AMD’s Athlon 200GE Processors Now Available

25 Comments

View All Comments

• Dragonstongue - Friday, September 21, 2018 - link

  if they are not careful with price, they will encroach far to close to the 2200g ($100) really does not leave them much room to not screw their own line up.
  
  much of the listed price alludes to exactly what am saying, they cannot make them "free" or they go out of business, but, they need enough separation between tires and not do stupid small bumps or reduction increase of various features (like Intel has done for decades)
  
  price, clock speeds, vega cores etc, there is not all that much wiggle room TBH IMHO.....now if they can get Navi out the door asap that would be great, RX 500 series has been way too long above MSRP/SEP levels, in many cases $40-$800 or so above what they should be, I think the only ones that were and maintained pricing for the most part was the true low budget cards (example RX 550) the rest (especially Vega) are massive price gouged.
  
  cannot wait for "next gen" though it is likely DDR4 will still be overpriced by then, Samsung has already more or less stated that is exactly what they plan on doing, slowing down production to keep pricing elevated to make it "worthwhile" as far as I know they are the largest ram maker in the world

• Alexvrb - Friday, September 21, 2018 - link

  $60 isn't encroaching. Also price is just one factor, it's in an entirely different TDP bracket. It's like comparing a Surface Pro to a gaming laptop and then cautioning they're "encroaching" on gaming laptops due to pricing. Seriously this is something I can see being crammed into slim desktops for offices and casual users. It's competing with low-to-mid TDP entry-level Pentiums and Celerons (some of which are Atoms by another name).
  
  Ditto for the other upcoming Athlons. The only processor might be encroached upon by the future 220 and 240 (200 not so much) would be the 2200GE (IF it gets a retail release).

• Samus - Saturday, September 22, 2018 - link

  I agree. The Duron never really "encroached" onto the Athlon. It didn't survive because the performance delta compared to the Athlon (not accounting for overclocking on the Duron) didn't justify the savings. This is likely to be the case here. For $100, the 2200G is going to have twice as many physical cores, higher clock speeds - WITH turbo, more cache, and more Vega cores. It's twice the processor at less than twice the price.
  
  AMD is shooting for the ultra low end here, where OEMs can use the cheapest possible chipsets, the lowest output PSU's, in the smallest possible cases. I suspect many won't even have ATX\ITX\SFX power supplies and actually use a 100w power brick, because you can bet the motherboards wont even have a PCIe connector.
  
  We've seen these systems so many times. Think E1-1200's, the slowest, most aggravating AMD chip in recent memory. These 200G's wont be THAT slow but we are talking pretty poor performance here with just TWO 3.2GHz Zen cores sharing what appears to be a pretty substantial victim cache.
  
  Time (and reviews) will tell what this thing is really worth but I don't see this biting into any of AMD's existing market share. This is targeting the 'Atom' segment.

• Death666Angel - Saturday, September 22, 2018 - link

  "This is targeting the 'Atom' segment." Really? Plenty of people are still rocking 2C/4T notebooks of the Sandy Bridge to Coffee Lake era with 15W to 37W and 2GHz to 3.5GHz sustained turbo speeds. They don't feel their laptops running slow. This thing will have a CB15 ST score of maybe around 120-130, which is on par with a i5 7500T/7400T and a MT score of maybe 320 +- 20. That is a bit lower than something like a Pentium G4560, which is clocked higher. But compared to an Atom, it runs circles around it (70-80 ST and 240 - 260 MT at most, N5000 do they have higher Atom SKUs?). And this thing will be socketed, whereas no Atom CPU I know of is user replaceable for the home market.

• Samus - Tuesday, September 25, 2018 - link

  That is a WHOLE lot of performance speculation there considering you have absolutely zero data to back it up.
  
  When I said this was targeting the "Atom segment" I meant the ultra low price market segment. Keeping in mind the Pentium and Celeron are still quite expensive, and AMD has historically (for the last 30 years) never been able to compete directly with Intel in the equivalent price segment (again, DON'T confuse this statement with performance, I'm talking about category here!) this will compete with the Atom and perhaps Celeron in the marketplace, much like the Ryzen 3 competes with the Pentium, Ryzen 5 competes with the Core i3, and Ryzen 7 competes with the Core i5.
  
  Nothing AMD has directly competes with the i7 in the marketplace because
  
  A) most people shopping for an i7 are buying looking for the most premium product, and OEM's know the AMD brand is a tough sell at retail so the Ryzen 7 is generally equipped in a PC similar in spec to an i3 or i5, ie, no NVMe SSD, if an SSD at all.
  
  You can argue and disagree with me all you want, but AMD's market position, sales numbers, and OEM design wins over the last TWO DECADES dictates everything I have written above is accurate.

• close - Saturday, September 22, 2018 - link

  You're forgetting the fact that both Athlon and Duron were targeting the same desktop PC form factor. The 2200G and 200GE probably target very different segments. Anyone looking for something like a silent NUC-type device doesn't need a 2200G. And it will still offer enough performance for any menial tasks that take up a lot of most people's time. Youtube? Facebook? Video and music? Check.
  
  Up to a certain point (usually in the high-end or enthusiast) price goes up slower than performance so the argument that you get twice the processor for less that twice the price isn't the most convincing.

• Samus - Tuesday, September 25, 2018 - link

  To a degree, yes, but remember the Mobile Duron was AMD's FIRST K7-architecture CPU targeting mobile devices at 25 watts (January 2001)
  
  Of course, 5 months later, more Duron (and Athlon) CPU's were released targeting mobile and some Athlons actually ran at lower power (15w) compared to all Mobile Durons being 25w.
  
  The Athlon XP eventually replaced the Duron all together, including the mobile segment models.
  
  When you look at the timeline, it appears the PR at AMD had in mind the Duron would become the mobile-focused CPU, but the name just didn't stick with consumers.

• Oxford Guy - Wednesday, September 26, 2018 - link

  "Think E1-1200's, the slowest, most aggravating AMD chip in recent memory."
  
  No, that would be Jaguar. Of AMD's recent turkey chips, that one is tops in aggravation.

• erotomania - Wednesday, September 26, 2018 - link

  dumbass....again.....

• Zizy - Friday, September 21, 2018 - link

  It would make sense to have $ amounts to exclude tax to make international comparison easier. Say the proshop's 54eur = 45 eur without tax = 53$. This obviously doesn't help you much when actually buying, but you generally aren't buying stuff for $ in EU anyway.
  
  54 is reasonably cheap. Sure, 2200G is twice as fast and less than twice as expensive, but if it is out of your budget it doesn't help much.