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."

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.

$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: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.

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...

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)