Report: AMD Stops Shipping Phenom II and Athlon II CPUs

Page 3 - 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.
[citation][nom]maxinexus[/nom]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]
You do realize that 48% of an non-HT quad-core is 24% of an eight-core? So you're major gripe is about a 1% difference in performance. 😵
 
[citation][nom]jescott418[/nom]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]
I don't know what older Phenoms are like, but I like my II X4 965. 😉
 
If anyone is sad about AMD processors being discontinued, I have some processors I can sell them that work about the same speed. They're called "8088". They are very low power, and barely even feel warm.
 
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]to me FX is a bad handle to put on anything now because of how bad the nvidia geforce FX GPU's turned out to be[/citation]
Yet AMD slapped the FX moniker on their Athlon64 line, which was introduced after the GeForce6 series, and the Athlon64 FX processor sold and performed rather well....
 
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]to me FX is a bad handle to put on anything now because of how bad the nvidia geforce FX GPU's turned out to be[/citation]
Yet AMD slapped the FX moniker on their Athlon64 line, which was introduced after the GeForce6 series, and the Athlon64 FX processor sold and performed rather well....
 
So what CPU is going to be produced in this 32nm fabs? What if they produce a GPU less version of the A8's quad or ramp up the FX line? It really doesn't matter as the FX line could then be priced to replace the older 45nm's. We give the FX a hard time but if the 8 core was $170 I would buy it over the X6. Really the FX 8 core is as fast or faster than the X6 other than a few single core programs. The FX 6 core needs priced around the low end quads or about $130 and the FX-4100 should be under $90. Maybe AMD needs the extra production to make these prices a possibility. IF so the this could be good but like all others I fear change so why isn't AMD's PR saying anything?
 
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]I don't know what older Phenoms are like, but I like my II X4 965.[/citation]

They are not bad just slower due to lower clocks and high power consumption. The xx50 models don't have any compatibility issues apps wise and are very stable. Got a x3 8250e that got up to 2.7ghz easy nut later upgraded to a p2 x4 820 and unlocked the rest of the l3.
 
I have had Phenom's and Phenom II's. I was not happy with anything about the first Phenom's. Performance sucked as my 9600 had the TLB bug and could not overclock at all. I have a 955, 970 and 1100T all of which I have been fairly happy with the price/performance.
 
I love my phenom ii 955 so much. I just bought a week ago i am now feeling safe. Why they halted the phenom ii and athlon ii ? They are best bang for buck cpu for 100$ and less.
 

wait for the windows 7 scheduler patch to come out, then zambezi will kick all of intel's collective butts while waiting for bulldozer optimized window 8 to come out. until then.. linux rulez!
meanwhile in the real world, sandy bridge cpus keep being sold at similar (dual module fx 4100 $120 vs core i3 2100 $125) or lower price (quad module fx 8150 $269, fx 8120 $199 @ microcenter vs i5 2500k $219, 180 @ microcenters) than zambezi cpus while outperforming them in every everyday tasks using far less power.
note: newegg's 8120 can't be purchased seperately.
 
let's see now...we have an 8 core @3.6ghz for $269.99 vs 6 core @3.3ghz for $1,049.99. hmmm....i wonder which one i would i pick? 😉
 
I just get a news that amd has cut about 800 million transisters from the new bulldozer production in future. That is the bulldozer will be of 1.2 billion transister instead of 2.0. But the architecture will remain the same i.e 8 core/4 module. Why amd is doing such bad things i don't know.
 
this is the first time i'm hearing about 'transistor cuts'. all i know is that amd recently revised fx's transistor count. i really hope they don't cut stuff off.
i'd love to see phenoms made on 32 nm node for am3+ like athlon ii's for fm1.
 
The recent Athlon cpu that AMD released is a Neutered Llano APU. I think... Havn't seen a die shot of it.

Though compared to the AM3 Athlons, Amd could of done better, probably around a 3.0ghz+ clock speed
or lower the TPD by a bit.

 
[citation][nom]theuniquegamer[/nom]I just get a news that amd has cut about 800 million transisters from the new bulldozer production in future. That is the bulldozer will be of 1.2 billion transister instead of 2.0. But the architecture will remain the same i.e 8 core/4 module. Why amd is doing such bad things i don't know.[/citation]
The news I read was that AMD counted it wrong, and it's the current bulldozer that has 1.2M instead of the 2.0M they had initially mentionned.
[citation][nom]goatsetung[/nom]I own amd stock - yes people that makes me an idiot.[/citation]
Oh I almost bought some too, because all AMD had to do with Bulldozer is make an overclocked quad core FX-4100 perform better for slightly cheaper then a fully locked I3-2100, and it was a no brainer they would have no issue doing that, because the brand new Bulldozer would need to perform worse then the years old Phenom II for AMD to fail that much... which it did ^^°
Thing is Llano seems to be selling faster then AMD can produce them (possibly because they are having a hard time manufacturing them), and even Bulldozer seems to be selling faster then AMD can produce them (hopefully because they are producing very few, but maybe because the buyers don't read reviews...), so people are buying them.
As for deciding to end the Athlon/Phenom production, they announced early they were going to do that, and it makes sense to go on with that plan if the Llano and Bulldozer are selling faster then they can produce them. At least in the short term.
Why are people buying Bulldozers despite the negative reviews, is what doesn't make sense to me.
 
I love the Llano exaggerations. Who is buying them exactly? They are simply replacing the the current Phenom II's and Athlon II's in designed to be sold at Walmart machines... Not exactly "hotcakes".
 
[citation][nom]soo-nah-mee[/nom]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.[/citation]

Funny, Santa is bringing me the same thing! I am also currently using a Phenom II X4 (albeit a relabeled Athlon II) 840. But it's not unlocked and only overclocks to 3.7ghz. It'll be a nice upgrade for my dad going from an Athlon II x2 255 to the 840, once my stuff gets here.
 
What does it tell you when the 2nd biggest computer CPU designer (AMD) can't even correctly count how many transistors are on their new CPU line (FX)? They're not off by a few transistors? They're off by 800 million? LMAO. AMD can still make a CPU that lets you browse the web and email but how can anyone have any confidence in them after these BD fiascoes? They're absurd. BTW, BD works great on the OS they use on in the Rigel star system. Anyone who wants to pay more for less? AMD is your next CPU.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom