phenom b-series processors. Processors. Test stand configuration

Introduction

Overclocking has long been the number one tool for enthusiasts to increase system performance without spending extra money. And since motherboard manufacturers (and even processor manufacturers themselves) have begun to take this market seriously, there have been features and products that allow any user, whether a novice or a hardcore professional, to overclock processors quite comfortably.

But how far can you go? Efficiency has become as important a topic as performance lately, and it's no secret that power consumption skyrockets at high overclocked frequencies, when you have to increase voltage to improve stability.

Phenom vs Core 2

Difficult times for AMD began when Intel released a line of processors Core 2 in 2006. The Core 2 Duo processors were far superior to the Athlon 64 X2, and quad-core Phenom, introduced at the end of 2007, could not beat the quad-core Core 2 Quad processors in terms of performance, despite the theoretically superior architecture on a monolithic chip. We have specially carried out core analysis to the core of all popular AMD models and found that the architecture of Phenom Stars was indeed an important step forward, albeit not so revolutionary. AMD added in early 2008 Tri-core Phenom X3 processors, which helped the company remain competitive in the mass market, and all this was accompanied by falling prices. The range of processors was quite good, and AMD was really able to provide a nice performance / price ratio, even if Intel took the lead in performance and efficiency.

Return of AMD Phenom II

Phenom II processors top of AMD's portfolio, they have finally placed AMD in a stronger competitive position, thanks in no small part to the state-of-the-art 45nm DSL SOI process. Idle power consumption has been reduced, and clock speeds can be increased to a level where Phenom II processors will perform almost on par with Intel Core 2 Quad processors. Unfortunately, Intel has already switched to next generation Core i7 architecture, which has consolidated its leadership in productivity and efficiency. However, Phenom II processors tend to provide similar performance at comparable prices, and Socket AM2+ or AM3 (DDR2 or DDR3) platforms are usually more affordable than the Intel 4x chipset lines.

What is the ideal frequency for the Phenom?

We've taken the current flagship Phenom II X4 940 and run it at various clock speeds, both below and above stock, to determine the clock speed at which this architecture provides the best balance between performance and power consumption.

AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition (BE)

While there are many AMD Phenom II processor options on the market, we used the Phenom II X4 940 for several reasons. We didn't want to take the first generation of Phenom processors as they are still based on AMD's 65nm process, which can't compete with the more advanced 45nm Phenom II process in terms of performance and efficiency.

The Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition at 3GHz is AMD's fastest CPU model with an unlocked multiplier that allows you to increase or decrease it. This allowed us, in particular, to emulate the Phenom II X4 920 at 2.8 GHz. In the near future, we plan to conduct similar types of tests with the Intel Core i7 920 system. For the Intel platform, we chose the entry-level i7 920 processor to avoid the significantly more expensive high-speed Intel models. In the case of AMD, even the Phenom II X4 940 processor is not so expensive, so there were no such concerns.

Phenom II Models

The Phenom II X4 is a modern high-end desktop processor that is largely the result of AMD's move from 65nm to 45nm. L2 cache has increased from 2 MB for Phenom processors to 4 MB (Socket AM3 models) or even 6 MB (Socket AM2+ models).

The die area of all Phenom II models is 285 mm², although the actual cache configuration may vary to increase chip yield. A simple example: a quad-core processor with a failed core can be modified and sold as a 3-core processor. The following table lists all of the quad-core Phenom II X4 processors currently available.

Model Phenom II X4	Platform	Clock frequency	Number of cores	L2 cache	L3 cache	TDP
940	SocketAM2+ (DDR2)	3.0 GHz	4		6 MB total	125 W
920	SocketAM2+ (DDR2)	2.8GHz	4	512 KB per core (2 MB total)	6 MB total	125 W
910	Socket AM3 (DDR3)	2.6GHz	4	512 KB per core (2 MB total)	6 MB total	95 W
810	Socket AM3 (DDR3)	2.6GHz	4	512 KB per core (2 MB total)	4 MB total	95 W
805	Socket AM3 (DDR3)	2.5 GHz	4	512 KB per core (2 MB total)	4 MB total	95 W

The following table shows the currently available tri-core Phenom II X3 processors.

Model Phenom II X3	Platform	Clock frequency	Number of cores	L2 cache	L3 cache	TDP
720	Socket AM3 (DDR3)	2.8GHz	3		6 MB total	95 W
710	Socket AM3 (DDR3)	2.6GHz	3	512 KB per core (1.5 MB total)	6 MB total	95 W

Click on the picture to enlarge.

Flexible CPU selection

AMD processors still use the HyperTransport channel to communicate with the chipset, and they also have an on-chip dual-channel memory controller. AMD has decided to release 45nm Phenom II processors with support for both DDR2 and DDR3 memory, with both types technically based on the same technology.

Socket AM2+ is AMD's latest socket for DDR2 capable processors. Therefore, all AM2+ motherboards will support processors that were designed for the 940-pin socket, as long as the motherboard has support in that model's BIOS.

New processors with an integrated DDR3 memory controller require Socket AM3, which is a modified version of the old 940-pin socket to support DDR3 memory. The nice thing here is that you can buy a Phenom II processor for Socket AM3 and install it in a Socket AM2+ system with DDR2 memory. At the same time, you will not be able to get Phenom II to work under Socket AM2+ in Socket AM3, since the latter physically uses only 938 out of 940 pins.

Overclocking and power consumption

All Phenom II processors have fully modern power consumption specifications. Available chipsets include models from AMD and nVidia (AMD 780G, 790GX, 790FX and nVidia nForce 750i, 780, i790i SLI) that require less power than full-featured Intel chipsets - usually because the memory controller is part of the processor, which improves system power consumption when idle. However, peak power consumption is not very different from Intel platforms.

We were able to overclock several Phenom II X4 processors for Socket AM2+ to almost 4 GHz, but all the processors that we visited, when running at 3.8 GHz or slightly higher, turned off the Cool "n" Quiet function. This feature lowers the processor frequency and voltage when it is idle, which allows the CPU to run cooler and consume less power. This caused performance testing problems because the results at 3.8 GHz could not be directly compared to the lower frequencies where Cool "n" Quiet technology worked fine. According to AMD, this behavior is quite justified due to manual selection of higher multipliers.

Platform: Jetway HA07 Ultra based on AMD 790GX chipset

Click on the picture to enlarge.

Many motherboard manufacturers have released different products based on AMD 790GX chipset, but this time we decided to take not the most famous brand. By the way, in the near future we will present a review of motherboards for Socket AM3 based on the 790FX chipset.

The Jetway HA07 Ultra "Hummer" is an enthusiast motherboard that targets ATI CrossFire graphics configurations. The chipset allows the motherboard to work with two x16 PCI Express slots with eight lanes each. In addition, the 790GX has six additional PCI Express lanes that can be used for expansion cards. Because AMD used the PCI Express 2.0 standard, each lane provides twice the bandwidth of PCI Express 1.1 (250 MB/s per lane in each direction in 1.1, 500 MB/s in 2.0).

Click on the picture to enlarge.

Although the 790GX chipset is aimed at enthusiasts, it contains integrated graphics. The HA07 Ultra provides standard VGA and DVI ports, as well as optional Side-Port memory chip, which increases 3D performance by allowing the graphics core to combine shared memory (from the RAM PC) and a separate Side-Port. After installing a separate video card, the integrated graphics core based on the Radeon HD 3300 can be turned off or used in SurroundView mode.

The HA07 Ultra motherboard proved to be the most power efficient of the two other motherboards we had on hand at the time we started testing. Of course, a small number of additional components, as well as a six-phase voltage regulator, have a positive effect on power consumption, since other systems required 10-15 watts more at idle and under peak load. The Jetway board still provides an UltraATA/133 controller for legacy drives, as well as a floppy drive connector that plugs into AMD's SB750 southbridge. Both connectors are located next to four DDR2 memory slots and a power supply connector. That is, ordinary cable loops will be enough to connect the drives in the upper compartments of the tower case.

AMD 790GX chipset diagram. Click on the picture to enlarge.

Jetway also used a heat pipe cooling system for the voltage regulators and the 790GX chipset. And while it's not as bulky or huge as some other motherboards, it gets the job done given the relative efficiency of the platform itself.

Today, AMD is known around the world as a supplier of technologically advanced, high-performance, but at the same time affordable processors for various types of personal computers. In Russia, the line of AMD Phenom II chips, which is produced by this brand, is currently very popular.

In turn, the modification of the X4 processors, which belong to the corresponding line, has also become very widespread. These chips can be described as universal high-speed devices, ideal for overclocking. What are their main technical characteristics? What do modern IT specialists think about the effectiveness of Phenom II chips in the X4 modification?

general information

The AMD Phenom II family of processors is based on the high-tech K10-type microarchitecture. In the corresponding chip line, there are solutions that are equipped with a number of cores from 2 to 6. X4 chips, which belong to the family in question, also belong to the Dragon platform developed by AMD. Chips with 6 cores belong to the Leo platform. AMD releases Phenom II chips in several modifications. These are Thuban, Deneb, Zosma, Heka and Callisto.

All these microcircuits are united by one technological process - 45 nm. There can be significant differences between them. Since the Thurban modification processors have 6 cores and 904 million transistors, the size of the L3 cache on chips of this level is 64 GB. The same amount is reserved for instructions. The L2 cache is 512 KB and the L3 cache is 6 MB. The processors support DDR3 and DDR2 RAM modules.

The value of power consumption lies in the range from 95 to 125 watts. Processors that belong to this proprietary line can operate at a frequency of 2.6 to 3.3 GHz when using the Turbo Core option - 3.7 GHz. In the Zosma modification, AMD Phenom chips have 4 cores. They have the same cache performance as the Thuban processors. The situation is also with the support of RAM modules. As for the power consumption level of the device, there are chips in the Zosma line that can run at 65 watts.

There are also those that consume 140 watts of power. In this modification, the processors operate at a frequency of 3.3 GHz in Turbo Core mode. They can accelerate up to 3.4 GHz. The Deneb line of chips also has 4 cores. These processors have 758 million transistors. The area is 258 square millimeters. The cache memory parameters in this case are the same as in the modifications considered above. The same can be said about the level of support for major technologies and memory modules.

Processors that belong to the Deneb modification support operation at a frequency of 2.4 to 3.7 GHz. The Heka line chips are almost identical to the Deneb chips in terms of their characteristics. The only difference is that they have 3 cores. Technically, they are Deneb processors with one core disabled. It is also worth noting that the frequencies supported by Heka chips are kept in the range from 2.5 to 3 GHz. In addition, there are no modifications among the processors of this line, the power consumption level of which exceeds 95 watts.

Another modification of Phenom II chips is Callisto. The chips that belong to this modification are actually identical to the Deneb processors, only they work on two cores. So they are Deneb chips that have 2 cores disabled. The processors of this line operate in the frequency range from 3 to 3.4 GHz. The power consumption value is 80 W. The most common types of Phenom II processors in Russia include representatives of the Deneb line. The chips that belong to this technological range are produced in the following modifications: X4 940, X4 965, X4 945, X4 955. The X4 line also has a flagship model - X4 980. Next, we will take a closer look at the features of these chip modifications.

Processor X4 940: Specifications

The first processor that we will consider is the X4 940. This chip has the following technical characteristics: the processor frequency is 3 GHz using a multiplier of 15 units, the chip has 4 cores, and is made within the 45 nm process. The amount of cache memory of the 1st level is 128 KB, the second level - 2 MB, the third level - 6 MB. The instruction set supported by the chip includes MMX, SSE 3DNow! The X4 940 processor is compatible with AMD 64/EM65T and NX Bit technologies. The temperature limit value of the X4 940 chip is 62 degrees. The chip supports socket type AM2+. It can be noted that the X4 945 processor has almost the same characteristics. The only difference is that X4 945 can work with socket AM3.

