest

Guest
Sorry but Pentium G850 >>> Graphicsless Llano at any speed and any core count. Llano is the old CPU architecture and it is S-L-O-W.
 

mcd023

Distinguished
Nov 9, 2010
370
0
18,780
0
What I'm wondering is what kind of performance we'll see when the x86 Win8 tablets come out. So far, I'm eying something like the Samsung series 7 slate with a core i5 at 1.6GHz, but I wanna see the cpu/gpu/battery life in one of those.
 

bustapr

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2009
1,613
0
19,780
0
Im not sure, but if the Llano CPU is stronger than a normal Athlon 2, it should be a great budget buy. Sad to see AMD killing off the phenom 2 line.

the thing i really dont understand is, why would AMD make a faster CPU, but also include deactivated graphics, thats undoubtably taking up space. Why not include some L3 cache and make it a budget phenom 2 on FM1? I may be talking jibberish, but I really want AMD to be competitive performance-wise in this area, because the new pentiums are pretty good
 

Onus

Titan
Moderator
I am concerned that Domin8er is probably correct, although I'd like to see some more [multithreaded / multitasking] applications benchmarks, not just games as in the recent sub $200 CPU review.
 

SteelCity1981

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2010
1,129
0
19,310
12
I just wish AMD and Itnel would get their marketing act together. I mean intle has Core i7, Core i5, Core i3 then Pentium and Celeron, Atom.

AMD has FX series 8xxx, 6xxx, 4xxx Athlon and Fusion.

Intel needs to just do away with Pentium, Celerons and Atoms.

AMD just needs to do away with the Athlon.

All of these cpus closely resemble each other in the bottom tier now. The Athlons are Fusions and the Pentiums are lower grade Core i3's. While the Celerons are even lower grade Pentiums. The Atom is the lowest of all the grades in the Intel lineup and it just needs to go altogether.
 

esrever

Splendid

The llano is probably slightly faster even with the 200mhz lower clock speed so it positions pretty well.
 

verbalizer

Distinguished
May 28, 2010
2,930
0
20,960
96
what's this, a last ditch effort to save face or rid of older stock.?
it's all about Trinity and Llano is about to be put to rest.
if anything let's go back and re-work the Phenom II and make it Phenom III;
yank Bulldozer and fine tune Piledriver for it's release.
any other news than these things and I'm not interested.
thanks.
 
G

Guest

Guest
It's the same thing they've been doing with tri-cores.

Defective graphics chip = Llano based Athlon.

Why throw it out when you can sell it as a quadcore at a cheaper price?
 

iam2thecrowe

Glorious
Moderator
Maybe they should make an "Athlon FX" for this socket with more/faster cache and more cores and drop their AM3 FX range. Its ok to admit you made a bad CPU with bulldozer AMD. The sooner you stop production of that horrible cpu, the better. Its just money down the drain.
 

jgutz2006

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2009
473
0
18,810
18
Can someone help me understand these 2 models? 2.7ghz @65w or 2.8ghz @100w??? Does this mean that the 638 has no overclocking headroom as its walking the power envelope line? or will the 641 just be a beast with the Overclocking with plenty of power overhead
 

jgutz2006

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2009
473
0
18,810
18
[citation][nom]iam2thecrowe[/nom]Maybe they should make an "Athlon FX" for this socket with more/faster cache and more cores and drop their AM3 FX range. Its ok to admit you made a bad CPU with bulldozer AMD. The sooner you stop production of that horrible cpu, the better. Its just money down the drain.[/citation]

Just because it didn't live up to the hype it built and set itself up for as its first intel buster doesnt make it a horrible CPU, it has its market and plenty of performance for games of today!
 

verbalizer

Distinguished
May 28, 2010
2,930
0
20,960
96

that's where you are wrong, it doesn't.
period.
 

jgutz2006

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2009
473
0
18,810
18


Woah, "Period"

guess this discussion is over with... haha

So malmental to know with absolute certainty, you must own one of these CPU's which game/s/ are unplayable with your CPU that run fine elsewhere?

(And i do have a FX machine, but choose to use my dual socket Xeon CPU over it on a regular basis but not before i played MW3 on Eyefinity @ 5760x1080, proof? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ4lo81QcmY&feature=autoplay&list=UUzuM3lfghoTyuCIpTlvX3RA&lf=plcp&playnext=1 this vid was showing how widescreenfixer works but you get the point)
 

verbalizer

Distinguished
May 28, 2010
2,930
0
20,960
96

I personally tested the FX-4100 vs 965BE and also search it out on-line.
even with the MS 'hotfixes' it's crap.
I haven't personally tested it out with the 'hotfixes' but when I had it the 'hotfixes' were not out.
I have a 990XA motherboard and use the 965BE as my daily unit.
certain (most) games the FX would try and run it on one core because of the 'mis-implemented'
module = core with SMT utter nonsense.

shall I send you links.?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY