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.

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).

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:[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!

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

Much More benchmarks are available on the web

[Anonymous Coward]

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

up to date list here

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?