Chip X4 955: features and capabilities

Consider the specifics of the AMD Phenom II X4 955 chip. This chip has the following specifications: in this modification, the processor operates at a frequency of 3.2 MHz using a multiplier of 16. There is also an integrated memory controller with a bandwidth of 21 Gb / s.

The size of the processor's cache memory practically does not differ from what the models discussed above have. In terms of support for computing and multimedia technologies, the chip has the same characteristics as the younger processors. The maximum operating temperature of the chip is 62 degrees. The most significant advantages of the X4 955 include compatibility with DDR3 RAM modules.

What practical possibilities does this chip have? It is worth paying attention to the results of some tests of this processor. It is worth noting that these results were achieved when using the device in combination with an ASUS M4A79T motherboard that supports AM3 sockets and 4 GB of DDR3 RAM.

Tests conducted by IT experts show that, in combination with DDR3 memory modules, the AMD Phenom II processor is noticeably ahead of similar chips installed in computers equipped with DDR2 RAM. Therefore, in practice, a significant factor in the use of this chip is its addition to other technological and high-performance hardware components.

X4 955: overclocking

Let's consider another important aspect of using the X4 955 processor, namely overclocking. Experienced IT experts advise overclocking using the multi-functional utility Overdrive 3.0. You can, of course, overclock through the BIOS, but using the marked version of the program allows you to solve the problem without the need to restart your personal computer. The most notable features of this utility include the BEMP function.

Its use allows you to greatly simplify the configuration of the processor in overclocking mode. This function involves establishing a connection between the Overdrive program and a database that contains lists of optimal values for frequencies and other options that are necessary to speed up the chip. Also very useful is the Smart Profiles option, which is available in the Overdrive program. With this option, the user has the ability to fine-tune the overclocking process of the chip.

The Overdrive program allows you to adapt the overclocking of the AMD Phenom II X4 processor to the work of applications running on the computer. For example, if some program operates in single-threaded mode, then using the appropriate software, the user can reduce the frequencies from 3 cores out of 4 so that the fourth core has increased speed limits. At the same time, the operating temperature of the device will remain optimal.

AMD Phenom II X4 955: comparison with competitors

How competitive is the version of the AMD Phenom II X4 processor we are reviewing? The review in terms of comparing this chip with analogues will most likely not be detailed enough. However, we can examine the test results of the chip, which were carried out by experts in the field of IT technology. The closest competitor of the model we are considering is the Intel Core 2 Quad Q 9550. Tests show that in terms of performance, the solution from Intel is slightly faster.

However, the difference identified by experts does not play a practical role when launching games and applications. Solutions such as Intel Core i7, in turn, are noticeably ahead of AMD Phenom II X4. At the same time, all three microcircuits have a comparable market value. It can also be noted that the AMD Phenom II X4 processor is more competitive in multimedia tests than in arithmetic ones. When testing, it is important to measure the performance level of the compared solutions in different modes. This will give an opportunity to get an objective idea of the capabilities of the microcircuit.

AMD Phenom II X4965 Specifications and Features

This chip has the following specifications: the standard processor frequency is 3.4 GHz, the voltage on the chip is 1.4 V. Otherwise, the processor parameters are identical to the lower models of the line. It should be noted that this chip can be used on two types of sockets - AM2+ and AM3. The memory controller installed in the processor, in turn, is also compatible with two RAM standards - DDR2 and DDR3.

AMD Phenom II X4 965 Overclocking

Let's see how successful overclocking of the AMD Phenom II X4 965 chip can be. The processors of this line are well adapted to the ability to adjust the voltage level. So, for example, some advanced solutions from Intel can work unstably at a voltage of 1.65 V. AMD chips operate quite stably in such modes. Tests show that the AMD Phenom II X4 965 can be overclocked to 3.8 GHz.

It is worth noting that approximately the same result was achieved when accelerating the processor in the 955 modification. IT specialists note that theoretically, the AMD Phenom II X4 965 chip can be accelerated to a frequency of 4 GHz. This will keep your computer stable. However, if this indicator is exceeded, the processor may become unstable in some modes. Experts who tested this version of the AMD Phenom II X4 processor claim that overclocking makes it possible not only to fix the advantages of this microcircuit in tests, but also to achieve a significant acceleration of the computer.

It should be noted that it is possible to overclock a processor in the AMD Phenom II X4 modification not only when conducting experiments with coefficients. Many experts use a technique in which chip acceleration can be achieved by increasing the frequency of the north bridge. It can be brought up to an indicator that corresponds to 2.6 GHz.

In this case, the motherboard on which the processor is installed must support the appropriate operating modes of the microcircuit. An extremely important point when overclocking any chip is the appropriate characteristics of the cooling system. If the system copes well with normal operation, this does not mean at all that it will be able to ensure stable operation of the microcircuit during overclocking. Therefore, it may be necessary to install a cooling system with a higher speed.

When conducting experiments with overclocking chips, it will be useful to have programs at hand that allow you to monitor the temperature of the processor in real time. At some point, even the most efficient chip cooling system may not work stably. In this case, it is important for the user not to miss such moments and fix overheating in time. The work associated with increasing the processor frequencies must be carried out systematically, avoiding sudden changes in the corresponding parameters. If the chip will work flawlessly at a given frequency with acceptable heating, then you can slightly increase the frequency. This can be done until the maximum performance is reached, at which the microcircuit is still working stably.

AMD Phenom II X4 980: flagship model

The closest attention, perhaps, should be given to the flagship model of the line. Its modification BE is quite popular. Its advantage lies in the fact that it has an unlocked coefficient and therefore has become popular among overclockers. The key features of this processor basically coincide with those of AMD Phenom II X4 945. In terms of supported standards and cache memory size, the characteristics remain the same as in the younger models of the line. However, the chip has a rather high level of power consumption - 125 watts. However, for a high level of processor frequency, this indicator can be considered optimal.

AMD Phenom II X4 980: testing

Testing of the AMD Phenom II X4 980 chip showed that its performance is quite consistent with that of the leading models of the Intel brand, which are based on the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture. In addition, in some tests, such as multimedia, the chip even outperforms more powerful counterparts, such as the Intel Core i5-2500. If we talk about effective tools for measuring the speed of chips, then you should definitely pay attention to the Everest program.

This program is a collection of synthetic tests. These include CPU Photoworx, CPU Queen, CPU Zlib. These tests provide an opportunity to evaluate the performance of microcircuits in a complex. It is also noteworthy that the benchmarks that are part of the Everest program are perfectly adapted to testing the speed of work with the simultaneous use of several computational threads. This means that during the tests, the processor cores can be fully loaded.

The more there are, the higher the actual processor performance. Experts consider the performance of the chip when performing floating-point operations to be an important indicator. The solution from AMD in the relevant tests is confidently ahead of competing processors from Intel.

Another notable tool that can be used to measure the speed of chips is the PC Mark program. Its characteristic feature is a comprehensive study of the capabilities of the chip. The testing modes in this program are as close as possible to real conditions. So, for example, this program makes it possible to provide processor testing by activating web browsing or converting one type of file to another.

Testing of the AMD Phenom II X4 chip in this modification demonstrates simply excellent results.
Another popular test among IT professionals is 3D Mark. It makes it possible to evaluate the capabilities of processors, in a mode that corresponds to the loads in three-dimensional games. Experts note that AMD Phenom II X4 980 is the absolute leader in its price segment according to the results of tests in 3D Mark. In addition, the superiority of this processor over some Thuban chips, which are equipped with 6 cores, was recorded. There are no stability issues when working in the main screen resolutions.

If we talk about the frame rate, then in some modes AMD Phenom II X4 980 turns out to be preferable to processors from AMD. In addition, in a real game process, the difference in processing speed between solutions from AMD and Intel, which is observed during testing, is most likely to be imperceptible.

Conclusion

In this review, we reviewed the characteristics of the AMD Phenom II X4 line. If we are talking about the AMD Phenom II X4 965 model or its younger modification 940, then the characteristics of these chips are similar to each other. The main difference between the chips is the frequency, and in some cases the types of sockets supported. All modifications of this line can be overclocked.

The devices look quite competitive against the background of similar solutions from Intel. If we talk about the technological capabilities of the AMD Phenom II X4 line of chips, then the supported standards allow us to conclude that AMD has brought to the market truly advanced solutions that look more than competitive against the background of similar solutions from Intel.

AMD has chosen a different strategy than its main competitor, Intel. The manufacturer produced products in series and lines. So, in 2008, a whole family of processors with a different number of cores appeared on the market, but under the same name - AMD Phenom II. All crystals were based on the same K10 microarchitecture.

Diversity

The family has collected many different models of processors, which are divided into three categories depending on the number of cores: two, four and six. Each of them also fell into a certain line. For example, six-core crystals came out under the code name Thuban. The same variant was released with two disabled cores, which gave only four active "hearts", but under a different name - Zosma.

There was a series with four cores without turned off spares - Deneb. Then, at first, one core was turned off for these models and the Heka line was called, and then two cores were turned off and called Callisto.

Specifications

Each processor from the AMD Phenom II family could be installed in a Socket AM3 format with 2 GHz HyperTransport. All models supported dual-channel memory of two types - DDR2 and DDR3. The power consumption of each model of the line was different. Six-core models could absorb up to 125 watts. The core frequency in the younger variations ranged from 2500 to 3000 MHz, and in the older ones - from 3300 to 3700 MHz (in Thuban).

Branded sets

The AMD Phenom II processor has become very popular in its time. The company decided to use versions for four and six cores in a special kit for gamers. This is how gaming platforms began to appear based on a quad-core crystal, with a 700-series processor and a proprietary graphics accelerator.

AMD Dragon was created specifically for gamers who would like to have all the necessary devices for a gaming PC at once. Initially, variations of motherboards with a socket for an AM2 + chip and a DDR2 memory type were available on the market. After the rebranding, they began to use the AM3 socket and DDR3 memory. In addition, an ATI Radeon HD 4800 graphics card functioned on the motherboard.

AMD Leo is another platform for gamers that was made up of high performance components. Instead of a four-core crystal, a six-core processor was introduced here.

We will look at the three main most popular models of AMD Phenom II processors. Their characteristics vary, and each crystal shows its overclocking capabilities in different ways. So, Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition stood out among the dual-core ones, Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition among the quad-core ones, and Phenom II X6 1055T among the six-core ones.

junior relative

Since the novelty has received the proud name of Black Edition, then, accordingly, the company packed the crystal in a black strict box. There are practically no bright graphic elements on it. On the front, only information about the model family and in the corner are the main specifications. The buyer can immediately note the increased frequencies - up to 3 GHz, a large amount of cache memory and a processor socket.

There is nothing unusual inside. In addition to the crystal, inside we find instructions and a cooler for AMD Phenom II X2 550 BE. As practice shows, despite the presence of a cooling system, users prefer to purchase an additional cooler. But for some, the branded version will do.

The appearance of the processor did not present anything unusual. Front service information with codes and abbreviated wording. At the back, you can count 938 pins, which are designed for the AM3 connector type. In addition, this option is also compatible with the older generation of connectors - AM2+.

It is worth saying right away that this crystal received the code name Callisto. There are four cores inside, but half of them work, so the model is considered dual-core. The 45nm process technology is used. Consumes a processor of 80 watts. The clock frequency is 3.1 GHz. Cache memory has three levels. The total volume is 7 MB.

It was possible to reduce the power consumption of crystals and the noise of computing systems. AMD CoolCore was responsible for regulating the operation of inactive processor blocks, which, in turn, affected power consumption and heat dissipation. The memory could reach 1333 MHz.

Those users who were able to unlock two dormant cores received an excellent processor. The dual-core model has evolved into a quad-core model. The chip with a starting frequency of 3100 MHz had a high overclocking potential. But even without overclocking, performance has already increased by almost 50%.

As a result, overclocking showed excellent results for this AMD Phenom II model - the frequency increased to 3838 MHz. At one time, the chip cost $110. For this money, the user could create a quad-core crystal with a frequency of 3.8 GHz from a dual-core crystal.

Reviews

After 3-4 years, users continued to leave good reviews about this model. The downsides were really hard to find. Buyers praised a good supply of initial clock frequency, a sufficient amount of cache memory and a universal connector. Those who were not afraid to unlock the cores received a huge performance boost and an excellent overclocking rate.

Average fellow

The middle niche was occupied by processors of the AMD Phenom II X4 family. Here we will look at another successful popular model - Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition. Since this chip also belonged to the "black series", the box has not changed from the previous time. Inside are the same regular cooler, instructions and the chipset itself.

The core was codenamed Deneb, which referred to four active blocks. Otherwise, the model practically did not differ from the previous one. The base frequencies indicated a value of 3.2 GHz. The amount of cache memory reached 7 MB. The manufacturing process is 45 nm. Increased consumption (up to 125 W).

The AMD Phenom II X4 models did not have the hard limits on voltage range, unlike the dual-core variants. Thus, increasing the current supply could help in successful overclocking. The only thing that could cause problems - with overheating. In this case, a standard cooling system would definitely not help. Although it is quite good, it is not designed for more powerful processors. Especially if you use overclocking.

Since this option did not have blocked cores, it was not necessary to expect an unprecedented increase from it. Although, in principle, the increase in the frequency potential to a stable indicator of 3716 MHz still paid off. And although not everyone considers raising the core speed by 16% a good result, even this option could slightly increase the performance of the system as a whole.

If you install a more powerful cooler, then you can safely raise the frequency to 3.8 GHz. But you need to remember that at the same time you should also raise the voltage, which will entail an increase in power consumption.

Introduction Continuing the series of announcements of processors based on the new 45nm Deneb core, AMD today introduces several new models aimed at the mid-price segment. Thus, the "pioneers" of the Phenom II family, which we considered earlier, having processor numbers 940 and 920, remain the older models in AMD products, but now the company's positions will be reinforced by several more processors, which are manufactured using a more modern technological process. More specifically, AMD is presenting five 45nm processors today: three quad-core processors - Phenom II X4 910, 810 and 805, as well as two tri-core processors - Phenom II X3 720 and 710. and fast processors. It is much more interesting that the models released today on the market have a new design - Socket AM3.

Recall that the main goal of transferring AMD processors to the Socket AM3 platform is to implement support for more modern and faster DDR3 SDRAM. At the same time, such Socket AM3 processors retain compatibility with the existing Socket AM2+ infrastructure. It turns out that the new Phenom II models have a universal memory controller that can work with DDR2 or DDR3 SDRAM, depending on which motherboard it is installed on. However, such versatility is not at all surprising: we all remember the ease with which motherboard manufacturers used to develop products supporting DDR2 SDRAM, basing them on LGA775 X-series chipsets oriented to work with DDR3 SDRAM. Continuity, which is at the forefront of changing memory standards, ensures compatibility between DDR2 and DDR3 at the logical level, which allows engineers to support both technologies at the same time at minimal cost.

At the same time, with all its appearance, AMD makes us understand that we should not expect too much from the new processor socket and DDR3 memory. Yes, DDR3 SDRAM has higher frequencies, but at the same time it is also characterized by increased delays, which, as you know, also significantly affect the speed of platforms with AMD processors. Apparently, being guided by these considerations, AMD has not yet started switching older Phenom II models to Socket AM3, which remain available exclusively in Socket AM2+ versions. So for the time being, only mid-range models can boast of compatibility with Socket AM3, for which, frankly speaking, the ability to work with high-speed and expensive memory is not so relevant.

The fact that the Phenom II X4 940 and 920, released just a month ago, turned out to be incompatible with the new Socket AM3 platform, obviously, has some more weighty reasons, besides the lack of a noticeable increase in performance. And these reasons are not difficult to see if you get acquainted with the characteristics of the models presented today in more detail. The fact is that, when switching to a new processor socket, AMD decided to make its processors more economical: for all five of today's new products, the maximum heat dissipation level is set not to 125 W, as for the older Phenom II, but to 95 W. It is the same nameplate heat dissipation that all four-core Intel processors belonging to the Core 2 Quad family have. However, to all appearances, the parity in the maximum calculated thermal characteristics of the LGA775 and Socket AM3 platforms will not last long, since within the next couple of months AMD is going to introduce faster and less economical processors than Phenom II X4 910 and 810.

From all that has been said, it follows that the compatibility of the processors presented today with the new Socket AM3 socket and DDR3 memory does not solve much from the point of view of ordinary consumers. The presented models of the middle price range in the vast majority of cases will fall into the Socket AM2 + infrastructure and will be used with the widespread and inexpensive DDR2 SDRAM. AMD does not yet offer high-performance Phenom II modifications that would be really interesting to use in Socket AM3 platforms. Nevertheless, this is not a reason for us to close our eyes to a new promising platform, to which we decided to devote a separate material. In this article, we will get acquainted with the features of the new processor socket, and along the way we will test one of the new Socket AM3 processors - Phenom II X4 810.

The Phenom II Family: Species Diversity

First of all, we decided to gather together all the information about AMD processors manufactured using the 45nm process technology and supplied to the market under the Phenom II trademark. The need for a single reference table is due to the fact that this series, which currently includes seven processors, turned out to be very controversial: it consists of models with a different number of cores, with different purposes, compatibility with different platforms, and so on.

According to earlier plans, AMD was going to introduce another Socket AM3 processor - Phenom II X4 925, but at the moment its release has not taken place. A possible reason for this is problems with fitting its heat dissipation into the 95-watt thermal package. And taking into account the fact that the next model, Phenom II X4 910, although formally announced, is actually available only for AMD OEM partners, the older processor in Socket AM3 version, which will be available in stores in the near future, turns out to be Phenom II X4 810 This is what explains the participation of this model in our tests.

The expansion of the Phenom II model range leads to the fact that the new nomenclature of processor ratings adopted by AMD becomes clear. Thus, a series of ratings characterize the main characteristics of processors. And if we add information about future processor models with 45-nm cores to the available data, we get a completely harmonious and logical sequence:

Series 900 - quad-core processors with 6 MB L3 cache;
Series 800 - quad-core processors with 4 MB L3 cache;
Series 700 - three-core processors with 6 MB L3 cache;
Series 600 - quad-core processors without L3 cache;
Series 400 - three-core processors without L3 cache;
The 200 series are dual-core processors.

Information about the 200, 400 and 600 series is preliminary. The output of such processors, judging by the available data, is scheduled for the second quarter of this year.

Socket AM3 platform

With the introduction of the new Socket AM3 platform, AMD's first goal is to introduce support for modern DDR3 SDRAM memory in systems based on Phenom II processors. Such support has been available in competitor platforms for more than a year and a half, but earlier AMD considered the transition to a new type of memory untimely due to its high cost. By now, the situation has changed a lot, prices for DDR3 modules have dropped significantly, and this has prompted AMD to enter the market and develop a new type of processor socket.

However, unlike its main rival, AMD has rarely made drastic changes in the platform design lately. The company's engineers make every effort to ensure the possibility of a painless migration from one platform to another. This tactic is especially relevant in the light of current realities, when AMD processors do not have many advantages compared to Intel products. This is what makes the new platform interesting: AMD developers were able to offer such a scheme for upgrading the memory controller built into their own processors, in which neither old nor new adherents of the Athlon and Phenom brands should be dissatisfied.

The fact that the Socket AM3 platform is in many ways similar to its predecessor can be understood from a quick glance at the boards and processors in the new version. Not only did AMD not convert its chips to LGA packaging, moreover, the processors even retained the same geometric dimensions, and the number of their contacts has practically not changed. Due to the fact that AMD has put the ideas of succession and compatibility at the forefront, it is possible to distinguish a Socket AM3 processor from a Socket AM2 + brother only upon very careful examination.

Left - Socket AM2+ processor, right - Socket AM3 processor

Differences between Socket AM2+ and Socket AM3 processors are visible only from the "belly". From the above photo, you can see that the number of contacts in Socket AM3 has decreased by two, respectively, now there are 938 of them.

A similar picture can be seen if we compare the connectors on motherboards.

Left - Socket AM2+, right - Socket AM3

As you can see, Socket AM3 processors can be mechanically installed in Socket AM2+, while a Socket AM2+ processor in Socket AM3 simply cannot be inserted into the motherboard due to the "extra" two pins. This mechanical compatibility reflects the logical compatibility as well. The new Socket AM3 processors have a universal memory controller that supports both DDR2 and DDR3 SDRAM. The specific type of memory used in each case is determined solely by the DIMM slots on the motherboard. In Socket AM2+ boards this is DDR2, in Socket AM3 it is DDR3 SDRAM. Older Socket AM2+ processors do not have such versatility, they can only work with DDR2 SDRAM, which is why they were deprived of mechanical compatibility with the new processor socket.

Socket AM2+ and Socket AM3 have retained continuity in many other aspects. Due to matching socket and processor sizes, AMD was able to ensure that the same CPU coolers can be used on both platforms. Even the scheme of their fastening has not been transformed.

The same applies to microarchitecture features: Socket AM2+ and Socket AM3 processors differ only in terms of the memory controller. All other nodes, including the HyperTransport 3.0 bus, were kept unchanged. And this, in turn, means that new chipsets are not required to support Socket AM3, such processors are perfectly compatible with the same chipsets as Socket AM2+ models. That is why the main developers of chipsets for the AMD platform do not offer any special solutions aimed at supporting new products.

Almost complete mechanical and logical compatibility between the types of processor sockets in some cases even allows you to deviate from the original one-to-one correspondence scheme: Socket AM2+ - DDR2 SDRAM, Socket AM3 - DDR3 SDRAM. Some motherboard manufacturers, such as Jetway, are preparing universal Socket AM2+ motherboards with slots for DDR2 and DDR3, in which, when using a Socket AM3 processor, it will be possible to put either one or the other memory.

Socket AM3 processors officially support DDR2 memory up to 1067 MHz and DDR3 memory up to 1333 MHz. At the same time, reliable performance of DDR3-1333 in Socket AM3 systems is guaranteed only if no more than one module per channel is used. However, in practice it turns out that the new processors can also work with DDR3-1600 SDRAM: the corresponding multiplier for the memory frequency is supported by the built-in controller. In practice, it looks like that when installing a Socket AM3 processor in a Socket AM2+ board, it becomes possible to choose between the standard DDR2-667/800/1067 memory frequencies for any Phenom, and when it is used in Socket AM3 boards, another set of multipliers opens up, allowing you to clock the memory in DDR3-1067/1333/1600 modes.

It only remains to add to the above that to achieve full compatibility of the Socket AM2+ motherboards on the market with the new Socket AM3 processors, a simple BIOS update is enough. Moreover, the motherboard BIOS support for Phenom II processors, even in Socket AM2+ version, automatically entails that Socket AM3 processors will also work in such a motherboard without any problems. And this, in turn, means that no special difficulties are expected when adapting the existing motherboard fleet to new processors.

Processor Phenom II X4 810

After a detailed story about what Socket AM3 brings in itself, it seems that the processor in this design has nothing to surprise us with. However, this is not quite true. Although in general the new Phenom II differs little from the Phenom II presented by AMD a month ago, the Phenom II X4 810 sent to us for testing showed some unexpected characteristics.

First of all, it should be noted that Phenom II X4 810 received a processor number from the eighth dozen for a reason. With these reduced numbers, AMD designates quad-core processors with reduced performance. In our case, a part of the L3 cache went under the knife, its size in the Phenom II X4 810 is 4 MB versus 6 MB in the "full-fledged" Phenom II.

In general, the appearance of Phenom II processors with a reduced L3 cache, as well as with disabled cores, is a completely natural event. The monolithic chip of Deneb processors, although produced using a 45-nm process, has a fairly large area: 258 square meters. mm. For comparison, this is only slightly less than the area of the Intel Core i7 chip, which indicates approximately the same production cost for these processors. Comparing the retail prices of Core i7 and Phenom II is clearly not in favor of the latter: obviously, the release of Phenom II is a much less profitable enterprise than the production of Core i7. And given that AMD does not yet have chips comparable in performance to the best Intel products, it becomes clear that the company is forced to squeeze the maximum profit from the available resources. Selling processors based on partially defective chips, which for some reason could not make it into the Phenom II 900 series, is one such method.

Actually, the appearance of Phenom II X4 810 is a typical illustration of this tactic. This processor is based on exactly the same Deneb semiconductor die as in the Phenom II 900 series processors, but a third of the L3 cache is disabled in it. Thanks to this trick, AMD implements chips in which a defect occurred during production in the part where the L3 cache is located. If the marriage falls on the area of the crystal in which the computing cores are located, then such crystals are used in the production of the three-core Phenom II 700-series processors, which are also presented to the public today.

The characteristics of the L3 cache memory of the Phenom II X4 810 processor look rather strange.

According to the diagnostic utility, the L3 cache of this processor has 64 associativity regions, while the L3 cache of the full-fledged Phenom II X4 900 with a 6 MB L3 cache had only 48 associativity regions. The most logical explanation for this phenomenon seems to be an error in the CPU-Z readings, and the Phenom II X4 810 L3 cache has an associativity of 32. Otherwise, the cache in the 800 series should have a higher latency than in older processor models, which in practice is not observed.

However, the L3 cache of Phenom II processors in Socket AM3 is still faster than their Socket AM2+ counterparts. However, the reasons for this lie not at all in the depths of the microarchitecture - they lie on the surface. The fact is that for its Socket AM3 models AMD has set a higher frequency of the integrated northbridge, which is also used to clock the L3 cache. The L3 cache in the Phenom II X4 810, like in other processors for the new platform, operates at a frequency of 2.0 GHz, while the L3 cache frequency of its predecessors was 200 MHz lower.

As follows from the screenshot above, the above is also true when installing a Socket AM3 processor in a Socket AM2+ motherboard.

But despite all the differences between the Phenom II in Socket AM3 we are considering and its Socket AM2+ counterparts, which we had the opportunity to meet a month ago, it is quite difficult to hide the blood relationship between them. For example, the Phenom II X4 810 uses the same C2 core stepping that we saw in the Phenom II X4 940 and 920 processors earlier. This means that the semiconductor crystals underlying the Socket AM2+ and Socket AM3 Phenom II versions do not differ at all, and the memory types supported by one or another processor modification are determined only at the stage of packaging it into a case.

Impact of L3 cache size on performance

The first question that arises when getting acquainted with the characteristics of the Phenom II X4 810 processor concerns how much the reduction in the L3 cache size harms performance. To unambiguously answer this question, we decided to compare the performance of the Phenom II X4 810 and Phenom II X4 910 processors. Both these models are based on the 45 nm Deneb core, have the same clock speed of 2.6 GHz and differ only in the amount of cache memory, which in both cases it operates on the same frequency of 2.0 GHz.

Our testing shows that cutting the L3 cache from 6 to 4 MB does not lead to any significant drop in the performance of Phenom II X4 processors. The loss of Phenom II X4 810 to its “full-fledged” colleague not only averaged only 2%, but even in the most unfavorable situations did not exceed 5%.

Thus, it is quite reasonable that the Phenom II X4 810 costs only 20 dollars less than the Phenom II X4 920. Obviously, there is no glaring difference in the practical performance of these processors, and the main drawback of the younger model is not the reduced L3 cache, but at a lower clock frequency.

By the way, we should not forget that the L3 cache of the Phenom II X4 810 operates at a higher frequency than the L3 cache of the older Phenom II X4 940 and 920 models. And this can be considered as additional compensation for its smaller volume. , because as we found out earlier, a 200-MHz increase in the frequency of the north bridge built into the processor entails an approximately one and a half percent increase in performance.

Motherboard Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P

Frankly, we have the impression that today's announcement of the Socket AM3 platform is not well prepared. The obvious problems that we also had to face can be seen in the unavailability of the new infrastructure: it turned out to be quite difficult to choose a platform for testing new Socket AM3 processors. Motherboard manufacturers clearly did not expect that AMD would present Socket AM3 within a month after the release of the first Socket AM2+ Phenom II, and therefore did not have time to bring the development and production of the corresponding products to the final stage. As a result, even AMD representatives recommended us to test the Phenom II X4 810 on a Socket AM2+ motherboard with DDR2 memory.

Nevertheless, we still managed to get a motherboard for testing Socket AM3. The situation was saved by Gigabyte, which literally at the last moment provided its fresh Socket AM3 board GA-MA790FXT-UD5P. This board will be the new flagship product in Gigabyte's range of offerings for owners of AMD processors, and therefore it deserves a separate review.

Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P continues the company's series of products aimed at supporting AMD processors, so this motherboard has many similarities with its predecessors equipped with Socket AM2+. However, this is not surprising, considering that the GA-MA790FXT-UD5P is based on the usual set of logic, consisting of the AMD 790FX north bridge and the SB750 south bridge. In fact, the main features of the board are concentrated in the vicinity of Socket AM3, as there are four slots for DDR3 SDRAM - memory that was not previously supported by systems with AMD processors.

Since the motherboard in question is designed to create high-performance systems, it has two PCI Express x16 2.0 slots that can work with a pair of graphics cards combined using CrossFireX technology in full speed mode.

The board's positioning determined its belonging to the Ultra Durable 3 class, to which Gigabyte classifies all of its most interesting products. First of all, this means that high-quality electronic components are widely used in the manufacture of the board: capacitors with a solid electrolyte of Japanese origin, field-effect transistors with a reduced channel resistance in the open state, and inductors made on armored ferrite cores. Secondly, the GA-MA790FXT-UD5P motherboard uses a PCB with thicker than usual ground and power copper layers. This improvement allows Gigabyte to talk about improving the quality of signals and reducing interference, as well as improving the thermal regime of the board - conductors at the same time play the role of a heat sink.

