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

[offtopic] 'Print' version is split into 10 pages.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Hardware secrets - you suck.

10 pages not saying very much is (irritating, but) acceptable, but when you split the print article into 10 pages, you've crossed line from greediness to stupidity.

(fires up IE). Oh nice, and there's advertisments on each of the print pages too. How is that supposed to be printable?

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.

Re:Uneven Benchmark

[kjs3]

Apparently, saving the allowance his Mom gives him hasn't added up to the $75 or so needed for another 1GB of DDR2.

Upgrade?

[Enderandrew]

The 939 NForce 4 Ultra/SLI line is showing age so on one hand, I'm glad to see the new tech (and DDR2 support) finally.

However, I don't know that I can convince my wife to let me spend the money on such a large overhaul again. I'm fairly happy with my AMD 64 system at the moment.

Honestly, I just hope AMD maintains their lead long enough for people to start taking notice (like Dell using AMD in the server line).

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.

Ignore these benchmarks

[Enderandrew]

They actually tested the 939 rigs with 2 gigs of memory, and the new rig with 1 gig of memory. They said they didn't have 2 sticks of DDR2 for the AM2 rig, but then they should have only used 1 stick in the 939 rig.

When benchmarking, you should try to keep all test systems as comparable as possible. I really am disappointed by what I consider a glaring oversight.

Seriously, for shame.

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:[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.

Welcome, Intel

[eebra82]

I for one welcome Intel to the top performance game. I used to be all happy about AMD gradually taking over the market ever since their first Athlon slot CPU:s. This has also caused the pricing war significantly since AMD already knew they kicked Intel in most parts of all reviews.

Now that Intel is back, we can finally see some heavy competition between the two. The Core Duo is a superb processor and I am eagerly awaiting my MacBook to arrive and I can't wait to see the second release of the Core Duo.

Remember what it was like a few years ago? I used to follow the price charts of CPU:s for drops and they were a lot more frequent than they are today. So now it's easy to say that we should get the same competition all over again and I am quite sure that Hector Ruiz at AMD has a backup plan ready to be enrolled this year.

So once again, welcome, Intel!

Re:Welcome, Intel

[chrismcdirty]

You feel like you're overpaying for Intel, but you didn't ever feel like you were overpaying for PowerPC in the past? I have a feeling that if Apple had used AMD chips, you'd still be paying the same price, but more of it would go directly into Apple's pockets.

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

Problems with memory dividers

[Delph1]

What many seem to have neglected is that there is an evident problem with odd CPU multipliers. AMD has no support for "half" memory multipliers (4.5/5.5/6.5/etc), which means that you will actually not be able to run memories at their full potential when using processors with odd multipliers (7/9/11/etc):

http://www.nordichardware.com/Reviews/?page=3&skri velse=481

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Much More benchmarks are available on the web

[Anonymous Coward]

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

up to date list here

am2 seems to be doing fine

[mAriuZ]

Here is another review of the new socket/ddr2 amd part
It's great to look at fx-62 results - it looks like only that processor (or if you overclock it) can
use the available bandwidth
        "Frankly speaking, it's the main competitor who must be bustling now. AMD is doing great anyway. At least in terms of CPU performance. Durability of the K8 core and its capacity to adapt to new market realia is admirable: having lived without major modifications through two process technologies, dual cores, and now a new memory controller, this core meticulously responds to each improvement with performance gains. We were very skeptic about future chances of the new AMD platform against the new processor core from Intel (Intel designed the new core nearly from scratch, while AMD K8 is rather old), but our tests warmed up our interest. The situation may turn out not that simple"

AMD Catches Up in Technology and Shoots Out in Performance
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/cpu/amd-athlon -64-fx-62.html/

My review

[Anonymous Coward]

This architecture is a pretty big disappointment.

Sure, Socket 939 was amazing when it came out. Nine hundred and thirty-nine pins -- quite an amazing figure.

But I'm sure I wasn't the only one who was less than thrilled at the release of Socket 940. I mean, just one more lousy pin? That's only a tenth of a percent improvement on Socket 939! One wonders what AMD was thinking.

And now here we are, with this farce of an architecture. Yes, Socket AM2 has only 940 pins as well! All that AMD has done in all this time is to shift the pins around on the CPU, much as the occupants of the Titanic spent their time rearranging their deck chairs -- even while that one guy kept on yelling "Iceberg ahead!"

Of course, AMD has tried to hide their laziness with the snazzy marketing name AM2. And yeah, I have got to admit that the name sounds pretty damn good. But in the end, isn't the socket itself more important than a mere name?

Re:Intel's roadmap to the Cornroe and beyond

[Enderandrew]

It really isn't fair to compare the next-gen Intel offerings (just now coming out) against the three year old K8 core which is what people are doing. AMD's next gen processors are rolling out this summer. Let's try to compare apples to apples.

When we compare apples to apples (the P4 line to the K8 line) Intel actually uses more power, generates more heat, runs slower, and is more expensive.

I'm glad Intel stepped up and made a good processor. The Core Duo is a good processor, don't get me wrong. But for all the marketing buzz about Intel right now, AMD does in fact have a response.

AMD is not only rolling out Turion X2 series processors, but they've got the AM2 lineup such as the 5000+ X2, the quad core series, etc.

Re:Intel's roadmap to the Cornroe and beyond

[powerlord]

Exactly. The other thing that most people miss is the strengths for each player.

Even if the Core Duo turns out to be better than the comparable AMD chip, Intel still has ground to catch up onin the multi-chip arena due to memory bandwidth. For most people at home this might not be an issue, but for servers it can be.

Between that and the quad-core chip, it would be very interesting to see Intel manage to recapture some desktop space while AMD gets into the Server Room. :)