AMD trims low-end A-series, Athlon II prices

As the holiday shopping rush looms, AMD has quietly adjusted prices for some of its lower-end Athlon II and A-series desktop processors. The company’s new price lists show cuts ranging from just a few percentage points to more than 30%. Of course, since the affected chips were almost all below $100 already, the actual differences don’t amount to all that much.

Here’s a look at the tweaks for A-series offerings. As always, these prices are for bulk orders of chips (1000-unit quantities, to be exact). They’re not suggested retail prices.

Processor Old price New price Decrease
A8-3870K Black Edition $101 $91 11%
A8-3850 $91 $87 5%
A6-3670K Black Edition $80 $77 4%
A4-5300 $53 $47 13%
A4-3400 $48 $40 20%
A4-3300 $46 $36 28%

The changes in this area of AMD’s lineup make a little more room for new, Trinity-based APUs, which went on sale about a month ago. Prices for those haven’t budged. The flagship A10-5800K is still at $122 in AMD’s price list.

Anyway, here’s how the cuts have affected the Athlon II family:

Processor Old price New Price Decrease
Athlon II X4 651 $92 $76 17%
Athlon II X4 645 $102 $87 15%
Athlon II X4 641 $81 $65 20%
Athlon II X4 640 $98 $67 32%
Athlon II X4 631 $79 $65 18%
Athlon II X3 460 $87 $69 21%
Athlon II X3 455 $76 $65 14%
Athlon II X3 450 $76 $60 21%
Athlon II X2 265 $69 $48 30%
Athlon II X2 260 $64 $48 25%
Athlon II X2 255 $60 $47 22%
Athlon II X2 250 $58 $47 19%

AMD has removed the Athlon II X4 638 and Athlon II X3 445 from its price list. Many others remain, although not all of them are still available at retail. The Athlon II X4 631, for instance, is listed as discontinued at Newegg, and Amazon only offers it through a lone Amazon Marketplace seller based out of Colorado.

The cheapest quad-core Athlon II that remains widely available seems to be the X4 640, which Newegg sells for $79.99. I think that’s probably the cheapest quad-core x86 processor ever offered by either AMD or Intel.

Speaking of Intel, the competition from the blue team still comprises only dual-core Pentium processors. For that same $80 asking price, Newegg will sell you either a 2.9GHz Pentium G645 or a 2.4GHz Pentium G640T—both Sandy Bridge-based offerings with 3MB of L3 cache, no Hyper-Threading, and no Turbo Boost. To be fair, though, these Pentiums have power envelopes of just 65W and 35W, respectively, a fair bit lower than the Athlon II X4 640’s 95W.

Comments closed
    • rrr
    • 7 years ago

    Intel can learn from AMD – solid quad cores for dirt cheap! Unlike those i5’s…

    • colinstu12
    • 7 years ago

    That will help their margins! [NOT!]

    *SHAKES AMD WITH MY FISTS* CREATE FASTER CHIPS THAT ARE CHEAPER TO MAKE! Losing margin on already aging pricey not very fast stuff is the way to go out of business.

      • clone
      • 7 years ago

      easy to say, difficult to do.

      “their will come a time when all you want to do is choke someone while yelling at them”…. “it’s best to hold back because if you choke them they can’t hear you and when you yell all they hear is the noise.”

      what AMD could do which might help them and their margins is trim their lineup by getting rid of some of the lower end models.

    • rwburnham
    • 7 years ago

    Those APUs in an All-in-one system with a touchscreen could be make for some fun, inexpensive Windows 8 machines. I’d get one as a secondary work station.

    • Deanjo
    • 7 years ago

    Too bad AMD didn’t release an updated chipset for the AM3+ platform instead of relying on a 3 year old chipset. Too many features are missing compared to the competitors offerings to make the AM3+ a compelling alternative.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 7 years ago

      What is it missing besides PCIe 3.0, which doesn’t really mean much of anything today? (Every single 900-series motherboard on Newegg has USB 3.0, even if it’s not in the chipset.)

        • Ryhadar
        • 7 years ago

        Gotta agree with MadManOriginal. The 9x chipsets aren’t missing much in features except for PCI-E 3.0 and native USB 3.0 (which can be worked around with additional chips). Performance versus comparable Intel chipsets is where AMD loses out — though no surprise there.

        That said, when time came to build my new machine the selection of mATX AM3+ boards was terrible. No USB 3.0 (good like finding one with an internal header also), no MOSFET cooling, no UEFI. In fact, they are all and still are just 8 and 7 series chipsets with a compatible AM3+ socket (though USB and UEFI support have probably improved). There were no, and are still no 9x series mATX motherboards.

        Even if I wanted to buy Bulldozer there were much, much better mATX Intel boards.

          • Deanjo
          • 7 years ago

          Virtually all the recent AMD boards within the last year have had uEFI.

        • Deanjo
        • 7 years ago

        The lack of native USB 3 support does hurt them. Grab your favorite USB 3 add in chipset, throw on linux and watch the massive amount of under runs resulting in a drastic drop of performance. In windows these messages are hidden so you cannot see how badly they are implemented. Then there is also items like SSD Caching and of course AMD’s still bad performing sata controller.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 7 years ago

          Your fault for using Linux :p

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            Ya my fault for using an OS that doesn’t obfuscate messages like windows.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 7 years ago

            I’m glad we agree!

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            I really wouldn’t expect someone that uses a Duplo block OS UI to understand.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]and Amazon only offers it through a lone Amazon Marketplace seller based out of [b<]Colorado[/b<].[/quote<] Duuude, I know what my next CPU is going to be! (Beat you to it dpaus.)

      • dpaus
      • 7 years ago

      Curse you, Red Baron!

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    $91 for the top of the line Llano…. sweet deal if you wanna buy an APU for the wife and don’t plan to upgrade it for the next 3 years, which means you’ll probably have to buy a new mobo anyway if you wanna buy a better CPU.

    • Chrispy_
    • 7 years ago

    I’m not in the market for a budget chip, but I think getting a dual-core A4 with respectable IGP performance is pretty amazing value for $36.

    I hear it overclocks quite well too.

    • Thatguy
    • 7 years ago

    I only paid 99 for my 630 when i built a couple of years ago. Pretty impressive value especially if you have something that benefits from 4 physical cores.

      • willmore
      • 7 years ago

      Same here and I got a MB in the deal.

      • ronch
      • 7 years ago

      You’d also probably say “I only paid 180 for my FX-8150 when i built a couple of years ago. Pretty impressive value especially if you have something that benefits from 8 physical cores.”

      I guess AMD is using the same strategy.

        • Thatguy
        • 7 years ago

        Nope 2 years ago there was NOTHING else close to 99 dollars with 4 cores. Unlike when the 8150 came out and you could spend less or the same and get much better.

          • ronch
          • 7 years ago

          But you see, at that time Intel didn’t decide to squeeze AMD in the lower price brackets. Today, Intel is pricing at the $200 level, AMD has a frickin large die which does them no favors in reducing price, 32nm shortages inflated FX prices for a long time, and it’s harder to utilize 8 cores than it is with 4, which makes it harder to see the value in having 8 cores. AMD is still or still wants to play the value card but this time they have less wiggle room.

            • Thatguy
            • 7 years ago

            I wasn’t making any argument for FX I agree about all the FX prices. I was just remembering how much of a value my chip was when it launched. I’m actually surprised it’s moved so little in price in this time period.

            FX has value in a server workload.. if you’re into that kind of thing for your desktop. The Athlon II always had value because it was launched so low. I think at the time the closest thing from intel was the (q8200?) for almost 2x the price while offering a small performance delta.

            Wait how did FX even come up? It’s not even in the article! I need to sleep. Argh.

            • ronch
            • 7 years ago

            Ah no, I wasn’t arguing that the FX is as great a value as th Athlon II X4 when both came out respectively and I do agree that the Athlon II X4 was a pretty great value when it came out. Just detected a pattern in AMD’s strategy. Oh well, I was sleepy when I wrote the earlier replies here.

            Sleep tight!

            • Thatguy
            • 7 years ago

            This makes much more sense now that i haven’t been up for 24+ hours!

    • dpaus
    • 7 years ago

    First quad-core under $80? Cool….

      • StashTheVampede
      • 7 years ago

      Wish you could buy mobile parts, easily. Even with some price premium, quad mobile parts still consume less power. Building a near silent server with real expansion slots is always a pipe dream, it seems.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This