AMD tweaks CPU pricing, intros new Athlon

AMD is fiddling with its processor lineup, and there’s a new model in the mix. Say hello to the Athlon II X4 651, which has a 3GHz clock speed, 4MB of L2 cache, and a 100W thermal envelope. The new Athlon is designed to slip into the same FM1 socket as Llano APUs, but it doesn’t have an integrated GPU. The 651’s $92 asking price should leave enough room in your budget for a decent graphics card, though.

In addition to rolling out the new Athlon, AMD has tweaked the pricing of several of its existing processors. CPU-World has the details, which surprisingly include price increases of a couple of dollars for the A4-3300 and -3400 APUs. $4 has been knocked off the price of the A6-3500, while the FX-6100 has been reduced by $10 to $155.

The FX-6100 now costs just a little bit more than Intel’s fastest dual-core Sandy Bridge CPU, the Core i3-2130, which sells for $150 at Newegg. Even with the $10 discount, I’d have a hard time recommending the FX-6100 over the Sandy Bridge duallie. The price cut should make upgrades more attractive for folks who already have Bulldozer-compatible motherboards, though.

Comments closed
    • ryko
    • 8 years ago

    I would like to see a comparison between this fm1 x4 and the 4100 bd. both of them with decent mobos come out to about the same price of $220-30. What do you think? Who comes out on top?

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 8 years ago

    This seems to suggest they are refusing to accept reality and lower the price of the entire Bulldozer line to match up with their value proposition. I get that the chip has to be expensive to produce, but the value’s just not there. Very unusual to have to put up with more heat and oftentimes less performance in a modern replacement for a predecessor chip line. Especially when the newer chips cost considerably more for less performance far too often.

    I don’t think AMD is going to see any widespread success with Bulldozer until they knock the price down $10-50 ($10 at the low end, up to $50 for the high). Then again, perhaps they don’t want Bulldozer to really sell and are counting on making it up later with a respin (and possibly an update for the Windows scheduler) after all the older chips are cleared out.

      • bwcbiz
      • 8 years ago

      Not so much refusing to accept reality as being caught between the realities of what the market is willing to pay for their processor and how much it costs them to make the damn thing. Seems like they need to grab some technology from their GPU side to use on the CPU side to get back in the competition.

    • ronch
    • 8 years ago

    There are many folks around the web who still think the $245 (sorry, ~$280) asking price for the FX-8150 is still high, considering the Core i5-2500K is a more robust choice in terms of performance, power draw, maturity, availability, and is just $220 (+ it’s perfectly happy with cheaper DDR3-1333 DIMMs). You can’t argue that AM3+ boards are cheaper than LGA1155 boards either, because I’ve seen some dirt-cheap LGA1155 boards too. So, I really hope AMD is considering lowering the FX-8150’s price to make it more compelling. Then again, people really dig more cores and convince themselves that they have a great 8-core PC and it’s doing really great playing games on Ultra settings and Win8 will make it much better.

      • A_Pickle
      • 8 years ago

      [quote=”ronch”<]You can't argue that AM3+ boards are cheaper than LGA1155 boards either, because I've seen some dirt-cheap LGA1155 boards too.[/quote<] I disagree. I think the AMD boards are a little cheaper (though, not enough to justify the difference in CPU price) overall. You can't go and compare an ASrock P67 LGA1155 motherboard to a Gigabyte AMD970 AM3+ board -- the quality is not the same between the two.

        • ronch
        • 8 years ago

        Yep. The thing is, for both AMD and Intel, a wide range of mobos to fit every budget is available. That’s my point here. Although as you said, and which I do agree with, the difference in price between the cheapest AMD mobo and the cheapest Intel mobo probably isn’t enough to justify or offset the CPU price.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 8 years ago

    wow, either supply constraints are keeping it so that AMD doesn’t care about the absence of demands or AMD is that out of touch with consumers. Lets hope its the former not the later.

      • drbaltazar
      • 8 years ago

      so far i averaged the result vs i7 2600k and most are within margin of error of the fx-8150 result so might as well ignore those result.as we all know by now fma4 and the related other instruction play a huge part .and as we can see on the web very preliminary result indicate that fx would be in front where fma4 and the other can be used.so to resume so far this processor is about equal on average to a i7 2600k.it seems that this is selling a lot,true it is probably because of the fma4 part.cause nomather how you slice it corp still will need to support it.for me it is still too early to dismiss the fx 8150 .too many stuff isnt supported not working etc etc etc .it is like me using scrgb but everybody so far use srgb because it was made avail in the 90s.does it mean scrgb is bound to fail?hell no it just mean it is new and will be adopted soon.same for all the various stuff in fx serie proc.
      as soon as newegg get it be it in canada they are sold almost imediatly.as we saw not long ago amd gained market share .maybe within 12 month amd will hit 20% not too bad considering the money they invest in dev compared to intel!

        • travbrad
        • 8 years ago

        Have you ever heard of sentences or paragraphs?

          • willmore
          • 8 years ago

          Yeah, I was trying to find a part of what he said that I either agreed or disagreed with, but I couldn’t make sense of enough of it to form an opinion.

    • pikaporeon
    • 8 years ago

    I’d actually be curious how the six cores of the FX-6100 match against the i3’s two cores. Obviously the i3 has the single thread edge, but the unlocked multipliers and 2-4 extra cores should offer some sway

    • Arclight
    • 8 years ago

    Wait, i don’t get it. A 32 nm [s<]dual[/s<] quad core clocked at 3 Ghz with 100W TDP? Since the BD core seem to have lower TDP even for a hexacore (95W) i'm guessing this CPU is based off of the APUs architecture sans the IGP. But still if you remove the IGP shouldn't the TDP decrease with ~30W? I'm just pulling numbers but i think the logic is good. So what are they doing wrong? I'd like to see a review, but as it stands right now it's just seems like another bad chip from AMD.....i mean the specs are all bad and i'm guessing performance is low also.... [quote<]X4 has always meant quad core.[/quote<] True and edited.

      • flip-mode
      • 8 years ago

      X4 has always meant quad core.

      • sschaem
      • 8 years ago

      Llano seem to throttle the CPU when the GPU is active. You can see this from a few of the llano review that did iddle, cpu and cpu+gpu power consumption test.

      • willmore
      • 8 years ago

      This is just a guess, but what would be AMDs motivation to give a more precisely characterized TDP value for each chip model? Intel doesn’t do it.

      Saying it’s a 100W chip like the rest of the higher Llano chips just means “can be used in the same MBs with the same coolers, so don’t panic”.

      For laptops, where segregation of TDP matters more, you see a bit better ‘resolution’ in TDP values, but for desktops? As a previous poster said, unless you’re a big OEM and want a more precise figure (and guarantee) so that you can design the cheapest thermal solution, why would a more specific TDP value matter?

    • OneArmedScissor
    • 8 years ago

    The Athlon has been on sale for a while, but I haven’t seen anyone review it. I’m curious if it’s a little faster with the GPU disabled, largely just because I really wanted to see an apples to apples comparison of a faster 512k vs. slower 1MB L2 cache. It would also be interesting from a 45nm vs. 32nm power comparison for AMD, which hasn’t really been made completely clear.

      • chuckula
      • 8 years ago

      This is true. About the only reviews of the socket F1 platform have been of high-end Llanos and most of those focused on the graphics. Has AMD actually sent out any Athlons to review sites? If this is a mostly OEM release, they may not have bothered.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 8 years ago

    So is the 651 a 45nm part or a 32nm part? Seems to me you should be able to get a lot more speed than 3GHz in the 100W thermal envelope if it’s a 32nm part, but they’re probably trying to make sure that FM1 systems aren’t faster than Bulldozer systems right now. A shame, too – this could make an attractive platform if they weren’t trying to artificially safeguard BD…

    edit: CPU World says 32nm.

    [url<]http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Athlon%20II%20X4%20651%20-%20AD651XWNZ43GX%20(AD651XWNGXBOX).html[/url<] Really super-disappointing. Probably a harvested die with a bad GPU and good CPU cores rather than an all-new core but that's just my guess.

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 8 years ago

      It’s 32nm, same Llano chip, just with the GPU disabled altogether. The TDP wouldn’t really change much, since that’s largely dictated by the much higher CPU voltage, and they’ll be going in the same sort of computers as the others. It’s not like laptops where they have a reason to nitpick every few watts because of case design constraints.

      It’s no different than how desktop dual-core chips that have been cut all the way down to single-cores with reduced caches and clock speeds tend to keep the same 65w TDP.

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        AMD website also lists it, and another slower one:

        [url<]http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/athlon-ii-x2/Pages/AMD-athlon-ii-x2-processor-model-numbers-feature-comparison.aspx[/url<] What I don't get is the 631 - a 2.6GHz 32nm quad-core, with 4MB cache and 100W TDP. How the hell is the TDP higher than in the faster 45nm variants? Is GloFo 32nm SOI really [i<]that[/i<] broken!?

          • OneArmedScissor
          • 8 years ago

          Athlon II X4s are 45w at that speed. I think they just don’t care because it has to have a graphics card and isn’t going to be put in the world’s dinkiest case.

          TDP ≠ power use. Same chip, same intended type of computer, same cooling requirements, same heatsink/fan.

            • xeridea
            • 8 years ago

            Listed TDP doesn’t necessarily tell actual usage. Its listed the same as the other quad core Llano chips because that is what the chip was originally designed for. Also, there isn’t a good reason to list the TDP of every chip exactly as it normally uses. TDP is just an upper window, that doesn’t necessarily get reached. Another example of this is the 6 vs 8 core Bulldozer. Same TDP, but the 6 core will obviously use more power under load, even though the only currently available 6 core has slightly lower clockspeed (though more cache). Or the 8120 vs 8150… same TDP,but huge difference in clockspeed.

          • FuturePastNow
          • 8 years ago

          I don’t think it necessarily indicates problems with 32nm. They’re just disposing of dies that have defects on the graphics part. Actual power consumption below that 100W mark will probably vary wildly from chip to chip.

          • Hattig
          • 8 years ago

          GloFo 32nm SOI is producing 35W octo-core Bulldozers though – albeit at 1.6GHz with a significant turbo option.

          Llano is just a pig (relatively), that’s what happened. Or AMD is just labelling them all with 100W TDPs regardless of the actual TDP because it is easier and they’re selling all they can make regardless.

      • ET3D
      • 8 years ago

      I’m sure part of this is just being conservative. My Phenom II X6 runs by default at 1.35V for the P1 state (which is what’s used where all cores are active). I’ve been able to reduce this to 1.225V with full stability. Makes the CPU a lot cooler and I’m sure it also saves quite a bit of power. (I’m folding and I’m more interested in keeping the CPU cool than getting a little bit extra performance, so I keep it at default speed and undervolt. But I’m sure there’s overclock potential there if I wanted it.)

        • willmore
        • 8 years ago

        Undervolting can be huge power saver. Traditionally, the voltages for each clock speed/power state of a chip are not tuned to the specific chip, they are determined from testing of batches of chips (or even larger data sets). So, the batch gets limited by the ability of the worst part in the batch. Individual chips may perform much better.

        I undervolt my little C-50 in my netbook and the batter life went from 6 to 8 hours. That’s a very meaningful improvement. I only wish there were controls to undervolt on SNB laptop chips. I have a B940 that uses more power than its faster SNB brothers.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This