Athlon Socket AM2 Review

NerdMaster writes "Hardware Secrets has just posted an Athlon 64 X2 5000+ review, one of the first AMD CPUs to support the new socket AM2. It runs at 2.4 GHz, has two 512 KB L2 memory caches (one for each core) and supports DDR2 memories." However, many are still predicting an end to AMD's dominance in the market thanks to Intel's Conroe.

Comments

Uneven Benchmark

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the last page of the review, they gave the Socket 939 platform 2GB of ram, and the AM2 platform 1GB.

2.6 Ghz, not 2.4Ghz

[adam1101]

One of the first sentences of TFA states that the 5000+ is clocked at 2.6Ghz.

Re:[offtopic] 'Print' version is split into 10 pag

[Shadows]

Summary: Blah blah, blah, blah blah blah... and finally something interesting:

[from page 10]

We didn't see any performance improvement by the use of DDR2 memories instead of DDR. In fact, Athlon 64 FX-60 was faster in several situations, showing that at least for the software we used having a bigger L2 memory cache is better than having DDR2 memory instead of regular DDR.

But, on the other hand, we have to consider the future and what is behind AMD's strategy in going to AM2 socket and DDR2 support. In our opinion, what is important isn't the release of Athlon 64 5000+, but the possibility of increasing the memory bus clock rate in the near future. For socket 939 platform this was not possible since the top DDR official standard was DDR400/PC3200. With AM2 AMD can finally go beyond that, as DDR2 official standards include at least three speed grades above that: DDR2-533, DDR2-667 and DDR2-800. That is promising.

Re:Upgrade?

[Ihlosi]

The 939 NForce 4 Ultra/SLI line is showing age

Does that mean it has finally reached some degree of maturity ?

And sorry to disappoint you - since the chipset-cpu interface remains the same, the "old" chipsets can be used for AM2 processors, as long as the mainboard has an AM2- and DDR2-sockets.

HotHardware's Coverage Of AM2, Much More Detail

[Anonymous Coward]

The folks over at HotHardware.com also have a very detailed performance evaluation of AM2 Athlon 64, right here

HardOCP review, link to print version

[Shivetya]

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articleprint.html?ar t=MTA2NQ==

Much better than the posted story which is nothing more than an advertisement for Hardware secrets.

When will /. editors review entries to prevent this abuse? If anything, when new hardware is released we all know multiple sites will cover the release. That means, put links to the more popular review sites into the story instead of helping one person get his ad hits.

Much More benchmarks are available on the web

[Anonymous Coward]

Small selection:
- HardOCP
- X-Bit Labs
- HotHardware

up to date list here

Re:Welcome, Intel

[eebra82]

There are quite a few of them out there. Here's one for CPU:

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/WCPG/article.p hp/3607116

And here's one for RAM:

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/WMPG/article.p hp/3607991

Re:Ignore these benchmarks

[Barny]

The testing of one rig with 2 sticks of 1G ddr ram (2x64bit bus, accessed in dual channel mode so 128bit) is VERY much inacurate against a rig running one stick of 1G (1x 64bit bus, can only be accessed in single channel, 64bit, mode), and I believe that is a serius error.

However, AMD is going to lag a little behind in the short term, although the memory latancy is still allmost half of what intels current parts are capable of (check out theinquirer.org for some interesting insights into thise issue).

Re:Ignore these benchmarks

[Enderandrew]

The thing that really got me was the conclusion page. For many people, that is all they read. In said conclusion they said the DDR2 support wasn't necessary that great because the FX-60 beat out the 5000+ in several test.

In all the CPU specific test, the 5000+ came out on top. In tests that benchmarked total system power, the FX-60 rig with 2 gigs running in dual channel mode came out on top.

If these guys don't know how to put together proper testing rigs, let alone extrapolate results, then AMD shouldn't be wasting test equipment on them. They can send processors to me, and I'll put up some serious benchmarks, including detailed overclocking, burn-in testing, temperature readings, etc.

Re:Ignore these benchmarks

[MadRocketScientist]

From TFA, Page 3: Memory: Two Corsair CM2X512-8500 modules with 512 MB each, installed on DDR2 Dual Channel configuration (using 4-4-4-12 timings) for socket AM2 CPUs.

Better Reviews

[Google85]

There is better and more balanced reviews here and here

Re:[offtopic] 'Print' version is split into 10 pag

[jiushao]

Of course I forgot to mention that Conroe is 32bit

Well, that's true, except it's not.

Re:Upgrade?

[Enderandrew]

The chipset itself is showing age, not necessarily your PC.

Early SLI offerings leave much to be desired in efficency and design. Furthermore, the NForce 4 series was innovative in features, but since so many of these features were new, they were buggy or weren't implemented horribly well.

We're due for a more stable NForce 5 series.

Re:Socket consideration

[scharkalvin]

The existing socket 939 dual core cpu designs will probably
be available for a while yet. So you will be able to
upgrade. Consider that you can't use DDR2 memory in DDR sockets,
so you would STILL need a new MB even if AMD kept the same
socket for the new cpu.

Re:Buying PCs isn't as exciting as it used to be

[ArcherB]

My 1.66GHz Athlon XP 2000+ does the job well and is still very often limited by memory (1GB) and harddisk bottlenecks. That's a 3 year old system, and CPU+Board cost only $140 back then. Am I really expected to pay that price several times over to replace a reliably working system and get less than a 2x performance increase?

Where do you get 2x performance? Are you just looking at the clock speed? I ask because my A643000+ is a good clip faster than my AXP3200, both at the same clock speed.

Re:wishful thinking

[MBGMorden]

"Whitebox" not on par quality-wise versus OEM? I know you must be joking (or trolling). OEMs are popular for one main reason at large corporations: when something breaks you get the convenience of a single point of contact for warranty service. Other than that, they are generally built with whatever lowest cost crap they manufacturer could get their hands on (ESPECIALLY Dell, which in recent years has just gone to crap. It's a pathetic thing when I can pickup a desktop system unit and by lightly twisting on each ends with my hands see the system FLEX back and forth).

You also have to deal with their horrendous OS loads which nearly cripple the system and the fact that 99% of the time they don't include an actual OS install CD to start from scratch - just a "restore disk" that will start off with a fresh system just as messed up as when you started. Heck even when they do include an install disk it's often missing stuff from the full version.

Yes, a whitebox system can be crappy too, because you have the option of buying crap components. However, a custom/whitebox system built with good memory, a reputable mainboard/graphics card/etc, will beat an OEM machine in quality and stability every time. The only caveat is that you have to be preparted to do some legwork regarding the warranties if something breaks (which in my experience, isn't often. only things I've ever had actually break were hard drives, and most of those were from that horrdendous IBM 60GXP line).

WRONG LINK

[default luser]

I could have sworn I linked correctly.

Here is the correct link:

Anandtech's Real-Time Pricing Engine

Re:[offtopic] 'Print' version is split into 10 pag

[ak3ldama]

Wow. I didn't realize what is going on until now. This is just the resurgence of the Intel fanboy. Which is coinciding and colliding furiously with Apple fanboys. Intel has sucked until Pentium M, and now doesn't suck so much with the Intel Core Duo. The price/performance/wattage of machines is becoming equal whether AMD or Intel.

The funny part is that it just hasn't happened yet, but the Intel fans have been waiting for so long that they've just gotta get up and sing anyways. AMD has only a 90nm process, and is still competing with the futuristic Conroe. AMD is still the best option on the desktop. AMD is still the only real option in server land. Want 4 sockets (or even just 2)? Want a reasonable cooling/power bill? AMD is the only option. Intel lucked out by keeping the Pentium 3 architecture around thus managing to keep the laptop/mobile market. Now they're putting those benefits into their desktop/server platforms and by doing being competitive again.

But Intel has not won the battle yet, is the Conroe out yet? Where is the massive proliferation of desktop motherboards for building Core Duo machines? They're not here yet.

Once DDR2 moves beyond 400mhz, AMD will have some serious bandwidth. Later this year AMD will have 65nm, this will bring huge results for their power/watt numbers. So both sides of the story can spout off about what they will have 'eventually.' People need to sit back and re-evaluate things. All we have right now is a healthy, competitive market.