Last edited:
-
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 will intro four new CPUs in Q1
- Thread starter mathwat
- Start date
Thanks for the info mathwat! 
so AMD are basically adding an extra 0.5 multi to their existing chips?
Athlon II X2 240 (200x14) 2.8GHz
Athlon II X2 245 (200x14.5) 2.9GHz
Athlon II X2 250 (200x15) 3.0GHz
Athlon II X2 255 (200x15.5) 3.1GHz
Athlon II X3 425 (200x13.5) 2.7GHz
Athlon II X3 435 (200x14.5) 2.9GHz
Athlon II X3 440 (200x15) 3.0GHz
Athlon II X4 620 (200x13) 2.6GHz
Athlon II X4 630 (200x14) 2.8GHz
Athlon II X4 635 (200x14.5) 2.9GHz
Phenom II x2 550 (200x15.5) 3.1GHz
Phenom II x2 555 (200x16) 3.2GHz*
* One or two forum members have mentioned the Phenom II X2 555 may be produced using the C3 revison silicon (as used in the latest AMD flagship Phenom II x4 965) . . . if that's true then that could be a nice overclocked 4GHz AMD dual-core core may be achievable?
so AMD are basically adding an extra 0.5 multi to their existing chips?
Athlon II X2 240 (200x14) 2.8GHz
Athlon II X2 245 (200x14.5) 2.9GHz
Athlon II X2 250 (200x15) 3.0GHz
Athlon II X2 255 (200x15.5) 3.1GHz
Athlon II X3 425 (200x13.5) 2.7GHz
Athlon II X3 435 (200x14.5) 2.9GHz
Athlon II X3 440 (200x15) 3.0GHz
Athlon II X4 620 (200x13) 2.6GHz
Athlon II X4 630 (200x14) 2.8GHz
Athlon II X4 635 (200x14.5) 2.9GHz
Phenom II x2 550 (200x15.5) 3.1GHz
Phenom II x2 555 (200x16) 3.2GHz*
* One or two forum members have mentioned the Phenom II X2 555 may be produced using the C3 revison silicon (as used in the latest AMD flagship Phenom II x4 965) . . . if that's true then that could be a nice overclocked 4GHz AMD dual-core core may be achievable?
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Meh, I'm not too into the overclocking thing anymore, silence + decent overclock without massive voltage for lowish power. At the moment, not sure if this is the case on all am2+/am3 boards, I can't overclock hugely well without turning off cool and quiet, which saves a pretty decent chunk of power. I mean I can overclock I just can't go nuts and theres smeg all a quad core at 3.4Ghz can't do. Frankly theres smeg all a dual core at 3.4Ghz can't do 
This round of updates, not hugely interesting, though I am curious how far Ath 2 X4's overclock, can you get 3.5Ghz out of them on the very cheap, really should look into that.
Llano will be VERY interesting for dual core users, very very very interesting indeed. Looks set to be mid/end of year, basically the Bulldozer architecture, just cut in half with the added GPU which looks set to be a pretty hefty part indeed.
If windows/all apps were set up to use gpgpu type power for everything it would completely blow away anything on the market to be honest(in anything that requires any FPU calcs of course). Should still be very good for all area's though, intergrated graphics on the cheap with pretty extreme performance(for that segment and cost), very low power, very good performance and should offer frankly, whats set to be a hugely more impressive in every area than Intel's Clarkdale, infact Intel's clarkdale was far worse than I expected, I hadn't kept up with it and had no clue they were moving the memory controller across the die to the chipset, I also assumed they were beefing up the intergrated with more than clocks, and the lower end chips that offer some value have vastly lower gpu clock speeds.
I wouldn't be surprised to see 4-5x the performance out of AMD's Llano graphically, lower power and better cpu performance aswell, if its as cheap or even cheaper, the next 6-12 months will be boring as sin, the 2 years after that will be a freaking awesome time for computer hardware.
AMD and maybe even Nvidia moving to competant manufacturing, a decent gpu process with less leakage meaning probably excellent bumps between this gen and next, and heck, maybe even on time. Llano, Bulldozer, 6/8 core processors starting to take off properly rather than the rather half arsed but not to bad 6 core stuff due this year. When FPU power comes as standard on cpu's game makers and any other software makers can actually plan on having that power available to everyone so can start making use of it. Physx will die, thankfully, and companies using gpgpu/gaming use of graphics card will now have significant power on die to do so. Even Intel's rather woeful intergrated is still an fpu beast compared to the normal cpu's fpu power. I'm sure Intel will be pumping up their intergrated with 2-4x the fpu power in their next gen intergrated/on die jobby.
With Global getting up and running with AMD starting to get down far quicker and hopefully starting to match Intel on fabrication processes at the same time, new architecture and a lot of investing.
But this year, meh, AMD's 6 core "might" be interesting if its cheap, it might come in with low clocked versions quite a bit under £200. Intel's 6 core's at $1000, will be useless to all but a handful of people.
This round of updates, not hugely interesting, though I am curious how far Ath 2 X4's overclock, can you get 3.5Ghz out of them on the very cheap, really should look into that.
Llano will be VERY interesting for dual core users, very very very interesting indeed. Looks set to be mid/end of year, basically the Bulldozer architecture, just cut in half with the added GPU which looks set to be a pretty hefty part indeed.
If windows/all apps were set up to use gpgpu type power for everything it would completely blow away anything on the market to be honest(in anything that requires any FPU calcs of course). Should still be very good for all area's though, intergrated graphics on the cheap with pretty extreme performance(for that segment and cost), very low power, very good performance and should offer frankly, whats set to be a hugely more impressive in every area than Intel's Clarkdale, infact Intel's clarkdale was far worse than I expected, I hadn't kept up with it and had no clue they were moving the memory controller across the die to the chipset, I also assumed they were beefing up the intergrated with more than clocks, and the lower end chips that offer some value have vastly lower gpu clock speeds.
I wouldn't be surprised to see 4-5x the performance out of AMD's Llano graphically, lower power and better cpu performance aswell, if its as cheap or even cheaper, the next 6-12 months will be boring as sin, the 2 years after that will be a freaking awesome time for computer hardware.
AMD and maybe even Nvidia moving to competant manufacturing, a decent gpu process with less leakage meaning probably excellent bumps between this gen and next, and heck, maybe even on time. Llano, Bulldozer, 6/8 core processors starting to take off properly rather than the rather half arsed but not to bad 6 core stuff due this year. When FPU power comes as standard on cpu's game makers and any other software makers can actually plan on having that power available to everyone so can start making use of it. Physx will die, thankfully, and companies using gpgpu/gaming use of graphics card will now have significant power on die to do so. Even Intel's rather woeful intergrated is still an fpu beast compared to the normal cpu's fpu power. I'm sure Intel will be pumping up their intergrated with 2-4x the fpu power in their next gen intergrated/on die jobby.
With Global getting up and running with AMD starting to get down far quicker and hopefully starting to match Intel on fabrication processes at the same time, new architecture and a lot of investing.
But this year, meh, AMD's 6 core "might" be interesting if its cheap, it might come in with low clocked versions quite a bit under £200. Intel's 6 core's at $1000, will be useless to all but a handful of people.
Last edited:
Thanks for the info mathwat!
Athlon II X4 620 (200x13) 2.6GHz
Athlon II X4 630 (200x13) 2.8GHz
Athlon II X4 635 (200x13.5) 2.9GHz
The 630 is 200 x14, 635 14.5 and i have seen on a bios update support for Athlon x4 640 (200x15). Am i right in thinking all this is will be the propus chip with a different multi?
Last edited:
i can get 3.6 @ 1.5v however i have quite a ''bad'' chip in terms on what others have done. Seen them up to 3.8ish (unsure if stable) @ 1.425v
Last edited:
Yeah I'd say 3.5GHz isn't an unrealistic target to achieve with stability!
Cool never heard of it!
Good stuff!
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Because customers will have the option in a couple weeks or whatever to buy a 3.1Ghz chip, for the same price as a previous 2.9Ghz chip. More value is more value, its not like its a new design, its one machine at the plant setting a different multi and the packaging getting a new label while every customer ends up with better value, can't see a downside myself really.
As for those X4's, killer little chips if they do 3.5Ghz with ease at that kind of cost, do the low power ones overclock further at all, or really use less power, or do people end up needing say 1.5v on any chip to hit around the same speed?
I'd hazard a guess that at 3.5Ghz for most of us here who game as their main power usage, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that ath 2 x4 and a i7 when you're playing at the appropriate res/settings so you're gpu limited.
As for those X4's, killer little chips if they do 3.5Ghz with ease at that kind of cost, do the low power ones overclock further at all, or really use less power, or do people end up needing say 1.5v on any chip to hit around the same speed?
I'd hazard a guess that at 3.5Ghz for most of us here who game as their main power usage, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that ath 2 x4 and a i7 when you're playing at the appropriate res/settings so you're gpu limited.
no clue why anyone would buy an AMD dual core......the entire point of AMD to me is that you can have a cheap quad.
I got a used E8400 and have it at 4.7GHz on a crappy 92mm cooler....and it's faster clock for clock than one of these AMD chips.
I got a used E8400 and have it at 4.7GHz on a crappy 92mm cooler....and it's faster clock for clock than one of these AMD chips.
* One or two forum members have mentioned the Phenom II X2 555 may be produced using the C3 revison silicon (as used in the latest AMD flagship Phenom II x4 965) . . . if that's true then that could be a nice overclocked 4GHz AMD dual-core core may be achievable?
The 555 could be very interesting if it can do the same core unlock trick as the 550, might be more reliably achieved or amd might have made it impossible. We shall see
why not? just bought an x2 250 in fact.
what's wrong with a cheap £50 dual core part for people who are just going to browse the net?
Yeah I suppose if its a small free speed bump for the same money that makes sense . . .
just the confusion of dealing with a long list of possible choices, not a biggie. The advantage should be that the slighty less powerful chips (i.e Athlon II X2 240) become even more affordable . . .
For someone with previous overclocking experience I think 3.5GHz would be realistic for the 630 & 635 but the 620 would need a bit more tweaking/understanding to attain a 269 HT-Ref.
Athlon II X4 620 (269x13) 3.5GHz
Athlon II X4 630 (250x14) 3.5GHz
Athlon II X4 635 (241x14.5) 3.5GHz
AFAIK they are just underclocked/undervolted Propus/Regor dies with a lower VID stamped and therefore a lower TDP. One could argue that AMD speedbin various bits of silicon that respond well to LV operation but having done some LV testing myself on a bog standard AII X3 425 I'm kinda thinking most Propus chips will undervolt just fine . . . here is a 24 hour Prime95 Small FFTs with [1.425VID] chip running at stock speeds with just 1.136vCore/Load . . . [1.200vCore] BIOS set:
Bear in mind the *e* version chips are also underclocked so that would result in even lower vCore. I figure you could achieve the same with a suitable motherboard that allows vCore and CPU-Multi adjustments . . .
It remains to be seen if the *e* chips overclock better than their regular counterparts, I don't think they will but I'll keep an open mind for now!
Well I think its because an affordable and fast Dual-Core is enough for most peoples needs, as you yourself know dual cores still have plenty of life left in them!
Basically is £40 is gonna get the job done in style then why pay £80
Very nice, although getting that chip to 4.7GHz has taken you years of learning and cost you thousands of pounds . . . for johnny newblood who wants a mean lean fighting machine the Athlon II's fit the bill perfectly, processor and motherboard for less than the cost of a retail E8400, what's not to like . . .
I'm assuming from reading your previous posts on what you consider a stable clock that 4.7GHz is only stable enough for your personal needs and not actually mathmatically stable? . . If that is prime95 stable then I will be impressed, if it isn't than I'm not impressed!
You will never understand the new AMD chips from reading the reviews or peoples posts gurusan, you just need to put a few quid aside and build one yourself for evaluation purposes!
I think your selling the chips capabilities very short there!
You can do *a lot* more than just surf the net with a 3.0GHz Regor!
Very nice, although getting that chip to 4.7GHz has taken you years of learning and cost you thousands of pounds . . . for johnny newblood who wants a mean lean fighting machine the Athlon II's fit the bill perfectly, processor and motherboard for less than the cost of a retail E8400, what's not to like . . .
I'm assuming from reading your previous posts on what you consider a stable clock that 4.7GHz is only stable enough for your personal needs and not actually mathmatically stable? . . If that is prime95 stable then I will be impressed, if it isn't than I'm not impressed!
Yes but the worst Wolfdale I've ever had still did 4.16GHz ....something which even the best AMD x2 chip can't do.
...and it really has not cost me thousands of pounds, in fact I pretty much always break even or better when I change chips.
As for stable, I no longer care about prime as I've had many "prime stable" clocks that crash out in other applications. If I can leave it on 24/7 gaming, rendering, encoding, doing CFD iterations without any crashes then it's stable.
By my definition it's stable, if I am looking to resell the chip I will probably do a prime run because it helps resell value but that's it.
I just think that if people want a cheap dual core they should still go for 2nd hand socket 775, if they want a cheap quad then AM3 is great....
Last edited: