New Triple Core Athlon IIs Are Great Value CPUs

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
It's a good cpu for the budget sector of the market, also anyone else read the title and think it said "New Triple Core Athlon Is Are Great Value CPUs"? lol
 
I think that unless your hitting 3 ghz.... it's not that impressive 😛

but looks like good prices, what are overclock possibilities ??
 
[citation][nom]Ominous Prime[/nom]It's a good cpu for the budget sector of the market, also anyone else read the title and think it said "New Triple Core Athlon Is Are Great Value CPUs"? lol[/citation]

No, I read it as IIs.
 
[citation][nom]Jerky_san[/nom]I'm really liking the power consumption.. an X4 2.3ghz with 45w? I'm freaken there for an HTPC or other low power consuming pcs..[/citation]

45W isn't its power consumption, it is its Thermal Design Power. The review here indicated that it consumes 71W at idle with a Asus MA4785TD-V EVO board.
 
65 Watt has always been the sweet spot for me (lower noise, smaller cooler, lower consumption) ... but those 45 Watt quad cores look really nice, me wonders about their overclocking potential ?
 
Sounds like a fast phased Tri-Athlon to me and with a less pricey sweat. :)
It provides up to 75 percent better media and entertainment performance when compared to the Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 as AMD pointed? Its nice to hear that!
Let's all wait and see for its benchies.
 
so, we have nice desktop 45W Quad-Cores, and what about mobile CPU's?

X4 mobile @ 2GHz / 25W would certainly get me.....
 
AMD is really crowding the sub $100 space and I think it may be doing them more harm than good. Wish they would finally add that 4th instruction decoder to the Phenom IIs to distance them a little more from the Athlon IIs.
 
I'm glad we have AMD around to apply a teeny-weeny pressure on that Intel giant. Yup AMD is small compared to Intel but its voice can be heard if the consumers support it - like "say No to RDRAM!", "say Yes to x64 and No to Itanium". I am particularly looking forward to getting one of those energy-efficient cpus. One thing AMD need to do is to push harder on the mobile market segment - they're practically non-existent compared to intel.
 
What's up with clock speed nowadays. There's really no difference in 2.2 Ghz and 2.3 Ghz. Yes, you might encode a MP3 half a second faster, but who cares. With overclocking nowadays, just buy the cheapest one for your budget and overclock the hell out of it. What the hell is the difference between Intel's i7 860 and 870? Why do you have to pay almost double the price for just an extra 193 Mhz?
 
[citation][nom]masterasia[/nom]What's up with clock speed nowadays. There's really no difference in 2.2 Ghz and 2.3 Ghz. Yes, you might encode a MP3 half a second faster, but who cares. With overclocking nowadays, just buy the cheapest one for your budget and overclock the hell out of it. What the hell is the difference between Intel's i7 860 and 870? Why do you have to pay almost double the price for just an extra 193 Mhz?[/citation]

They are indeed the exact same processor, but all processors come off the same line with different capabilities because of natural variances in production quality between processors. The cleanest examples are sold at a premium. While you can overclock the 2.2 to 3.0 ghz, the other will probably do 3.3. I guess that 300 mhz is worth it to some people, but I'm in your boat. Save your money!
 
They do seem like a decent chip for the budget minded. But I have a feeling the i3's will end up trumping AMD in the budget market. Then again, AMD has got a good head start on Intel in that market, so we'll have to see.
 
[citation][nom]cookoy[/nom]... "say Yes to x64 and No to Itanium". ... [/citation]

I can feel ya but I'm dead curious about the Itanium2 chips. The computer architecture really needs a reboot and a new start on a clean sheet. Imagine how fast the CPUs would be if one relieved them of the burden of backwards compatibility with i386. A well-built CPU with a clean instruction set would kick ass. Unfortunately it seems that one has to be as big as Intel to carry out such a reboot.
 
I would rather sodomize myself with a pineapple than spend my hard earned money on a budget amd cpu. A phenom II x4 - maybe, but I'd rather go for a more stable intel platform. I built 3 systems at work with phenom IIs and 3 different motherboards not one of them can run a week without randomly restarting, or crashing. All the ram checks out in memtest, I even tried underclocking them and over volting them, swapping out heatsinks etc nothing seems to cure the disease. Maybe when their new architecture comes out I'll give them another shot
 


You mean the Phenom II X4 965. Yes it's down to $215. I still wouldn't get it though. 140 watts TDP sucks.
The Lynnfields are only 95 watts TDP and can perform just as good or even better.
If you have a Microcenter near you, $229 for the i7 860 is the best bang for buck right now.
 
Where are your notebook chips? Intel is dominating, no obliterating, AMD in the notebook market and they are worried about pushing out low cost desktop CPU's. Come on AMD. We've been waiting over a year for mobile core i7 and you've got nothing for me to counter it. What happened after Athlon? Fire your engineering team?
 
actually to the notebook comments on here. I noticed in my weekly sunday Best Buy ad that the new Turion II Ultra equipped notebooks had a "claimed" battery life of about 5-6 hours, which those cpu's compared very well w/ similar C2D equipped laptops as far as "claimed" battery life. I was actually surprised. Cause I always love looking throught the Best Buy ads, but when I would get to laptops and see how poor many AMD mobile CPU laptops performed it has been a bit of a let down. But when I saw the new Turion II Ultra's (are they new? I just never noticed them before so I assumed so) it was a pleasant surprise to see that they very well rivaled C2D's. However it was only the Turion II Ultra's that did that well. The Turion II's were still kinda back in the 3-4 hours batt. range. (which isnt terrible i guess, but not great either).
 


You're a noob if you get your info from Best Buy.
 
[citation][nom]masterasia[/nom]You're a noob if you get your info from Best Buy.[/citation]

The guy's name is "AMDnoob," he's not hiding anything, cut him some slack.

Seriously though, AMD needs to make a bigger splash in the mobile market. They don't have any excuses now.
 
@masterasia

The 95W version of the Phenom II X4 945 isn't that shabby @ $165. Even with a single 5850 Radeon graphics card, it'd be difficult to find situations where the CPU bottleneck would be noticeable....

But, yeah, AMD's notebook processors are laughable.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom