I have seen them for sale at ewiz.com I believe. And perhaps zipzoomfly.com as well. And actually IN stock.
But they were expensive. And I mean 60% premium over similarly performing processors. That said, they're just about the only thing I would currently select to build an HTPC, regardless of the cost.
The "e" series processors really are aimed at the low-power market.
However, maximum temperatures have nothing to do with this. Maximum temperatures are the temperatures which the processor may not exceed - in other words, they define cooling requirements, and do not necessarily correlate with power consumption.
Also, it should be explained in the article that low-power CPUs benefit from higher, not lower maximum temperatures - as this allows one to relax cooling requirements. The article, by using the phrase "are listed at or below", instead of using "at listed at or above", misleads readers into thinking that low power CPU's have lower temperatures listed, while usually it is the opposite.
Core 2 Mobile CPU's are listed at 100C max temperatures, while the most powerful CPUs, as they need guaranteed cooling, are usually listed with LOWER max temperatures - the Phenom II 965, for example, has 61 degrees listed.
AMD state that for these processors, both energy efficient and normal versions, that the maximum temperature is from 71-75ºC. There was no link made to power consumption in this AnandTech news post; this is just what AMD have stated.
Whether or not the energy efficient processors like high temperatures is beyond the scope of this article - the phrase "are listed at or below" is used given that AMD quote these temperatures as the maximum; stating "at listed at or above" would be irresponsible given AMDs specifications, as well as the lack of external testing done on these processors on review sites such as AnandTech.
The specifications are governed by AMD, obviously we have no say in them apart from quoting what they are and potentially giving analysis. Usually maximum temperature specifications are based by the stock cooler; a Mobile Core2 stock cooler is pitiful compared to a standard AMD stock cooler for high end processors, hence different maximum temperature specifications.
Ultimately, certain system builders prefer lower case temperatures, and will provide adequate cooling, airflow, or undervolt/underclock until they feel happy. If they also require a low power processor, then AMD have provided new ones today, and these are the specifications.
"With this release, AMD are aiming at budget and mainstream markets, including low power conscious users - AMD list maximum temperatures for all models at below 75ºC." That's a single sentence. It implies a link. That's my whole problem. And yes, my suggested solution was wrong.
Also, you CHOSE to mention the maximum temperature specification. Other sides usually don't. Hence, for one reason or other, you find it interesting. You should then explain to your readers why you find it interesting, otherwise it's just filler - those very few who do need it will find the max temp themselves.
Maximum temperature, IMHO, is not a promise that "this is the maximum the CPU will reach under specific cooling conditions", it is a requirement that "you may never permit the CPU to exceed this temperature". And I have the feeling that it is not usually the stock cooler that determines max temps. For low power processors, yes, it is - AMD&Intel validate their CPUs to work at high temperatures, therefore permitting laptop makers to use less powerful coolers. For high power processors, however, maximum temperatures are required to reach the specified TDP targets - a Phenom II 965 will happily work at the same 72-74 degrees, it will just consume power above TDP.
A better and more realistic way of phrasing the headline is: AMD cuts into already wafer-thin profit margins even more with sub $100 market price cuts.
1) It costs AMD about the same cost to build lots of cpus on a silicon wafer as it did 6 months ago. 2) During that time they have done slight tweaks to the manufacturing process resulting in greater yields and greater speeds at a certain voltage. 3) AMD phases out old models and replaces them with marginally better cpus at the same price point.
Consumers win, though a 3 to 5% speed increase isn't much of a win.
AMD won't be able to increase Average Selling Price of their cpus until they get a new architecture that increases the speed of their cpus of an amount large than a marginal increase. There is always a danger though that the opposite may happen with Intel having a new architecture.
Athlon II X4 635 becomes AMD's best sub-$100 quad core processor, replacing the X4 630. Compare that with Intel's cheapest i5 quad-core processor, the i5-750, which currently retails at $199. --- OK, I compared them. Newegg has the i5-750 for $199.99 with free shipping and the X4 630 for $99 with free shipping.
However, the more apples-to-apples comparison for the X4 630 is the C2Q 8200 which trades benchmarks with X4 630, despite clock speed disadvantage (2.33 vs 2.8) (Source: Anand's review of X4 630. http://www.anandtech.com/show/2836/3) for $119.99 at Microcenter.
The real story to me is that AMD's current top-of-the-line still features less IPC (instructions per clock) than Core 2 architecture. AMD is really behind.
Really, so you should buy a dead-end socket 775, when instead you could have an AM3 with the option of upgrading to a six core proc down the road? No thanks!
Compare apples to apples please The intel q8200 price on newegg is $183.99 The intel q8300 price on newegg is $148.99
Now microcenter may have it for $119.99 but this is misleading for several reasons. 1) You may not have a microcenter in your area. 2) You pay tax with microcenter. 3) Microcenter does many promotions (also known as loss leaders) to get a customer in the door, severly undercutting online prices on cpus is one of such tactics for while Microcenter may lose money on the cpu on average they make up this loss with other purchased parts for the computer.
Thus if you are going to compare the microcenter intel deal you should compare it to the microcenter AMD deal. The microcenter AMD deal is you get a free Biostar A760G M2+Socket AM2/AM2+ 760G mATX Motherboard with the purchase of the AMD Athlon II x4 630. Not the best motherboard in the world, but if you are going to put any dedicated card in the tower it is not that bad. Furthermore microcenter has given away 785 boards for free in the past with the purchase of the AMD Athlon II x4 630.
I agree. The Athlon II X4 635 offers better value than the Intel i5 750 Quad Core processor for most mainstream applications. But that’s one shoe that dropped.
The second shoe to drop is AMD offers excellent 880G / 890G / SB850 chipsets offering first-rate onboard graphics and native SATA 6G connectivity at full bandwidth. Intel chipsets/processors do not offer this yet.
I like to scale performance to power because that’s the true indicator of performance (though some would call this efficiency). The new Athlon II X4 610e is the first 45W Quad core offering I am aware of and is only 400 Mhz from the 95W Athlon II X4 630. So the performance (err efficiency) of the 610e to the 630 is 2.4/2.8 * 95/45 = 1.8x more work per watt. An Athlon II X4 610e combined with a microATX 880G/SB850 motherboard and 1.35V DDR3-1600 memory is the makings of a really efficient system.
Actually, in SB850, what´s more important is not that it has SATA 3, but that the implementation actually works well. With SB710, I still did not trust AMD´s chipsets to load Windows as quickly as Intel does, and at least some laptop comparisons showed that. Techreport also always found AMD AHCI implementation iffy, and with reason.
With SB850/810, this fear is put to rest and one might finally hope for at least parity with Intel.
"The real story to me is that AMD's current top-of-the-line still features less IPC (instructions per clock) than Core 2 architecture. AMD is really behind."
Yeah... remember though, when talking to AMD-zealots (I'm typing this ON an AMD) anything that shows Intel technological superiority is smirked at and often rebutted with asinine “well AMD is cheaper, so there…” Yeah TARDS all Intel has to do is DROP prices, AND THEN wtf is your rebuttal at? The whole point is that AMD is merely bandaging a serious wound Vs getting sutures to close and REPAIR the wound. Blah blah AMD is a better “value,” yes of course bc that’s ALL they are and we all know that’s NOT helping AMD “improve” their technological deficiencies. Again all Intel has to do is drop prices, BUT they don’t have to, hence “AMD” is a better value = moot; they’re still years behind and no amount of “bang for buck” excuses is going to aid them in CHANGING that. __The big picture is all about AMD recapturing the performance lead or least becoming “competitive,” and by that I mean technologically speaking; not some shill of a (forced) price drop. Do any of you think AMD wants to be “the best bang for the buck,” Vs “THE BEST?” Stop making excuses for AMD; if you choose to buy AMD, then that’s your choice, but telling others to buy inferior technology, just to save a pittance $100-300; I’m sorry but if $200-300 is your main concern = you need to STFU and get a REAL job! (Many of you don’t have jobs at all, and live with your parents, or you’re a lazy ass .edu chumps who don’t work either.) Better yourself, thus bettering your chance of getting a job that will AFFORD you the “luxury” of that extra $200-300. __And to all the “get the X6,” MANY mobo manufactures that claim they are compatible, actually are NOT… let’s hear from the MAN himself:
“And I agree completely on the issue of BIOS support. You should see how these things work behind the scenes, motherboard manufacturers are often still fixing BIOS issues on brand new boards even days before a launch like this.”
---RE: Points, questions, BIOS warning... by Anand Lal Shimpi on Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Yeah… shove that X6 POS… It has 6 cores and cannot even compete with a 4 core i860@stock... Throw some OC’ing into the mix and the i860@$270 DOMINATES this worthless drop-in filler-update. X6 is a performance JOKE; as again from THE MAN: (Note that this can all be summarized as, “The X6 is a [vid rendering] task-specific chip.”)
“The better way to look at it is to ask yourself what sort of machine you're building. If you're building a task specific box that will mostly run heavily threaded applications, AMD will sell you nearly a billion transistors for under $300 and you can't go wrong. If it's a more general purpose machine that you're assembling, Lynnfield seems like a better option.”
---by Anand Lal Shimpi on 4/27/2010 12:26:00 AM The fun thing about these quotations is how all the zealots and fanatics will misconstrue them as the green light for a POINTLESS upgrade Vs their current X3-4/i5/C2D based chips lol… Yep another waste of time/money upgrade, when you could be saving for superior technology, that’s got a proven road-map of success… I’m an Intel fanboy huh? WRONG! The point of ACKNOWLEDGING your weaknesses is to IMPROVE them… Sadly… most AMD-fannyboy’s will continue to stick their head up their arses/in the sand and claim “victory,” b/c AMD is selling their chips for dirt cheap = WTF do you think they are going to gain PROFIT from if they have to continually off load chips for well under what they are actually worth. Underselling Intel is only going to work for so long… all Intel has to do is DROP their prices if they so choose. AMD isn’t doing any mentionable damage vs Intel and you all know it. Helping AMD doesn’t mean continually blowing your dollars on crap updates—it’s up to AMD to improve on their own or they DIE. I dunno, maybe it’s a case of runt-remorse; I’m all for AMD, but not these BS filler-chips; then again this may be a board-room ploy to keep the zealots and fanboy-fanatics appeased… lol. GO AMD!
Why do you keep ranting like a moron. This is a technical website and you are supposed to give your commentary based on technical judgement and assessment. If you have any personal enemity with AMD then keep it with yourself. If you want to do marketing for Intel then apply for a job with them. Dont rant in a technical forum and besmirch the sanctity of this place. This forum is better off without morons like you.
I find it strange that AMD is just releasing the Athlon II X4 940 @ 3.0 GHz, and 95 W TDP, while the Phenom II X4 945 @ 3.0 GHz and 95 W TDP has been available for some time. And coming soon is a Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.2 GHz and 95 W TDP.
The Athlon II is lagging behind the Phenom II in the performance-per-watt department, despite being a smaller chip with no L3 cache.
It looks like AMD knows the Athlon II is the Phenom II's toughest competitor and is intentionnally keeping Athlon II releases behind the Phenom II calendar.
Currently, a best buy on the AMD side is the Phenom II 955 BE with its unlocked multiplier and more serious stock cooler with heatpipes. Buy it for $160 and dial it up from 3.2 Ghz to a conservative 3,6 GHz on stock voltage.
Are the Athlon IIs merely Phenom II's that failed L3 validations? If so, then AMD selling them for something is better than scrapping the entire chip. I know some of the X3 chips were X4s that failed validations, at least, the first batches were.
There is a separate die with no L3 cache for the Athlon II X4, but when this product was first released, I read that AMD said that some of the Athlon II X4's could be Phenom II's with de-activated L3 cache.
I'm writing this on a 2400MHz Athlon X2 I got in 2005. Now there's a 3200MHz version of the X2 for $76, I mean how much cheaper can a CPU get? Shame the motherboard, RAM and all would need changing too (what is s939, three socket generations behind?)
I picked up an AMD 445 x3 CPU and have unlocked the extra core and have level3 cache. CPUz sees it as a Phenom II x4 model B45. It is now running at 3.7ghz with all 4 cores. this is something I did not expect.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
25 Comments
Back to Article
ViRGE - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
Will these E-series processors be any more available than the last ones? I can't say I've ever seen one for sale at Newegg or the like.Eeqmcsq - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
I've never seen the 45w CPUs on newegg either. I do see them when I go to Google's shopping search, though.ViRGE - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
The couple of times I've looked on Google's shopping search, it has always resulted in shady sites that list them as backordered.teldar - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
I have seen them for sale at ewiz.com I believe. And perhaps zipzoomfly.com as well. And actually IN stock.But they were expensive. And I mean 60% premium over similarly performing processors.
That said, they're just about the only thing I would currently select to build an HTPC, regardless of the cost.
KaarlisK - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
The "e" series processors really are aimed at the low-power market.However, maximum temperatures have nothing to do with this. Maximum temperatures are the temperatures which the processor may not exceed - in other words, they define cooling requirements, and do not necessarily correlate with power consumption.
Also, it should be explained in the article that low-power CPUs benefit from higher, not lower maximum temperatures - as this allows one to relax cooling requirements. The article, by using the phrase "are listed at or below", instead of using "at listed at or above", misleads readers into thinking that low power CPU's have lower temperatures listed, while usually it is the opposite.
Core 2 Mobile CPU's are listed at 100C max temperatures, while the most powerful CPUs, as they need guaranteed cooling, are usually listed with LOWER max temperatures - the Phenom II 965, for example, has 61 degrees listed.
IanCutress - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
Hi Kaarlisk,AMD state that for these processors, both energy efficient and normal versions, that the maximum temperature is from 71-75ºC. There was no link made to power consumption in this AnandTech news post; this is just what AMD have stated.
Whether or not the energy efficient processors like high temperatures is beyond the scope of this article - the phrase "are listed at or below" is used given that AMD quote these temperatures as the maximum; stating "at listed at or above" would be irresponsible given AMDs specifications, as well as the lack of external testing done on these processors on review sites such as AnandTech.
The specifications are governed by AMD, obviously we have no say in them apart from quoting what they are and potentially giving analysis. Usually maximum temperature specifications are based by the stock cooler; a Mobile Core2 stock cooler is pitiful compared to a standard AMD stock cooler for high end processors, hence different maximum temperature specifications.
Ultimately, certain system builders prefer lower case temperatures, and will provide adequate cooling, airflow, or undervolt/underclock until they feel happy. If they also require a low power processor, then AMD have provided new ones today, and these are the specifications.
All the best,
Ian
KaarlisK - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
Hi Ian,"With this release, AMD are aiming at budget and mainstream markets, including low power conscious users - AMD list maximum temperatures for all models at below 75ºC."
That's a single sentence. It implies a link. That's my whole problem. And yes, my suggested solution was wrong.
Also, you CHOSE to mention the maximum temperature specification. Other sides usually don't. Hence, for one reason or other, you find it interesting. You should then explain to your readers why you find it interesting, otherwise it's just filler - those very few who do need it will find the max temp themselves.
Maximum temperature, IMHO, is not a promise that "this is the maximum the CPU will reach under specific cooling conditions", it is a requirement that "you may never permit the CPU to exceed this temperature".
And I have the feeling that it is not usually the stock cooler that determines max temps. For low power processors, yes, it is - AMD&Intel validate their CPUs to work at high temperatures, therefore permitting laptop makers to use less powerful coolers. For high power processors, however, maximum temperatures are required to reach the specified TDP targets - a Phenom II 965 will happily work at the same 72-74 degrees, it will just consume power above TDP.
Thanks for the explanations.
Best,
Karlis
Kaihekoa - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
A better and more realistic way of phrasing the headline is: AMD cuts into already wafer-thin profit margins even more with sub $100 market price cuts.Roland00 - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
Not really price cuts.1) It costs AMD about the same cost to build lots of cpus on a silicon wafer as it did 6 months ago.
2) During that time they have done slight tweaks to the manufacturing process resulting in greater yields and greater speeds at a certain voltage.
3) AMD phases out old models and replaces them with marginally better cpus at the same price point.
Consumers win, though a 3 to 5% speed increase isn't much of a win.
AMD won't be able to increase Average Selling Price of their cpus until they get a new architecture that increases the speed of their cpus of an amount large than a marginal increase. There is always a danger though that the opposite may happen with Intel having a new architecture.
cynic783 - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
Athlon II X4 635 becomes AMD's best sub-$100 quad core processor, replacing the X4 630. Compare that with Intel's cheapest i5 quad-core processor, the i5-750, which currently retails at $199.---
OK, I compared them. Newegg has the i5-750 for $199.99 with free shipping and the X4 630 for $99 with free shipping.
However, the more apples-to-apples comparison for the X4 630 is the C2Q 8200 which trades benchmarks with X4 630, despite clock speed disadvantage (2.33 vs 2.8) (Source: Anand's review of X4 630. http://www.anandtech.com/show/2836/3) for $119.99 at Microcenter.
The real story to me is that AMD's current top-of-the-line still features less IPC (instructions per clock) than Core 2 architecture. AMD is really behind.
Maroon - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
Really, so you should buy a dead-end socket 775, when instead you could have an AM3 with the option of upgrading to a six core proc down the road? No thanks!Taft12 - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
Give him a break - with a name like Cynic783 he's obliged to focus on the negative!Roland00 - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
Compare apples to apples pleaseThe intel q8200 price on newegg is $183.99
The intel q8300 price on newegg is $148.99
Now microcenter may have it for $119.99 but this is misleading for several reasons. 1) You may not have a microcenter in your area. 2) You pay tax with microcenter. 3) Microcenter does many promotions (also known as loss leaders) to get a customer in the door, severly undercutting online prices on cpus is one of such tactics for while Microcenter may lose money on the cpu on average they make up this loss with other purchased parts for the computer.
Thus if you are going to compare the microcenter intel deal you should compare it to the microcenter AMD deal. The microcenter AMD deal is you get a free Biostar A760G M2+Socket AM2/AM2+ 760G mATX Motherboard with the purchase of the AMD Athlon II x4 630. Not the best motherboard in the world, but if you are going to put any dedicated card in the tower it is not that bad. Furthermore microcenter has given away 785 boards for free in the past with the purchase of the AMD Athlon II x4 630.
ClagMaster - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
I agree. The Athlon II X4 635 offers better value than the Intel i5 750 Quad Core processor for most mainstream applications. But that’s one shoe that dropped.The second shoe to drop is AMD offers excellent 880G / 890G / SB850 chipsets offering first-rate onboard graphics and native SATA 6G connectivity at full bandwidth. Intel chipsets/processors do not offer this yet.
I like to scale performance to power because that’s the true indicator of performance (though some would call this efficiency). The new Athlon II X4 610e is the first 45W Quad core offering I am aware of and is only 400 Mhz from the 95W Athlon II X4 630. So the performance (err efficiency) of the 610e to the 630 is 2.4/2.8 * 95/45 = 1.8x more work per watt. An Athlon II X4 610e combined with a microATX 880G/SB850 motherboard and 1.35V DDR3-1600 memory is the makings of a really efficient system.
KaarlisK - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
Actually, in SB850, what´s more important is not that it has SATA 3, but that the implementation actually works well. With SB710, I still did not trust AMD´s chipsets to load Windows as quickly as Intel does, and at least some laptop comparisons showed that. Techreport also always found AMD AHCI implementation iffy, and with reason.With SB850/810, this fear is put to rest and one might finally hope for at least parity with Intel.
v12v12 - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
"The real story to me is that AMD's current top-of-the-line still features less IPC (instructions per clock) than Core 2 architecture. AMD is really behind."Yeah... remember though, when talking to AMD-zealots (I'm typing this ON an AMD) anything that shows Intel technological superiority is smirked at and often rebutted with asinine “well AMD is cheaper, so there…” Yeah TARDS all Intel has to do is DROP prices, AND THEN wtf is your rebuttal at? The whole point is that AMD is merely bandaging a serious wound Vs getting sutures to close and REPAIR the wound. Blah blah AMD is a better “value,” yes of course bc that’s ALL they are and we all know that’s NOT helping AMD “improve” their technological deficiencies. Again all Intel has to do is drop prices, BUT they don’t have to, hence “AMD” is a better value = moot; they’re still years behind and no amount of “bang for buck” excuses is going to aid them in CHANGING that.
__The big picture is all about AMD recapturing the performance lead or least becoming “competitive,” and by that I mean technologically speaking; not some shill of a (forced) price drop. Do any of you think AMD wants to be “the best bang for the buck,” Vs “THE BEST?” Stop making excuses for AMD; if you choose to buy AMD, then that’s your choice, but telling others to buy inferior technology, just to save a pittance $100-300; I’m sorry but if $200-300 is your main concern = you need to STFU and get a REAL job! (Many of you don’t have jobs at all, and live with your parents, or you’re a lazy ass .edu chumps who don’t work either.) Better yourself, thus bettering your chance of getting a job that will AFFORD you the “luxury” of that extra $200-300.
__And to all the “get the X6,” MANY mobo manufactures that claim they are compatible, actually are NOT… let’s hear from the MAN himself:
“And I agree completely on the issue of BIOS support. You should see how these things work behind the scenes, motherboard manufacturers are often still fixing BIOS issues on brand new boards even days before a launch like this.”
---RE: Points, questions, BIOS warning... by Anand Lal Shimpi on Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Yeah… shove that X6 POS… It has 6 cores and cannot even compete with a 4 core i860@stock... Throw some OC’ing into the mix and the i860@$270 DOMINATES this worthless drop-in filler-update. X6 is a performance JOKE; as again from THE MAN: (Note that this can all be summarized as, “The X6 is a [vid rendering] task-specific chip.”)
“The better way to look at it is to ask yourself what sort of machine you're building. If you're building a task specific box that will mostly run heavily threaded applications, AMD will sell you nearly a billion transistors for under $300 and you can't go wrong. If it's a more general purpose machine that you're assembling, Lynnfield seems like a better option.”
---by Anand Lal Shimpi on 4/27/2010 12:26:00 AM
The fun thing about these quotations is how all the zealots and fanatics will misconstrue them as the green light for a POINTLESS upgrade Vs their current X3-4/i5/C2D based chips lol… Yep another waste of time/money upgrade, when you could be saving for superior technology, that’s got a proven road-map of success… I’m an Intel fanboy huh? WRONG! The point of ACKNOWLEDGING your weaknesses is to IMPROVE them… Sadly… most AMD-fannyboy’s will continue to stick their head up their arses/in the sand and claim “victory,” b/c AMD is selling their chips for dirt cheap = WTF do you think they are going to gain PROFIT from if they have to continually off load chips for well under what they are actually worth. Underselling Intel is only going to work for so long… all Intel has to do is DROP their prices if they so choose. AMD isn’t doing any mentionable damage vs Intel and you all know it. Helping AMD doesn’t mean continually blowing your dollars on crap updates—it’s up to AMD to improve on their own or they DIE. I dunno, maybe it’s a case of runt-remorse; I’m all for AMD, but not these BS filler-chips; then again this may be a board-room ploy to keep the zealots and fanboy-fanatics appeased… lol. GO AMD!
jollyjugg - Thursday, May 13, 2010 - link
Why do you keep ranting like a moron. This is a technical website and you are supposed to give your commentary based on technical judgement and assessment. If you have any personal enemity with AMD then keep it with yourself. If you want to do marketing for Intel then apply for a job with them. Dont rant in a technical forum and besmirch the sanctity of this place. This forum is better off without morons like you.BernardP - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
I find it strange that AMD is just releasing the Athlon II X4 940 @ 3.0 GHz, and 95 W TDP, while the Phenom II X4 945 @ 3.0 GHz and 95 W TDP has been available for some time. And coming soon is a Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.2 GHz and 95 W TDP.The Athlon II is lagging behind the Phenom II in the performance-per-watt department, despite being a smaller chip with no L3 cache.
It looks like AMD knows the Athlon II is the Phenom II's toughest competitor and is intentionnally keeping Athlon II releases behind the Phenom II calendar.
Currently, a best buy on the AMD side is the Phenom II 955 BE with its unlocked multiplier and more serious stock cooler with heatpipes. Buy it for $160 and dial it up from 3.2 Ghz to a conservative 3,6 GHz on stock voltage.
ClagMaster - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
Yes. AMD is sensitive to marketing strategies.There are no black versions of Athlon II yet.
That's the perview of Phenom II.
Bateluer - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
Are the Athlon IIs merely Phenom II's that failed L3 validations? If so, then AMD selling them for something is better than scrapping the entire chip. I know some of the X3 chips were X4s that failed validations, at least, the first batches were.BernardP - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
There is a separate die with no L3 cache for the Athlon II X4, but when this product was first released, I read that AMD said that some of the Athlon II X4's could be Phenom II's with de-activated L3 cache.stephenbrooks - Monday, May 17, 2010 - link
I'm writing this on a 2400MHz Athlon X2 I got in 2005. Now there's a 3200MHz version of the X2 for $76, I mean how much cheaper can a CPU get? Shame the motherboard, RAM and all would need changing too (what is s939, three socket generations behind?)Bigroy - Monday, June 21, 2010 - link
This is going to go into my new build. I have read and researched and it seems to be the best all around processor.computerfarmers - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
I picked up an AMD 445 x3 CPU and have unlocked the extra core and have level3 cache. CPUz sees it as a Phenom II x4 model B45. It is now running at 3.7ghz with all 4 cores. this is something I did not expect.crzyc - Wednesday, August 11, 2010 - link
Anyone know where we can purchase a 610e or 415e?