Report: AMD Stops Shipping Phenom II and Athlon II CPUs

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
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 ?
 
@ 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.
 
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]i guess it is BD or bust. too bad BD is already a bust though[/citation]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.)
 
LOL yea sure the mainstream crowd will have no problems with computers with BD chips. too bad they look for the cheapest computers possible sonot much of a profit there. AMD and intel need the performance/gaming crowd because they spend the most money on there computers.

so i guess you guys are just saying AMD is not really meant for gamers anymore. well there are a few gamers out there that just will buy an AMD CPU just to give the big finger to intel
 
I used to be a big AMD fan - when the Phenom IIs were hands-down the best value for gaming. Those days are over. Sandy Bridge is a no-brainer now.

I still am getting by with my 955, but Santa's bringing me Z68 / 2500k. 😀
I love that fat bastard.
 
The 120$ FX-4100 Bulldozer is unlikely to replace the 60$ Athlon CPUs as an entry point to the AM3+ socket, invariably resulting in less AM3+ socket motherboards available to upgrade to an AM3+ Bulldozer CPU tomorrow... Unless they plan to halve the price of the FX-4100 before their last 60$ Athlon CPUs run out or or something.

But if AMD has decided to give up on competing with Intel, maybe they are better off killing their AM3+ socket in favor of their FM1 socket anyway.
 
I think AMD should still have two product lines, untill they fix the FX problem.

Also you would think the FX would be expensive to produce due to the extra cache (die size). So stopping to product an efficient design its crazy.
 
I bet AMD could make an eight core Phenom II on the 32nm lithography @3.6 stock, 125~140Watt TDP and it would demolish Bulldozer. Seriously AMD, try making a Phenom II @32nm to fill in the gaps until you abort or fix Bulldozer.

Even at 140W TDP on an eight core Thuban, (my AM3+ motherboard is designed for 140W TDP processors) I'd be happier than OC'ing a 4 module Bulldozer that half-asses every job you throw at it with twice as many integer threads.

I'd pay 2500k prices for that hypothetical Thuban processor before I'd shell out the current price for Bulldozer which is now the only upgrade path available to my new motherboard. Damn AMD, what are you doing to us? Are you trying to abuse your customers? I feel like you just pulled a proverbial 'Ike Turner' on us. "Sorry about Bulldozer, we messed up, SLAP!!! Now you get no Thuban, bitches!!"
 
Well, it is 45nm junk at this point and we've got 22nm tech coming in less then six months. GG AMD, I still have my XP +3400 hanging around somewhere.
 
This all or nothing approach on BD by AMD is only going to ruin any chance of there being a future for the company and will only hurt consumers in the end. They should have kept Phenom 2 going on for at least another year until they have fixed BD enough to where it is somewhat better than it is now. Better yet a shrink and that would have given people an option of what they wanted. Sure they can fork out $600 on Intel and only have gotten a cpu and a decent board but for the same prices on AMD grants one a nearly complete build. Not any more unless second hand and now days that is easier said than done.
 
I do not know how the newer Phenom's are. But I have a older Phenom X4 and it sucks! I liked the Althlon much better and it was cheaper! Can't get into all the multi core crap beyond two cores. Quads might be OK for servers but not for desktops or laptops.
 
[citation][nom]hetneo[/nom]Maybe they are switching to 32nm whole lines of Phenom II and Athlon II beside Athlon II X4 631 and 651.[/citation]

Well most likely Llano will replase phenom in the low middle range. It is selling better than phenom, so why not. In the middle range they are using Buldoser... It is possible that they could get better results with 32nm Phenoms, but they don't have time to make that prosessor nor they have capasity at this moment. Global foundaries still seems to have drouble of making enough 32nm products at this moment. Maybe later, if Piledriver does not offer enough speed, they will consider going back (like Intel did after pentium 4...) to older CPU architechture. But I would not be to sure of it.
 
All you morons that saying that BD is a bust don't understand that Windows doesn't know how to use the cores correctly for it to maximize performance, the eight “core” / four module unit is different for windows. Hopefully Microsoft will release a patch that will help with this.
 
[citation][nom]cyberjawn[/nom]All you morons that saying that BD is a bust don't understand that Windows doesn't know how to use the cores correctly for it to maximize performance, the eight “core” / four module unit is different for windows. Hopefully Microsoft will release a patch that will help with this.[/citation]
Also there’s an OS factor to discuss. According to AMD, Windows 7 doesn’t understand Bulldozer’s resource allocation very well. Windows 7 “sees” eight independent CPU cores, despite the fact that each module shares scheduling and execution resources. Sometimes it makes the most sense to spin threads off to idle cores before scheduling them on cores already busy with something else. Other times, it’s best to spin two related threads off to the same core. Windows 8 will apparently be much more proficient at scheduling work loads where it makes the most sense to execute them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom