[citation][nom]billybobser[/nom]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.[/citation]
its a process shrink from the 45-32nm correct?
the athlon II at least in gaming was already comparable to phenom II, a die shrink would mean a bit more performance correct, or am i missing something.
[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]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[/citation]
they lock sections of a chip for a reason, usually they are bad sections of the chip, yea you can unlock some and they are all good, but many cant be.
they are selling these locked because the graphics didn't preform right but the cpu was working.
[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]
not really, look at how things are going in computers... consumer end is dragging their feet, but almost everything is going toward more cores = more performance. i mean the bulldozer had a 5 year dev time, amd obviously thought consumer end would be geared toward multi cpu now, seeing i don't believe a real single ore cpu has been around for what 6 years? but there are still single core applications.
amd was correct with the bulldozer, if consumer didnt drag so much, we would have seen it consistently between the i5 and i7 with some better than i7 and some worse than i5, not the majority of consumer applications dragging because they are single core.
because its their first generation thread solution, the single core was going to suffer regardless, we just never thought that it would be as bad as it was.
piledriver is most likely the response to that, increasing single core performance, even if it sits between phenom II and the i5 i think that would be just fine.
[citation][nom]malmental[/nom]that's where you are wrong, it doesn't.period.[/citation]
um... yes it does? do any games that are played on it fail to go passed 30fps at 1920x1200?
it may not be the best value, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have enough power.