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

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Belard - Thursday, February 9, 2012 - link

    You are not old.... you are a semi-young.

    I remember when getting an LED calculator was a big deal... like wow. When schools were just getting a single APPLE ][ computer... and a bit later wishing I could get my hands on an 8K ram expander for my 3.5k 1mhz computer hooked to my 19" TV. And thinking the graphics on the Atari 400/800 were state of the art.

    When the concept of games that look like today don't even come into thinking.

    That is kind of old.

    But hey, dancing and dating 22~25 year old girls make me feel better :)
  • arnold58 - Friday, February 10, 2012 - link

    I hate to say it .. but they have really done bad with these chip releases. As belard points out its, WTF? Try getting one of their 3 core chips .. pretty much unavailable, never tested anywhere. I thought it might be a good competitor to an I3 for encoding, being cheap, but also having an extra core (A6xx LLano). I am staying away as I dont know what's what and they just seem to run too hot and Hungry. Ivy bridge might be the knock out blow on the Desktop *KAPOW!*
  • KaneBunce - Monday, February 13, 2012 - link

    Using Google I found this review of the tri-core AMD A6-3500 in a few seconds:

    It is the dual core models that I can find no review of. Which is a shame as I am buying a new PC and one with the AMD A4-3400 is the best I can afford (the default for the PC is the AMD A4-3300, but the company offers an upgrade to a 3400 for NZ$14, which is well worth it given the 8% faster CPU speeds and 35% faster GPU speed).

    But it is not AMD's fault that no reviews exist for the dual core models.
  • CeriseCogburn - Friday, May 25, 2012 - link

    What do you mean it's not AMD's fault ? They must provide the chips to the reviewers, and push the reviews into place, as always. As always. That's how it's done.

    Any "extra" and highly unusual direct retail purchases and reviews by off the block for the moment review sites are merely an occasional and rare extra.

    It is absolutely AMD's fault, period. It is obviously also "their game plan". It is also likely their demand, to continue to fall under their good graces and get pre-release hardware to test.

    It is also obviously being done exactly this way on purpose period because of the immensely embarrassing situation that it is.

    This has long been the case with AMD, the "open standards" pushing PR fatcake of lies company, whose CPU's for a very long time now are sometimes simply "not listed" anywhere, and remain a mystery even when reading from the top of the cpu die package and frantically checking the entire web for any confirmation.

    A good example for instance, that triple core 730 phenom 2 from HP vaults. Slated only for HP oem, they apparently wound up with far too many. It came in priced at the egg and few other spots in a favorable bang for the buck area, at like $79 or so as I recall, for a medium short period of time. I'm certain anand did a blip on it here somewhere eventually.

    Beyond that firing it up these mystery chips in a machine often leaves one nearly just as clueless, as no tools available from AMD's very own softwares to cpu-z to Everest/Aida64 to anything reveals the desired answers, but instead reveals a sort of cryptic half answer. Add to that the "unlocking" boards, myriad in number, and bios revisions with the possibility unlocks remain enabled, and you have a real problem.

    Now, after that truth filled diatribe in order to remove the immense amd bias from your statement and set the record straight for you and others, I will add, the above situation I have outlined does exude a sort of exciting "lottery" of mystery - and if someone claims that they find that overall situation very attractive, I wouldn't be the one arguing with them or calling them names or claiming they cannot possibly be serious.
    I can definitely see where certain types of enthusiasts would feel much excitement surrounding acquisition or discovery of the mystery chips.

    Just stop the excusing amd and claiming they cannot be blamed for mystery core 101 review absences, it is not acceptable.
  • hingfingg - Thursday, February 16, 2012 - link

    ** {{w w w }} {{proxy4biz }} {{ com}} *****

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now