AMD today have launched five new processors, to replace current products, ranging from the budget Athlon II X2 260 to the Athlon II X4 610.

New Processor

Speed / Mhz

Cores

TDP

Price

Processor Replaced

Athlon II X4 640

3000

4

95W

$122

Athlon II X4 635 

Athlon II X4 610e

2400

4

45W

$143

Athlon II X4 605e

Athlon II X3 445

3100

3

95W

$87

Athlon II X3 440 

Athlon II X3 415e*

2500

3

45W

$102

Athlon II X3 405e

Athlon II X2 260

3200

2

65W

$76

Athlon II X2 255 

*The X3 415e is a 200Mhz improvement over the 405e.

All these new processors are AM3/AM2+ compatible, and the Athlon II X4 635 becomes AMD's best sub-$100 quad core processor, replacing the X4 630.  Compare that with Intel's cheapest i5 quad-core processor, the i5-750, which currently retails at $199.

With this release, AMD are aiming at budget and mainstream markets, including low power conscious users - AMD list maximum temperatures for all models at below 75ºC.  In terms of choice and compute-per-dollar, AMD is attacking the market hard. However, sometimes too much choice can be a bad thing - technically AMD are not discontinuing the oldest processors yet.  

We have a few of these processors in to test, so stay tuned for results.

POST A COMMENT

25 Comments

View All Comments

  • ViRGE - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link

    Will these E-series processors be any more available than the last ones? I can't say I've ever seen one for sale at Newegg or the like. Reply
  • Eeqmcsq - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link

    I've never seen the 45w CPUs on newegg either. I do see them when I go to Google's shopping search, though. Reply
  • ViRGE - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link

    The couple of times I've looked on Google's shopping search, it has always resulted in shady sites that list them as backordered. Reply
  • teldar - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link

    I have seen them for sale at ewiz.com I believe. And perhaps zipzoomfly.com as well. And actually IN stock.

    But they were expensive. And I mean 60% premium over similarly performing processors.
    That said, they're just about the only thing I would currently select to build an HTPC, regardless of the cost.
    Reply
  • KaarlisK - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link

    The "e" series processors really are aimed at the low-power market.

    However, maximum temperatures have nothing to do with this. Maximum temperatures are the temperatures which the processor may not exceed - in other words, they define cooling requirements, and do not necessarily correlate with power consumption.

    Also, it should be explained in the article that low-power CPUs benefit from higher, not lower maximum temperatures - as this allows one to relax cooling requirements. The article, by using the phrase "are listed at or below", instead of using "at listed at or above", misleads readers into thinking that low power CPU's have lower temperatures listed, while usually it is the opposite.

    Core 2 Mobile CPU's are listed at 100C max temperatures, while the most powerful CPUs, as they need guaranteed cooling, are usually listed with LOWER max temperatures - the Phenom II 965, for example, has 61 degrees listed.
    Reply
  • IanCutress - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link

    Hi Kaarlisk,

    AMD state that for these processors, both energy efficient and normal versions, that the maximum temperature is from 71-75ºC. There was no link made to power consumption in this AnandTech news post; this is just what AMD have stated.

    Whether or not the energy efficient processors like high temperatures is beyond the scope of this article - the phrase "are listed at or below" is used given that AMD quote these temperatures as the maximum; stating "at listed at or above" would be irresponsible given AMDs specifications, as well as the lack of external testing done on these processors on review sites such as AnandTech.

    The specifications are governed by AMD, obviously we have no say in them apart from quoting what they are and potentially giving analysis. Usually maximum temperature specifications are based by the stock cooler; a Mobile Core2 stock cooler is pitiful compared to a standard AMD stock cooler for high end processors, hence different maximum temperature specifications.

    Ultimately, certain system builders prefer lower case temperatures, and will provide adequate cooling, airflow, or undervolt/underclock until they feel happy. If they also require a low power processor, then AMD have provided new ones today, and these are the specifications.

    All the best,
    Ian
    Reply
  • KaarlisK - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link

    Hi Ian,

    "With this release, AMD are aiming at budget and mainstream markets, including low power conscious users - AMD list maximum temperatures for all models at below 75ºC."
    That's a single sentence. It implies a link. That's my whole problem. And yes, my suggested solution was wrong.

    Also, you CHOSE to mention the maximum temperature specification. Other sides usually don't. Hence, for one reason or other, you find it interesting. You should then explain to your readers why you find it interesting, otherwise it's just filler - those very few who do need it will find the max temp themselves.

    Maximum temperature, IMHO, is not a promise that "this is the maximum the CPU will reach under specific cooling conditions", it is a requirement that "you may never permit the CPU to exceed this temperature".
    And I have the feeling that it is not usually the stock cooler that determines max temps. For low power processors, yes, it is - AMD&Intel validate their CPUs to work at high temperatures, therefore permitting laptop makers to use less powerful coolers. For high power processors, however, maximum temperatures are required to reach the specified TDP targets - a Phenom II 965 will happily work at the same 72-74 degrees, it will just consume power above TDP.

    Thanks for the explanations.

    Best,
    Karlis
    Reply
  • Kaihekoa - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link

    A better and more realistic way of phrasing the headline is: AMD cuts into already wafer-thin profit margins even more with sub $100 market price cuts. Reply
  • Roland00 - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link

    Not really price cuts.

    1) It costs AMD about the same cost to build lots of cpus on a silicon wafer as it did 6 months ago.
    2) During that time they have done slight tweaks to the manufacturing process resulting in greater yields and greater speeds at a certain voltage.
    3) AMD phases out old models and replaces them with marginally better cpus at the same price point.

    Consumers win, though a 3 to 5% speed increase isn't much of a win.

    AMD won't be able to increase Average Selling Price of their cpus until they get a new architecture that increases the speed of their cpus of an amount large than a marginal increase. There is always a danger though that the opposite may happen with Intel having a new architecture.
    Reply
  • cynic783 - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link

    Athlon II X4 635 becomes AMD's best sub-$100 quad core processor, replacing the X4 630. Compare that with Intel's cheapest i5 quad-core processor, the i5-750, which currently retails at $199.
    ---
    OK, I compared them. Newegg has the i5-750 for $199.99 with free shipping and the X4 630 for $99 with free shipping.

    However, the more apples-to-apples comparison for the X4 630 is the C2Q 8200 which trades benchmarks with X4 630, despite clock speed disadvantage (2.33 vs 2.8) (Source: Anand's review of X4 630. http://www.anandtech.com/show/2836/3) for $119.99 at Microcenter.

    The real story to me is that AMD's current top-of-the-line still features less IPC (instructions per clock) than Core 2 architecture. AMD is really behind.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now