Talk:List of AMD Phenom processors

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

Phenom II x2 550 C3 Black Edition?[edit]

The article (and even AMD's page) mentions this processor as Black Edition, although it is not. I think AMD mistyped it in their list. Just read some user's testimonials [1]. This should be changed (as AMD's page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.95.56.75 (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake on Regor-table[edit]

The table in the article states that "Regor" (45 nm, dual-core) supports DDR3-1333, but at least officially Regor only supports up to DDR3-1066!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.140.201.40 (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a mistake on Sargas related to above. Seems to support DDR3-1333. I was just running a Sempron 140 with DDR3 @ 1333. Wikipedia said only 1066 but empirically runs at 1333. Also unlocked to Athlon II X2 4400e (Regor) and ran at same speed. N68C-S UCC Motherboard. Does this mean that some do and some do not? http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/sempron/Pages/AMD-sempron-processor-product-comparison.aspx seems to say that the memory controller on sempron am3 supports 10.6GB/s aka PC3-10600 -> DDR3-1333. I was quite shocked to find it ran at this speed but it does. I think someone should look over the 1066 references here - with Sargas and Regor. It was C2 stepping. I'm really confused because empirically it does run at 1333! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.31.61 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virtualization[edit]

I noticed in the other CPUs they include virtualization support under supported features... This isn't listed here and i checked on the AMD website that phenom does support this. Should we add Virtualization to the list of supported features? 96.224.200.232 (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added AMD-V to lists for all the processors on this page except for the Sempron. That's what the article on AMD-V states and my Athlon 7850 does indeed support it. I couldn't find a reference on their website; if someone has one, please add. Otus (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious to why the 250u does not support virtualization. Every article that I have run into says otherwise. Further, if you use SiW or CPU-z it comes back as supported. Finally, it seems to be implemented in XP mode. The only source I could come up with was a badly researched article by xbitlabs.com when comparing the new Athlon to a Atom. Could you at least provide a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.151.82 (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do never trust the AMD product comparison page - there are just too many detail errors there. There's no reason to believe it doesn't support Virtualisation. --Denniss (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split[edit]

I put the Athlon 6-series processors on this page because they are not based on the Athlon 64. They are based on K10. Therefore, since this page is a list of K10 based processors, they should be on this page. Athlon 64's are based on K8, which is a different uArch. Also, in the future when you propose a split, it would be nice to put something on the talk page. -- Imperator3733 01:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you won't mind my messy presentation, probably even my awkward grammar ;)

Anyways, the dual-core processors will be sold under the brand as "Athlon X2", that's enough rationale to move the entries to that page/section, right? So they're based on a brand new microarchitecture, and so what does that have any impact on me and my future purchasing plan with AMD/Intel processor? The SSE128 FP Units or the L3 cache or SSE4a or the 32-bit prefetching? What are the importance of an microarchitecture to an average end-user (non-techno geeks and probably not the ones who edit in-depth technical details on processor pages, like Bulldozer and Nehalem) or general public (not all but still a majority) as customers/future users? Do they know what in the earth is that K10 *new* microarchitecture representing? Isn't Wikipedia intended for audiences as them? Here is not a repository for technical specification manuals for BIOS developers or system integrators as hosted on AMD developer website or Partner pages!

I put it this way, from AMD naming schemes since PR ratings (<sarcasm>For instance, Athlon 64 X2 7600+¹ for AMD 3.8 GHz dual-core processor, comparable to 7.6 GHz Intel Pentium D, that's double the performance</sarcasm>) we know that most of the people probably do not care about the specifications of the processor they are buying, they use relative comparisons (in forms of "figures") to identify the performance of EACH processor, it was used to be clock speeds (also known as the MegaHertz war, ended by Pentium D 3.8 GHz processors, but 'not for overclockers'); now it's the number of cores (FYI: core wars, as Nehalem 8-core plus 80-core Tera-scale project vs. Sandtiger - native 8 Bulldozer cores), the model numbers ("Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770" vs. "AMD Phenom 9780 processors¹"), and the power consumption figures - TDP/ACP (Xeon E7470¹ 105W TDP vs. Opteron 8370SE¹ 105W ACP, same number on paper, right? Guess which consumes less power? Place you bets!) that matters. Thus a product of "AMD Phenom 9790 processor¹" (4-core, 105W ACP) is far better than "AMD Phenom 7780 processor¹" (3-core, 105W ACP) and is "in theory" better than "Intel Core-whatever QX9770" (4-core, 136W TDP, Ouch!) offerings by comparing these aforementioned numbers, right? Then the stress of the *new* microarchitecture becomes diminished by the customers' tendency of these kind of comparisons and thus the whole microarchitecture thing becomes meaningless.

You may argue that the microarchitecture of a processor may affect actually performance which is reflected by benchmark results, but actually how many people who wanted to build a decent computer for mostly Internet surfing and simple Solitaire games will be expected to see "complicated" benchmark results? Users not only compare products using those superficial figures, but also with their general usage experience (e.g. Slow/fast? Lags/smooth? Hot/cool? Noisy/quiet? Ugly/eye-catching? Unsatisfied/contended? Unhappy/Happy? etc.), so what's a set of very objective benchmark result which is affetced by a slight change (or stepping or errata) in microarchitecture related to those people who use subjective feelings to compare things? No, actually, so what's the difference of 10.324s vs 10.697s for 1M SuperPi? And how about 130.5 fps vs 128.6 fps (1.9/128.6 = 0.0148±0.00005 second)? Will the system slow down to an "unacceptable level" due to this slight change?

As a sidenote, the AMD K10 article still exists in Wikipedia just because at the time of starting the stub, the microarchitecture has NO marketing names whatsoever and there have to be a place for rumors/speculations/prelimilary informations (like Sandy Bridge, thus two article AMD K8L and AMD K10 appeared - thanks to the Inq confusion, then at a later time AMD K8L merged with AMD K10), the AMD K10 article should be officially gone (read "redirected") at the time of the release of Phenom 9000/7000/whatever 6000 series processors (according to the usual pratice of AMD CPU architecture articles, I know Intel ones will remain whatsoever), and sections will be merged/moved to Phenom article and other articles (Phenom FX, probably Phenom X4/X3/X2, depending on final market branding if including core count), same as the other articles about the AMD microarchitecture (AMD K7 redirects Athlon, and AMD K8 redirects Athlon 64, except that AMD K9 is "cancelled" thus is remained as reference being cited), and finally there should be a List of AMD Phenom microprocessors, so renaming this article and split the table entries to List of AMD Athlon X2 microprocessors should be the easiest way of solving this branding problem and I don't see the point of insisting the stress on AMD K10 microarchitecture here, as:

this does not meet what the usual pratice of AMD microarchitecture articles and
the majority of the general public is less concerned by the cause, process (K10 CPU microarchitecture), instead

they expect more about the final outcome (Phenom processors).

That's my opinion. Feel free to flame me now, and have a nice day.

¹ Please note that the above model numbers (except officially announced ones) are for not intended for serious reading.

--202.40.157.145 07:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I do not intend to flame you. My point is although Kuma will be sold under the Athlon X2 brand, it is more similar to the Phenom processors. It is quite unfortunate that AMD is already using the Athlon X2 brand, because otherwise I would have no problem with spliting this into List of AMD Phenom microprocessors and List of AMD Athlon X2 microprocessors. Currently, List of AMD Athlon X2 microprocessors redirects to List of AMD Athlon 64 microprocessors. Maybe what we could do is change List of AMD Athlon X2 microprocessors to non-redirect and have a {{main}} tag on the section about the Brisbane (K8-based) Athlon X2 processors pointing to the List of AMD Athlon 64 microprocessors section on The Athlon X2s. The rest of the article could then have the Kuma processors, and the Phenom processors could be in List of AMD Phenom microprocessors. This page could then redirect to the Phenom article, and have a note at the top of that page saying that the Athlon 6-series processors are at List of AMD Athlon X2 microprocessors. What do you think? -- Imperator3733 15:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this maybe true for identifying the uArch of the processor, but the same goes for K8 and K10 series of Opteron processors, the Athlon X2 processors came from Athlon 64 X2, AMD decided to scrap the "64" label to downplay the significance of 64-bit computing, so the brand is inherented from K8 generation to K10 generation when AMD uses the brand for dual-core processors. I think Wikipedia put more focus on the product brandings instead of the technical side of the product, while I am not saying that the technical stuff would be avoided, but instead it occupies only for a small portion. And I think following the same pattern as previous articles is best for readers, I have no objection for the split of the list in this article and the list in Athlon 64 processors list to the List of AMD Athlon X2 processors, "if and only if" the Athlon X2 will bacome a "larger product line" (e.g. more than 10 models), otherwise appending to the last subsection is my choice. --202.40.157.145 02:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuma has now been moved to List of AMD Athlon X2 microprocessors. I'll do the others soon. -- Imperator3733 16:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has now been renamed to List of AMD Phenom microprocessors. -- Imperator3733 17:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion, List of AMD Athlon X2 microprocessors has no real use... it confuses and it won't work for X3 and X4 Athlon II's in the near future.
I would prefer to see articles sorted like this:
- we have a list for Athlon 64 that includes dual cores like old-labeled Brisbanes (5000+), that article should also include the new-labeled Brisbanes from the Athlon X2 list
- the Athlon X2 list should redirect to Phenom list where we have Phenom I and dual cores based on Phenom I and leave it at that, they are old products now
- make a new list for Phenom II's, which should contain Phenom II and Athon II cpu's, named something like List of AMD Phenom II microprocessors The technical stuff is not that important, as people will search for names and associations... more or less based on times. Brisbane is now and old Athlon 64 dual core and genuinely people will search for it in the Athlon 64 list. Kuma is the first dual core from the Phenom era, so it's only natural to look for references of it in the Phenom I list, thus new products starting from Phenonm II should get a new list, a proper list, sorting out the Athlon II X3 and X4 mess for the future. Also it's not really easy to edit both Athlon X2 and Phenom to add new models... take a look at Regor, it's in one, but not in the other.Em27 (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Projected Prices[edit]

First, I clearly had the column headers labeled as "Projected Price at Introduction", not just as "Price at Introduction". This implies that these are not necessarily the price at introduction, just that that is what is the current information says.

Second, its not like the sources are The Inquirer or The Register. Two credible sources, TG Daily and DailyTech both have the same prices listed. Those articles were published on November 6 and both are referenced. I can not be sure of the accuracy of the the information, but it is the current information and is from credible sources.

Please address any concerns that you have with those columns here first. Thank you. -- Imperator3733 01:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposing the addition of ANY which may help others to understand the subject better, even being crystal clear about the subject matter. I'm also not opposing the style being used in Intel lists, having a launch price and product codes or something else, to be applied here. But if it's project price range, then it's not worthless to be here, 1) possible updates to the price without leaking the news, making the list here outdated and 2) changes to a launch price is very common to a company for several reasons and 3) everyone can say anything about the final numbers which presented in a certain range, a number range is just as pointless predicting future product specfications (The example you gave, the Inquirer and the Register often guess from "current trends", and PC Watch (Japanese site) used to guess about every single thing, including the how the CPU components are configured). The only thing notable is the "final" or what I say "official" launch prices. Other stuff reported somewhere around the web about the prices, although sourced, are not up-to-date (note the reports dated November 6, 2007, not a small possibility that the prices have been changed internally) and untrusyworthy. As for the Intel lists, they have the launch price but either they are sourced very well (leaked official roadmaps, e.g. "Intel Desktop Processor Roadmap Performance") or have been put up after launch, we have concrete proof. AMD, on the other hand, have the "keep the mouth shut" attitude towards future products (even product launches), making all other sources, even though those reports primary sourced Taiwanese mobo maker, unnamed AMD employee(s) or retailers, once again untrustworthy. All we need here is concrete proof that the officials admitted those informations, but words from those sources? "nope, I'll pass". A reference to an online press coverage with screenshots about the price list made in a sales presentation or a confirmation from AMD spokesperson would be nice, otherwise everything unofficial are posed to be speculations by a certain extend.

My suggestion: Put up the Launch Price after launch prices are "officially" announced. --202.40.157.145 05:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: A quote in TGDaily report: "While we always have to "take these pre-launch prices with a grain of salt", it is already clear that AMD will be aggressive in its pricing..."

P.P.S.: I'll try to make my replies shorter, sorry for your inconvenience.

Okay, we'll wait until the prices are officially announced. -- Imperator3733 15:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9600 Black Edition release date[edit]

Was the 9600 Black Edition really launched on November 19, 2007? I thought that it came later than that. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think all previous Black chips were released after their non-Black counterparts. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official release seems to be December 19, 2007. [2] (german) --Denniss (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for future chips[edit]

I just moved all the sections with {{futurechip}} labels to List of future AMD Phenom microprocessors. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Edition Notes[edit]

Somehow the article needs to denote the difference that the "Black Edition" brings. Previous attempts to denote the difference have been erased. It is very relavent to the article and should be included somehow. Quovatis (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TLB bug markings[edit]

Can someone please add flags of which units have TLB bug and which do not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.24.71.50 (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, all desktop B2 revision chips are TLB-bug infected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.194.137 (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in marking bugs... the TBL bug is only one that people know of and Intel also has it in one of their revisions. What you need to know, as was said above, is the revision. If you get an older revision, skip it or ask for a product from the newer revision. Em27 (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phenom X3 8750 Socket 940?[edit]

Wondering whether there is a glitch either in the table or at the AMD cpu comparison pages, as the latter seem to suggest that there is an (exactly one!) X3 model 8750 made for Socket 940.[3] This would be OPN-PIB HD875ZWCGHBOX, or OPN-Tray HD875ZWCJ3BGH. Anybody know if this is accurate? Hupasiyas (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of errors (and incompetence) at the AMD products website, look at the 140W 9950BE as this OPN is incomplete. Both the 8750BE and 8750 are AM2+. Even if you mail them and point them to these errors they won't get fixed. --Denniss (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinued models[edit]

So far as I can tell the 8450e (HD8450ODJ3BGH) and 8250e (HD8250ODJ3BGH) have been discontinued. If this can be confirmed it would be useful to add this to the table. --212.58.42.4 (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City Names[edit]

I am confused by the Barcelona, Shanghai, Istanbul names. Someone knowledgeable cares to add this bit of info at the right place?

See List of AMD Opteron microprocessors. --Vossanova ^o< 20:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split Phenom/Phenom II lists?[edit]

What are your opinions on creating two separate lists for Phenom (AM2+) and Phenom II (AM3 with a couple exceptions), and their respective Athlon/Athlon II equivalents? I think it's fair to say AMD treats them as separate brands in the same manner that Intel treats Core/Core 2/Core i? as separate ones. --Vossanova ^o< 20:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better split off the phenom-based Athlon X2, Athlon II and Sempron and keep the Phenom in one list. We could use List of AMD K10 microprocessors for the others (currently a redirect to this list). --Denniss (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with either keeping all "Phenom" processors together but separate from "Athlons" for example, or splitting everything up (such as keeping Phenom and Phenom II separate). Any work done in an all-K10 list should include everything, however, as I don't support the equation of K10 = "Phenom." Sempron 140:Phenom::Celeron 440:Core, and List of Intel Core 2 microprocessors doesn't list any Celerons whatsoever. 98.234.155.190 (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Athlon II 215 and AMD Athlon X2 Dual-Core Processor 5000+[edit]

The Athlon II 215 is likely a cut down Deneb and not a Regor, but there aren't any good sources which I could find.

Also there is a Denab based Athlon X2 Dual-Core Processor 5000+ which I know has been successfully unlocked to a full quad-core Deneb. There should be some mention here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stardude82 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X2 215 is a Regor, at least with the C2 there's no question here. It's easily identifyable by the OPN ending in GQ, no other Core has this. I don't think the C3 version would be based on both, Regor with partially disabled L2 or partially disabled quadcores but you'll never know as they now all use OPN GM. --Denniss (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the OPN is a valid way to determine this. For instance, there are Propus (GI) built on Deneb and Propus dies, only distinguishable from the serial number! Stardude82 (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, the 215 has the same stepping code (NAEIC) as the rest of the Regors. So it looks like it really is a crippled Regor. Stardude82 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N36L not listed ?[edit]

How come N36L is not listed? It is being shipped to end users for months now. --Xerces8 (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mismatched info[edit]

Phenom II P650 (HMP650SGR23GM) has other TDP listed here (35W, not 25). Maybe this affects other models too, I didn't check. 178.94.122.36 (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article intro needs updating[edit]

Currently, the article intro describes only the first-generation Phenoms, which seems insufficient for a list of all K10 CPUs. It's also somewhat poorly written. 207.62.246.20 (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to address this to a degree in the edit I just saved, but it just points more to the fact that this article should either be renamed and repurposed as an actual list of all the K10 CPUs (including Opterons), or that each of the CPU series (Phenom, Athlon X2, Phenom II, Opteron, Sempron, Turion, etc.) should be broken out into their own lists based on branding and not combined. For example, currently, the list of Athlon 64 X2s in List of AMD Athlon 64 microprocessors is separate from the Athlon X2-branded CPUs in List of AMD Athlon X2 microprocessors, which makes sense to me. I don't know why the Kumas are listed here and also in List of AMD Athlon X2 microprocessors, etc. 98.234.155.190 (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1075T BE[edit]

The 1075T BE should be removed. It is not an actual product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.143.25 (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of AMD Phenom microprocessors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Memory support for Athlon II X2 "Regor"[edit]

Only til DDR3-1066 MHz? Why is that? "Rena" and all the other Athlon II CPUs in the Athlon II family supporting up til PC3-10600 (DDR3-1333 MHz). Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_II states otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.135.137.230 (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of AMD Phenom microprocessors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101107123804/http://www.hardware-specs.net/actualites/actualites-cpu/des-phenom-ii-x4-970-black-edition-deblocables-en-phenom-ii-x6.html to http://www.hardware-specs.net/actualites/actualites-cpu/des-phenom-ii-x4-970-black-edition-deblocables-en-phenom-ii-x6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benchmark figures[edit]

Is there a reason why benchmark figures are not listed in any of the tables? I think the information, even if only indicative of approximate performance, would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laczik (talk • contribs) 11:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile tables[edit]

The mobile tables seem to lack coordination with those in other lists. 217.162.74.13 (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]