• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD to cease production of Athlon and Phenom?

yeah at the end of the day end of line Phenom II and Athlon II will only free up fabrication resources to concentrate on products that are gaining AMD market share, lets face it Intel has monopolised the desktop market for years now, so regardless of what we think Phenom II isn't worth saving.

Llano is getting AMD a nice foothold in the lower end market, Trinity should basically make that market all theirs to be honest, Bulldozer is going well in server market (what it was mainly designed for!) so gaining them position there and regardless of what we think, Bulldozer (certainly B3) will start to gain some ground in the desktop market as well, already seen a fair few 'Bulldozer' Systems around the net.

another advantage is it lets them start thinking about (hopefully) getting rid of un-needed things on the Bulldozer die, like the four Hyper Transport interfaces that aren't needed on desktop, that will save some die space thus increasing yields and profit margins. get round to making proper FX-4*** series processors with just two modules on die, much better yields from that, same thing applies with the FX-6*** series.

the way I see it is Llano is great, Trinity is better so that is a good market to exploit, Bulldozer is ok with loads of room for improvement so that is a decent attack on the desktop market and server market, can't see why its a bad thing to be honest...? :confused:
 
Martini1991 said:
Phenom II > Llano.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/403?vs=88


Those products on OCUK, the 955 is the cheaper chip.
I can't believe people are spinning this....

And doesn't Llano have yield issues anyway?
Click to expand...

course Phenom II is better than Llano with a 600MHZ clock speed advantage, they have the same cores more or less, how is that a relevant comparison?

also compare them both without a dedicated graphics card and there will only be one participant, its pointless to compare the two in that situation cause Llano will be equal to Phenom II in ~90% of things at equal clock speeds (others are tasks that benefit from the L3 that Llano doesn't have!) but in its own market Llano is the only option really, the only reason prices are still quite high is likely because of yield issues and high demand.

as far as yields go, its probably the same problems that Bulldozer is having, that Global Foundries just cannot keep up the demand because of their troublesome fabrication process, get rid of Phenom II and Athlon II and Global Foundries get to invest more time and effort into the 32NM process then things can only get better one would imagine, also Llano is going to be pole-axed by Trinity in the next few months so hopefully they'll get better yields with them. also price wise there isn't much difference between a Phenom II system and a Llano FM1 system, the only differences are generally form factor and the fact Llano will clock higher than any Phenom II part. :)
 
It's at stock comparison, two CPU's around the same price, how isn't it relevant?
Pair up the 955 with a 40 quid AM3+ 760G Asus board, take it to 4GHZ, that's a lot of bang for your buck.

Why on Earth should I have to pick a more expensive, worse performing CPU for people when I'm building machines?

Because AMD's FX4 blows, and Llano isn't intended to take the place of the Phenom II x4 955, and Intel haven't got any real products in that price, except the i3's, which at stock put up a flipping good fight, but it's much easier to clock the X4's on that 40 quid board.

I suppose you could just take a clarkdale and clock one of them, for cheaper.

EDIT : The cheapest FM1 board on OCUK is 60 quid...
EDIT 2 : And don't forget the Callisto's, cheaper and chance of unlocking, for even more bang for buck.
 
Last edited:
at stock, fair enough but then still put them in a system without a graphics card and which one is the best choice? don't forget Llano isn't intended as a 'desktop' processor, even though its an valid choice.

so we have came to the conclusion that in outright performance at stock, the Phenom II is the better chip unless it is without a dedicated graphics card, in which Llano is the option best worth checking out, for one of us, I for example would likely prefer to go for Llano than Phenom II, due to the higher frequency headroom they have, and clock for clock almost identical performance, sometimes Llano edges it, sometimes Phenom II edges it.

the thing is though, from AMD's point of view, even though its a slightly better option for the price (at stock) that likely isn't enough to save it from the axe, Trinity at the same price as Llano might be a different story altogether, swinging the tables in FM2 favour rather than Phenom II.

but its the same argument I have had tons of time in the past about Phenom II and how its a perfectly good performing processor, it does well against Intel when they are at stock speeds, keep getting shot down in that argument! :p

Edit: Currently looking at an Athlon II X4 FM1 for £63, Llano minus the graphics processor, are they getting 'end of line' as well? that isn't a bad option there mind, would imagine they would reach some high high frequencies.
 
Llano is better depending on the situation that you require the CPU, but a traditional budget PC with dedicated card, which is what the majority of us here care about, and those that ask me to build them computers, and those that build computers with dedicated cards, what would they really have? The lower performing, same price Llano, or the faster Phenom II?

EDIT :
Unless the FX4 drops in price a fair ton, it's a negative for anyone considering AMD as the bang for buck option.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
Llano is better depending on the situation that you require the CPU, but a traditional budget PC with dedicated card, which is what the majority of us here care about, and those that ask me to build them computers, and those that build computers with dedicated cards, what would they really have? The lower performing, same price Llano, or the faster Phenom II?
Click to expand...

in our situation, the Phenom II is the best all round option, it has better performance in some applications due to its L3 cache, the Athlon II FM1 is a decent option though potentially. same chip as Phenom II just minus the L3, should clock high though so imagine that would offset the lack of L3.

Edit: the appearance of the Athlon II X4 631 points to yield troubles as well, since its likely a Llano with a defective graphics processor, which is what they were apparently having trouble with, still keeps profits going potentially.
 
stulid said:
*stokes this Llano setup* its little trooper, very surprised at its gaming prowess.
Click to expand...

tempted to go for Trinity when it and FM2 appear on the scene? :confused:

Edit: also found a Chinese page about the Athlon II 631, 4.4GHZ on stock voltage and air cooling, that isn't bad for no voltage increase!
 
Gashman said:
in our situation, the Phenom II is the best all round option, it has better performance in some applications due to its L3 cache, the Athlon II FM1 is a decent option though potentially. same chip as Phenom II just minus the L3, should clock high though so imagine that would offset the lack of L3.

Edit: the appearance of the Athlon II X4 631 points to yield troubles as well, since its likely a Llano with a defective graphics processor, which is what they were apparently having trouble with, still keeps profits going potentially.
Click to expand...

I do see that Llano has a place in the market, but the FX4 is no worthy replacement of the Phenom II X4 955, and the Llano A8 3650 isn't meant to replace the Phenom II X4 955.
But then you've got to think, it's going to be the budget option, a 955 + board is like 125, AM3+ so can take Piledriver. The Llano 3650 with board is at least 150, that 25 quid, in a budget build is a no-no, and it's worse out of the box for what it'll be used.
 
Gashman said:
tempted to go for Trinity when it and FM2 appear on the scene? :confused:
Click to expand...

Nah, I got Sandybridge here also, this Llano board/cpu my brother can have for xmas, should be a useful upgrade for him (think he's still using some intel+RAMBUS+4850 system)
 
stulid said:
Nah, I got Sandybridge here also, this Llano board/cpu my brother can have for xmas, should be a useful upgrade for him (think he's still using some intel+RAMBUS+4850 system)
Click to expand...

Socket 478?
The first system I built was a 1GB RDRAM P4 3.06GHZ 533MHZ FSB, socket 478 system.
 
Martini1991 said:
I do see that Llano has a place in the market, but the FX4 is no worthy replacement of the Phenom II X4 955, and the Llano A8 3650 isn't meant to replace the Phenom II X4 955.
But then you've got to think, it's going to be the budget option, a 955 + board is like 125, AM3+ so can take Piledriver. The Llano 3650 with board is at least 150, that 25 quid, in a budget build is a no-no, and it's worse out of the box for what it'll be used.
Click to expand...

maybe this hints that they are confident that whatever improvements they are making to Bulldozer (FX-4*** series) will bring a sufficient performance boost to warrant that move? who knows, best thing about Phenom II's is there are tons of them second hand around the place, got this 1055T for under £80 which makes it cheaper than a Llano processor as well. :D

the 'review' of the Athlon II 631 is interesting, 4.4GHZ stock voltage, 4.96 in Cinebench 11.5, Wprime 2.0 in 11.2 seconds and over 10,000 in FritzChess. not too bad at all for a ~£60 quad-core, would love to see what it did with a voltage increase as well. :p
 
Martini1991 said:
Socket 478?
The first system I built was a 1GB RDRAM P4 3.06GHZ 533MHZ FSB, socket 478 system.
Click to expand...

