AMD has quietly released two Athlon II X4 CPUs, the 638 and 641. These are based on Llano (i.e. Stars+/K10.5 architecture) but lack an integrated GPU. The socket is still FM1, just like in normal Llano CPUs. Here's a quick rundown of the chips.

Specifications of AMD Athlon II X4 638 and 641
Model 638 641
Core/Thread Count 4/4 4/4
Base Frequency 2.7GHz 2.8GHz
L2 Cache 4MB 4MB
TDP 65W 100W
Price $81 $81

There is nothing extraordinaty in these chips. We are looking at relatively low-end SKUs in terms of price and performance. It's good to keep in mind that a discrete GPU is needed because these SKUs lack integrated graphics, so that will potentially raise the total system price.

The usage of the Athlon II brand with Llano isn't actually a new thing as the first such SKU, Athlon II X4 631, launched back in August. This is quite similar to what Intel is doing; AMD is saving the A4, A6, A8, and FX brands (their rough equivalent of Intel's Core i3/i5/i7) for midrange and high-end chips, and reusing their older Sempron and Athlon brand names (e.g. Intel's Celeron and Pentium) with lower-end SKUs.

Source: CPU-World

POST A COMMENT

15 Comments

View All Comments

  • tipoo - Wednesday, February 08, 2012 - link

    Are both really the same price? And how does the TDP go up 35W just from a .1GHz bump? Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, February 08, 2012 - link

    I know, it makes no sense at all. Maybe the 638 is a higher binned chip with lower power consumption, though it should cost more then.

    However, remember that TDP is the maximum power consumption (well, not maximum but what you would experience under commercial load) so while there is 35W difference, it may not be that big in the real world.
    Reply
  • RU482 - Wednesday, February 08, 2012 - link

    They probably weren't designed this way, but rather are derived from higher end parts that failed certain parts of the qual test. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, February 08, 2012 - link

    Higher power, slightly higher clock speed, same price -- makes sense to me. Most likely these parts are something specific OEMs are interested in selling (e.g. they have some old HD 5470 GPUs to pair them with or something). I personally wouldn't want either one, as Llano without the IGP is rather silly, but to each his own. Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, February 08, 2012 - link

    It's just odd that for 3.7% increase in frequency, the TDP goes up by 53.8%. Of course, TDP is just a directional number like I said, not really an accurate indication of the power consumption. Reply
  • tpurves - Wednesday, February 08, 2012 - link

    These just look like AMD offloading partly working GPU-defective A-series parts onto the OEM market. Chips that have a CPU but not an APU that works get the lower TDP part. Chips that fail at a working GPU AND fail at meeting power/speedbin targets get dumped as the high TDP part. Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, February 09, 2012 - link

    The TDP isn't going to be indicative of the actual usage; I'm unsure as to why AMD didn't revise that figure, unless the GPU part still uses power much like the 5830 using more power than the 5850 even with some parts disabled. Reply
  • MrSpadge - Wednesday, February 08, 2012 - link

    The 641 probably uses 70 - 75 W, if the 638 uses 65 W. More important here is that AMD doesn't guarantee it's not going to draw more - they could sell any crap using this sticker. Fair deal. Reply
  • Belard - Wednesday, February 08, 2012 - link

    Huh?

    The AMD A8-3850 Llano 2.9GHz costs about $130, its 100Mhz more than the AII X4-641 which is $81~85. The cost of the built-in GPU is added to the costs.... duh.

    The price difference is $50. The HD 6570 128bit video card is $45~65 will smoke the built-in GPU.

    So the price difference is nominal. Especially if the person wants to add a GPU card anyway. In which case, they should really pay the $20 extra costs for an FX-4100 3.6Ghz 95w CPU.

    AMD has issues it cross-over products. the 8MB of L3 cache is missing on Llano. The Unlocked A-38xx is just as dumb. Its a $140 CPU that doesn't have the OC headroom of an FX Chip...
    Reply
  • Ethaniel - Thursday, February 09, 2012 - link

    If I remember correctly, the A8-3800 (65w) works at 2.7 Ghz in Turbo mode, while the A8-3850 (100w) works at 2.9 Ghz without Turbo. So, the 638 looks like a A8-3800 in "sustained Turbo" (I guess the lack of functional video allows that), and the 641 is a A8-3850 dropped to 2.8 Ghz. Makes me remember those i486SX with a broken FPU. Damn, I'm old. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now