AMD Quietly Starts to Sell Dual-Core Phenom Microprocessors

Advanced Micro Devices has quietly started to sell dual-core microprocessors featuring the latest K10 micro-architecture in Europe, at least, based on the results from a search engine. If the information is correct and AMD is shipping its Phenom X2 parts for revenue, then the chipmaker may attract additional attention to its microprocessor line among price-conscious buyers looking for modern tech.

According to a screenshot taken on Geizhalz.at price search engine in Europe and published by Hardware-Infos web-site, AMD has started shipping AMD Phenom X2 GE-6400 (1.90GHz, 1MB of L2 cache [512KB per core], 2MB L3 cache), GE-6500 (2.10GHz, 1MB of L2 cache [512KB per core], 2MB L3 cache) and GE-6600 (2.30GHz, 1MB of L2 cache [512KB per core], 2MB L3 cache) microprocessors to channel customers.

View: The full story @ Xbit-Labs

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Mozilla steps up Firefox 3 push

Next Story

Microsoft and Immersion settle legal spat

14 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Honestly, it shocks me how ignorant some people are.

It's amazing to read how people bash chipmakers like AMD (or whoever, for that matter) with such intense emotion as if it's something personal to them. I have two points to make here:

1. Not everybody needs a quad core processor. In fact, I regularly use a single-core processor at home and it's more than good enough to check my email, chat on MSN, surf the net, prepare word documents/powerpoint presentations, watch DVDs, and even to play the occasional game like Civilization 4. When I spent $300 to upgrade my machine a few months ago, I didn't buy a new processor - as a matter of fact, I bought a nice quality 20" LCD monitor. Screen space is more important to me when I am doing my work than processor speed. If the AMD processor will do everything I need for a cheaper price than Intel, then AMD is more than good enough! Why do people even care whether their processor is an Intel or an AMD? Just buy whichever one suits your needs for the best price!

2. I can understand the frustration of some people who are gamers or do video editing and require large processing power. It is very understandable that perhaps you are unimpressed with AMD's performance compared to Intel. But what surprises me (like I mentioned at the start) is how people will BASH a company for not being able to do as well as the other, and going as far as wishing that the other one will go out of business. Why would anybody want one company to crush another, only to be left with a monopoly? Are you people crazy? Do you know what that would mean in terms of future prices?

And I'm just gonna stick a personal opinion in here: Just comparing the sheer size of Intel and how much resources (money, employees) they have, it's no surprise that they can do better R&D and come up with better-performing products than a small company like AMD. Intel is a much more well-established company than AMD is.

(RAID 0 said @ #8.1)
Man, you really care. You must to write a rant like that. :laugh:

lol.. well being an engineer, it's irritating to see people talk about technology who think they know what they're talking about when they actually don't - that was my first ever comment on a Neowin news article. All these years I've been holding it in :P

I recent upgraded from a P4 to a Athlon X2 4400. Why didn't I get a dual core? Because I don't play games and had absolutely no need for more power. Plus it was in my price range.

I was ragged on in a thread for not going to something more "modern". You guys need to understand that not everybody plays games.

I was gaming on my E6300 for a a little over a year and bought a quad core just to number crunch. All my games ran fine with the dual core, I just wanted to crunch twice as much. That's why the 8 core (8 physical, 16 logical) Nehalem is so important to me. Not everyone needs power like that, I however, do. With all four cores running 100% 24/7 no one can say I'm not using this quad to it's full potential.

BTW, you did get a dual core. That's what "X2" means. 2 cores.

AMD processors are cheaper for the most part and still perform well with what a most average to heavy PC usage person needs.

Performance/watt is probably the only place where AMD try to shine. But how many users are interested by the watt usage of their CPU?

As for power consumption, have you heard of the global warming rumor, energy crisis's going on, slumping economy etc. It's a way to save money on power consumption. Also the power supply needed for alot of consumers rather then commercial or enterprise reasons. Maybe best think before jumping the gun. Alot of people care about the power consumption of their CPU.

As for benchmark that beats core 2's is still the memory benchmarks since the use of FSB and lack of cpu memory controller on current architecture

As for atom, well you should know by now how a dominant market position intel has been put in, it can lead to pressure on other markets and unfair competition.

- you dont see it in netbooks because its a 3 year old CPU, and 'cool' people like you dont buy that. instead they buy the latest product without knowing what they buy.
- Performance/Watt? All the corporate users for example.
You FAIL .

LOL even the Athlon 64 2000+ beats the crap out of the Atom in power consumption, CPU processing power and functionalities. And I take it you havent read of the 45nm Daneb at 4GHz and 4.4GHz (unlocked multipliers) that overclock to 5GHz. Sorry to say that but you have no clue what performance/price ratio means.
You can wake up now.

Yeah, that's probably why every Netbook use the AMD CPU, it's so much better. If the Atom was that crap, why is everybody using it? Probably because of Intel stronghold on the market. Since we all know that Via Nano is better than Atom.

Show me a benchmark where Phenom performed better than Intel Core CPU (same price range). I know very well what performance/price ratio means. Daneb is not even out yet... So please stay with what is on the market now.

Performance/watt is probably the only place where AMD try to shine. But how many users are interested by the watt usage of their CPU?

(TruckWEB said @ #4.1)
Performance/watt is probably the only place where AMD try to shine. But how many users are interested by the watt usage of their CPU?

I'm getting a 4850E for my HTPC, also getting a high efficency power supply and one of those new 'green series' HDD's. This system will be running 24/7/365, I need a low wattage system that can do HDTV and streaming audio. Throwing my other system (Q6600) at that task would be overkill and wasteful. In this case, AMD is saving me money.

Now, on the flip side of that, I wouldn't use the 4850E for what I use my Q6600 for, namely software development and testing. The 4 cores in the 6600 do a great job running multiple VM's so I can run a server and a few clients at the same time without having to use my old 3 computer testbed, in this case, Intel is saving me money.


People need to get systems designed for the tasks at hand. Not everyone needs a Core 2.

Wake me up when AMD offer a CPU (Dual or Quad) that is faster/better than what Intel offers.

AMD may try to offer "cheap" CPU but the performance is also "cheap". It still amaze me to see how AMD fell that low since Intel came out with "Core". And with the next CPU from Intel, I wonder if AMD will be able to climb back to the top. The time of the fame Athlon 64 is over.

if you mean all the desks with corporate machines, millions of them, and the PCs of occasional gamers, in the millions again, and.. well pretty much anyone except hard core gamers, sure no one uses dual cores anymore x)

When I was working for the state of California, we would never considered AMD. Corps like to go with the most popular, mainstream parts, IE. Intel. I have never seen a huge corp using AMD for desktops or servers.