AMD Releases Three New Low-Cost CPUs

WesternActor writes "With its new Fusion APUs coming out in about a month, you wouldn't think AMD would still be tweaking its processor lineup. But it released three new processors today—the Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition, the Phenom II X2 565 Black Edition, and the Athlon II X3 455—to balance out its price-performance offerings. The Black Edition CPUs with their unlocked multipliers are probably the most interesting, particularly the Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition which has six cores, runs at 3.3 GHz, and costs only $265. As the name implies, the 1100T represents only a minute increase in clock speed over the 1090T. It even has the same amount of L2 and L3 cache (3MB and 6MB, respectively), is based on the same 45nm production process, and is designed for the currently standard AM3 socket. Given that 1090T got the downward nudge in price to $235, however, the 1100T offers slightly better performance for less money."

Comments

Low cost?

[jewelises]

I've heard of marketers redefining price points, but this is ridiculous. I've never paid more than $150 for a processor.

Re:Low cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you even looked at Intel's price-points? You wouldn't be saying these things if you had.

Re:Low cost?

[hedwards]

As the other poster suggested, you can buy an entire AMD based system for what one of Intel's high end processors costs. There are people who want that level of performance and are willing to pay, but the chip does cost a lot.

Re:Low cost?

[blair1q]

Intel has parts similar to these at about these prices. The Intel part that costs $1000 more makes one of these things run like an abacus.

Re:Low cost?

[Kjella]

Intel's low-end parts tend are typically lower performing (or higher priced, depending on how you look at it) than the AMD counterparts, I thik you pay a minimum just for the brand. In the performance ranges AMD can't touch you get far better performance, but at an ugly price premium. Personally I've found that Intel is competing most intensly around AMD's high-end where AMD starts to cheat a little and Intel wants to "cut off" AMD. Intel is of course trying to choke the chips that give AMD good margins, which makes the bang for the buck not that bad.

Re:Low cost?

[hairyfeet]

Exactly. I built my current machine for around $600 after rebate and it has a 925 2.8GHz quad, 8GB of DDR2 800MHz, an HD460, a pair of 500GB HDDs, and Windows 7 HP X64. To build an Intel machine at the roughly same specs I was looking at a minimum of around $200 more thanks to the higher prices on Intel motherboards, and if I wanted anything even slightly future proof I would have had to go DDR3 which 8GB would have put a serious bite in my wallet.

Plus if you support having a free market and competition your really should be looking at AMD first. Intel was caught bribing OEMs and rigging their compilers to sabotage AMD chips, which is why they paid AMD 1.25 Billion to try to make the heat go away. Personally I think Intel will still be looking at EU fines as well as a host of lawsuits by AGs. I'm all for someone winning a good chunk of the market by having better products, performance, marketing, etc, but sabotaging the market through payoff and rigging just makes the market a sham.

So unless you are in one of the niches where the insane price difference is worth it to squeeze every amount of speed you can get I would look at AMD first. Since Intel got caught rigging and bribing and Nvidia pulled bumpgate I have switched my shop to AMD only and my customers couldn't be happier. I just sent out a triple core with 4GB of RAM and a TB of HDD along with an HD4350 for the local print shop and it cost them just $485 after paying me. According to the owner which had already added a quad I built to the office the performance is great and the lower price is allowing him to accelerate the replacement of the older machines in his business. Hell you can get quad kit with Win 7 for $400 or supply your own OS and get a get a triple for $220. Intel just doesn't have anything similar at those price points unless you get the bottom o' the line Celery or Pentium duals. At those prices the bang for the buck is firmly in the AMD camp. And if you are looking at mobile the Turion and Neo chips make for nice laptops you can actually play games and watch HD video on without breaking the bank. Not a hard choice IMHO.

Re:Low cost?

[0100010001010011]

AMD has the top 10 of CPU Value Benchmarks. of available CPUs. I've been looking at upgrading my AM2 system and my final choice came down to the top 2 CPUs before I even found that list.

I think Intel has 4 out of the top 30 on that list. Intel does not have parts similar to AMD performance wise for the same price.

Re:Low cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you'll spend half a day extra to figure which special features the lower-cost Intel CPUs have or don't have (like virtualization support).
I started to consider my time too valueable to put up with the "feature diversification" crap that Intel plays, performance be damned (I don't really need high performance anyway).

1090T

[cosm]

I have a 1090T in my main home/dev machine. It is excellent. Gaming, video encoding, whatever. Combined with a boot SSD and 6GB of DDR3, couldn't be happier with the system. Beats the hell out of a standard consumer box, and for the $300 I paid for the 1090, it spanks Intel's offerings (at least did at the time, probably still does). I will say though that consumer boxes are catching up pretty quickly, and their price/performance seems to have plummeted enough to compete with independent system builders (still don't get the feel good feeling).

If your building a new box with an X6, make sure the BIOS supports 'em. When I bought mine along with a new motherboard, I didn't check, turned out it only supported quads out of the box. I was in such a rush to see the CPU in action, I went to best-buy, bought a machine that had an X4, put the X4 in my new board so I could flash the board to support X6, and then swapped the CPUs back out. Desperate geek times call for desperate geek measures.

Note: I didn't return the X4 Best Buy machine, but was seriously tempted to :)

$100 or $150 may be low cost...$265?

[kcbnac]

I know! My general rule is $100 - I don't buy the Phenoms or other "high-end" models. Last time went with the 2.8GHz quad (Athlon II X4 630)

I could picture buying the same as a Phenom if the L3 cache would make a big difference for what I ran, but it doesn't make enough of a difference when gaming to be worth the cost.

I also love how both articles are from PCMag and nothing linking to AMD directly.

Re:$100 or $150 may be low cost...$265?

[h4rm0ny]

Some people brag about what an awesome high-end system they have. Some of those people are just genuinely excited about all the shiney in front of them, and that's fine - the species has to progress, you know? But some people are wanting to wave what they've got in front of others as a mark of status. That's pretty obnoxious and you can tell when they do. On the opposite end, you get people who like to talk about how low-end their system is. And that's often a reaction against the obnoxious ones at the other extreme. It's quite nice to point out the rampant materialism of some of these people sometimes. But as you say, sometimes it becomes a sort of inverse snobbery.

Neither type of arrogance is good, really. But it is at least worthwhile being reminded that you can actually do useful productive work on some old 512MB system. We don't want the marketing people to rule the world unopposed. ;)

X6 Black is awesome, hopefully

[Stregano]

I actually bit the bullet when they X3 Black came out. I got it later on in the cycle, and it was a true tri-core and no unlocking of the 4th core. As for price, I paid $200 for it back then. A six core for $200 and I will bite again. I like to buy stuff right when it is on the brink of not being new anymore. That is the fun of pc parts though, it all depends on what you do with your PC. If you are into gaming and most of the games do not support 6 cores, then it is bragging rights only. I promise you in 6 months that $235 price tag will be much lower than $235. I personally do alot with video processing and 3-D animation, so I could use some more cores.

Re:X6 Black is awesome, hopefully

[Rockoon]

A six core for $200 and I will bite again.

AMD's first Phenom II 6-core (the 1055T) was $200 when released (they are now $180 on newegg.) Thats a 2.8 ghz with locked multiplier (still highly overclockable, but the bus has to follow)

MSI motherboards auto-over-clock feature (capped at 20%) has brought several (all, I've built 3 1055T systems) of these up to 3.36 ghz without changing the voltage for me, and when AMD Turbo is being used by the CPU it brings 3 cores up to 4ghz (and down-clocks 3 cores.)

All of them have been stable with Prime95.

The unfortunate part is that the stock cooling is kind of weak for the over-clock, requiring either an excellent case fan setup (push-pull straight across, what I opt for) or a better heatsink/fan.

Now this is the kind of stuff I buy.

[Ismellpoop]

http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/Computers(ME)/ComputerComponents(ME)/Processors(ME)/AMDSocketAM3cpu(ME)/Default.aspx

Problem is....

[Lumpy]

AMD's 6 Core stuff underperforms the same clock frequency i7 quad core by enough that real power users dont choose AMD right now.

What I want is both Intel and AMD to drop the BS of "special SMP processors that require all special and expensive stuff.

3.1ghz 6 core processor X2 on a workstation motherboard using normal ram instead of the craptastic Opterons and the overpriced ECC ram coupled with anal rape priced motherboards.

Re:Problem is....

[hedwards]

Depending upon your definition of power user, that's almost always been the case. I remember there was that brief period when AMD beat Intel to the 1ghz mark, but apart from that the high end stuff from Intel has typically been faster.

But it's also pretty much always been crazy expensive as well. Most people make their decisions either on marketing or the price/performance ratio. I suppose some people now consider energy efficiency as well.

Re:Problem is....

[Rockoon]

Dont forget the new breed of folks that build systems based on how quiet they will be. Thats sort of similar to the energy efficiency group, but not quite the same.

Its actually quite impressive what can be done with just some decent fanless heatsinks.

Then there are those sick bastards that submerge their computer in mineral oil...

Re:Anyone done the upgrade?

[hedwards]

Yes, it's 10D better.

Nice

[interval1066]

6 cores for $235??? AND at 3.3G? Sign me up.

Re:Funny math.

[Rockoon]

The 1090T was running $280 when first released ... so this one at $265 gives you more for your money.. I guess that sort of contrived logic explains it.

Re:Funny math.

[maxwell demon]

From TFS:

1090T = $235
1100T = $265

"Given that 1090T got the downward nudge in price to $235, however, the 1100T offers slightly better performance for less money."

Could someone explain the math to me? It seems to me that $265 is more money than $235, but this is probably just advanced math.

After you bought the 1100T you have slightly better performance, but also have less money.

amd has better chipset choices and lower MB prices

[Joe The Dragon]

amd has better chipset choices and lower MB prices

errr whut?

[isopropanol]

Hmmm... AMD 1090T $279.98 CDN, ... Intel i7 960 $651.98 CDN, .... The $372 difference can buy a whopping GPU, Stack of RAM, or SSD (or contribute to all 3), which will probably make a bigger difference anyways, depending on workload. (Prices from NCIX.com, I am not affiliated with them)