I have no idea to be honest, I know he did have RAMBUS and haven't heard of any changes since that time.

Basically he just needs to get himself some DDR3 and all SATA drives (if he still has some IDE) and he's sorted, if he wants more gaming power then he can spend £50 on a 6650/6570 and "Dual" it up.
 
Gashman said:
maybe this hints that they are confident that whatever improvements they are making to Bulldozer (FX-4*** series) will bring a sufficient performance boost to warrant that move? who knows, best thing about Phenom II's is there are tons of them second hand around the place, got this 1055T for under £80 which makes it cheaper than a Llano processor as well. :D

the 'review' of the Athlon II 631 is interesting, 4.4GHZ stock voltage, 4.96 in Cinebench 11.5, Wprime 2.0 in 11.2 seconds and over 10,000 in FritzChess. not too bad at all for a ~£60 quad-core, would love to see what it did with a voltage increase as well. :p
Click to expand...

I won't hold my breath, they released it as it is, if they were confident they could have something substantial, they'd have waited, fixed, avoided the panning.
As it stands now, Bulldozer, with the odd (Keyword) exception, is pretty much mocked, and not considered, due to its initial reception.
If they could have waited, "fixed", then launched with a better reception, it'd have been better in the long run.

I mean, is there actually many official FX4 reviews? I haven't seen one, except Guru's and the Linux one.
 
Martini1991 said:
Exactly.
It is terrible.
We're a month on from release, and the situation hasn't improved yet :p
Click to expand...

problem is though, chances are the situation is hardware related, as well as software related. we have seen a net gain from changing the set-up to disable one integer core in each module in applications that don't use tons of threads, but the fact it isn't done on the move is something that needs to be addressed, no pussyfooting around the fact that it is still being used inefficiently.

also regardless of how much people around here hate it for some baffling reason, it isn't an 'eight-core' processor, look at a block diagram of the architecture, you see four clear cut 'cores', each with two integer clusters and floating point units, shared front-end, shared L1, shared L2 with all of these 'modules' sharing a large L3. would be inclined to say they are four 'wide' cores rather than eight 'narrow' ones, a module has more in common with a single core than a dual-core to be honest, at least in my eyes it does.

so in their way they have totally blurred the lines of exactly what Bulldozer is supposed to be competing with, look at it this way, in marketing (all though its features will sell) Bulldozer is lacklustre, eight-core processor performing worse than previous generation six-core. then look at it the way I see the architectural diagrams and it looks more competitive, if one compares the 8120/8150 to the previous generation four-cores its a white wash! where the previous generation get outright destroyed in all multi-threaded tasks, in most cases not just slightly but truly trampled.

same thing applies if one compares a 4100 to a dual-core Phenom II (difference in die-space for the cores is only ~10%) and again, multi-threaded the dual-core gets trampled outright, same thing applies for 6100 series taking on a triple-core Phenom II. however marketing says they are four-core, six-core and eight-core, which is a shame really. people say 'grasping at straws' or 'semantics' but it is genuinely a confusing topic, I see the 8150 as four 'wide' core processor rather than an eight-core, lots of people see it the other way, neither definition is incorrect, cheers AMD for confusing the situation!

Edit: here is block diagram as an example, note the lack of anything saying 'core 1 and core 2' in each module, note how it simply says 'integer cluster 1 and 2'. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/AMD_Bulldozer_block_diagram_(8_core_CPU).PNG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom