Phenom |||?

[Ivelin]

So, I just found that Phenom II is discontinued as of 2012.

Will we see the Phenom line again?(Phenom III)

If yes-when?

If no-why?

[IateMApoo]

No, cuz FX replaced Phenom as AMD high performance lineup back in day, Zen will also be FX i think.

[MblaZe7run]

Phenom will not be seen again, and the III likely won't be produced. The chipset is more dated than FX, the manufacturing process is larger, and the microarchitecture is outdated. The FX series were the successors to Phenom II as far as I can find.

[Ivelin]

Why don't AMD make like Intel:

Celeron-Duron

Pentium-Sempron

i3-Athlon

i5-Phenom

i7-FX

[Guest]

Why don't AMD make like Intel:

Celeron-Duron

Pentium-Sempron

i3-Athlon

i5-Phenom

i7-FX

It's because the company is falling as they haven't made anything great for the past 2 years in the CPU department

And those comparisons are an eye-sore

[Clyne]

Phenom will not be seen again, and the III likely won't be produced. The chipset is more dated than FX, the manufacturing process is larger, and the microarchitecture is outdated. The FX series were the successors to Phenom II as far as I can find.

More like the other way around, like Tualatin to Willamette......that failed.

Phenoms are still the same as FX, but with lower cores.

[typographie]

Why don't AMD make like Intel:

Celeron-Duron

Pentium-Sempron

i3-Athlon

i5-Phenom

i7-FX

 

The problem isn't naming. It's performance.

[Prysin]

The problem isn't naming. It's performance.

And sadly, Phenom X6 matches FX 8320 pretty closely in many cases. If you overclock the Phenom, you get more % increase, clock for clock then FX... which means you can catch up. All while having much better IPC and thus single core perf... its sad really

 

Honestly, i wish AMD either gave us a FX refresh using Excavator, or a shrunk down Phenom core before we got ZEN.... and instead delayed ZEN and got its IPC up even further....

[MblaZe7run]

More like the other way around, like Tualatin to Willamette......that failed.

Phenoms are still the same as FX, but with lower cores.

And a different microarchitechture (by one to two generations depending on the FX chip you are looking at), and manufacturing process (a difference of 13nm. It's no 22nm like Intel was using, but it's still a good jump). It's not the other way around, as far as I can see. But I'm also not understanding your reference. If they were the same, they'd all be 45nm and K10 chips.

[Clyne]

And a different microarchitechture (by one to two generations depending on the FX chip you are looking at), and manufacturing process (a difference of 13nm. It's no 22nm like Intel was using, but it's still a good jump). It's not the other way around, as far as I can see. But I'm also not understanding your reference. If they were the same, they'd all be 45nm and K10 chips.

AMD went around, they simply made a CPU that has the same single core performance as their previous gen CPU......like Intel with P3 and P4.

[Ivelin]

The problem isn't naming. It's performance.

Well, that's another topic, the problem is that they don't have classes like intel, if they make specific classes made to compete with the intel ones, they may sell more, now the problem is that they don't have competition for the high end, in mid to low there are options, but if you choose them you are stuck at that level.

Until Zen, AMD is not a good option, after Zen we could expect a rise in AMD's sales but not by much, maybe they have to switch to FCLGA, or make a completely new architecture, maybe copy some things from Intel.

[MblaZe7run]

AMD went around, they simply made a CPU that has the same single core performance as their previous gen CPU......like Intel with P3 and P4.

Alright, that makes more sense.. kinda. Despite comparing technologically ancient to technologically old. Basically, they are generalized as the same, but are statistically and technically different, no?

[Clyne]

Alright, that makes more sense.. kinda. Despite comparing technologically ancient to technologically old. Basically, they are generalized as the same, but are statistically and technically different, no?

Architecture is different, but the performance in single threaded is almost the same. Multi threaded is different.

[MblaZe7run]

Architecture is different, but the performance in single threaded is almost the same. Multi threaded is different.

....That's exactly what I've been saying.. Saying two things are the same based off of one aspect, in this case, single threaded performance (and it being ALMOST the same, not THE same), is preposterous. It's be like me saying that the Note 3 and Note 4 are the same because the largest difference is 10% performance and a 1440p screen on the Note 4. They ARE different, despite only two MAIN differences.

[Clyne]

....That's exactly what I've been saying.. Saying two things are the same based off of one aspect, in this case, single threaded performance (and it being ALMOST the same, not THE same), is preposterous. It's be like me saying that the Note 3 and Note 4 are the same because the largest difference is 10% performance and a 1440p screen on the Note 4. They ARE different, despite only two MAIN differences.

Yes i know, but the performance is still similar to single threaded, yet it's a different architecture. I'm saying that AMD went backwards and almost did nothing to improve single threaded and mainly improved on multi threaded. Just like the fastest clocked P3 was faster than the first gen P4.