The processor power converter on the board is made according to a four-channel scheme, while its power is such that Gigabyte guarantees stable operation of the board with processors consuming up to 140 watts. The transistors included in the power converter are covered with a massive heatsink (the largest on the board), connected by heat pipes to heatsinks installed on the north and south bridges of the chipset. It should be emphasized that these heatsinks have a small height and are moved away from the processor socket at a distance sufficient for comfortable installation of massive coolers. However, when installing a processor cooling system, obstacles can still arise from the DIMM slots, which are located so close to the processor socket that the cooler can make it impossible to install DDR3 memory modules in the slots closest to the processor.

For ease of use, Gigabyte engineers placed Power, Reset, and Clear CMOS buttons on the board. Unfortunately, the convenience it brings is offset by their very unfortunate location: the first two buttons were locked between the connectors, and the Clear CMOS button can be blocked by a long video card. But Gigabyte engineers did not forget a device to protect the reset button from accidental pressing: it is closed with a transparent plastic cap.

The presence on the GA-MA790FXT-UD5P of ten Serial ATA-300 ports deployed parallel to the board attracts attention. At the same time, six ports are implemented in a standard way through the SB750 south bridge, and additional JMicron controllers are responsible for the remaining four. Ports connected to the southbridge support RAID levels 0, 1, 0+1, and 5, while additional ports can only provide RAID 0 or 1.

The rear panel of the board has eight USB 2.0 ports, two Gigabit network ports, two Firewire ports, PS/2 mouse and keyboard ports, as well as analog and SPDIF audio inputs and outputs. It should be noted that the eight-channel codec Realtek ALC889A, which has a certified signal-to-noise ratio of 106 dB, is responsible for the implementation of sound on the board under consideration. In addition to the ports on the rear panel, the GA-MA790FXT-UD5P is also equipped with several pin headers that allow you to connect four more USB 2.0 and one IEEE1394.

The BIOS Setup of the motherboard in question is made with a clear focus on enthusiasts, therefore, in addition to the standard settings, it contains a whole section "MB Intelligent Tweaker" designed for overclocking. In addition to the standard options for changing multipliers and base frequencies, it offers flexible means for controlling voltages.

The voltage increase limit for DDR3 memory is 2.35 V, and the processor voltage can be increased to a value exceeding the standard value by 0.6 V. Additionally, you can control the voltage of the north bridge built into the processor and the power supply of chipset chips.

Also, the board offers detailed settings for memory parameters.

On the whole, the Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P motherboard made quite a favorable impression on us. Of course, the BIOS version number F4D, with which we tested this board, cannot yet be called problem-free and absolutely stable, but, nevertheless, we were able not only to complete the full set of tests in the normal mode, but also to conduct experiments on overclocking the processor.

How We Tested

We divided today's testing into two stages. First of all, we will find out how the transfer to a new platform that supports DDR3 SDRAM affects the speed of Phenom II X4 processors. To do this, we will compare the performance of the new Phenom II X4 810 when running in a Socket AM2+ motherboard with DDR2-800 and DDR2-1067 memory with its performance when installed in a Socket AM3 board, in which we will use DDR3-1333 and DDR3-1600 SDRAM .

The second phase of our tests will be dedicated to finding out the performance of AMD's new quad-core processors in comparison with competing offerings. Here, obviously, the comparison of Phenom II X4 810 and Core 2 Quad Q8200 performance will attract the main interest, since these processors have approximately the same retail price.

As a result, the following set of components was involved in the tests:

Processors:

AMD Phenom II X4 920 (Deneb, 2.8GHz, 6MB L3);
AMD Phenom II X4 910 (Deneb, 2.6GHz, 6MB L3);
AMD Phenom II X4 810 (Deneb, 2.6GHz, 4MB L3);
AMD Phenom II X4 805 (Deneb, 2.5GHz, 4MB L3);
AMD Phenom X4 9950 (Agena, 2.6GHz, 2MB L3);
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 (Yorkfield, 2.5 GHz, 333 MHz FSB, 2 x 2 MB L2);
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 (Yorkfield, 2.33 GHz, 333 MHz FSB, 2 x 2 MB L2).

Motherboards:

ASUS P5Q Pro (LGA775, Intel P45 Express, DDR2 SDRAM);
Gigabyte MA790GP-DS4H (Socket AM2+, AMD 790GX + SB750, DDR2 SDRAM);
Gigabyte MA790FXT-UD5P (Socket AM3, AMD 790FX + SB750, DDR3 SDRAM).

RAM:

GEIL GX24GB8500C5UDC (2 x 2GB, DDR2-1067 SDRAM, 5-5-5-15);
Mushkin 996601 4GB XP3-12800 (2 x 2GB, DDR3-1600 SDRAM, 7-7-7-20).

Graphic card: ATI RADEON HD 4870.
HDD: Western Digital WD1500AHFD.
Operating system: Microsoft Windows Vista x64 SP1.
Drivers:

Intel Chipset Software Installation Utility 9.1.0.1007;
ATI Catalyst 9.1 Display Driver.

Performance: DDR3 vs DDR2

In this part of our article, we will compare the performance of the Phenom II X4 810 when installed in motherboards with different types of processor sockets: Gigabyte MA790GP-DS4H and Gigabyte MA790FXT-UD5P. In both cases, we used a couple of different widely used memory configurations.

Thus, the Socket AM2+ system used DDR2-800 with 5-5-5-15 timings and 1T Command Rate and DDR2-1067 with 5-5-5-15 and 2T Command Rate timings. Note that the use of 2T Command Rate in the second case is a forced measure, since the Phenom II memory controller does not allow reducing this delay when using 2GB DDR2-1067 SDRAM modules.

The Socket AM3 system used configurations that included DDR3-1333 and DDR3-1600, both with 7-7-7-20 latencies. The Command Rate parameter in both cases was set to 1T - fortunately, with high-speed DDR3 memory, this choice is acceptable.

Synthetic tests

First of all, it was decided to evaluate the practical parameters of the memory subsystems of various platforms using synthetic tests.

As expected, the synthetic tests unanimously demonstrate the superiority in throughput and latency of the Socket AM3 platform. In other words, from the new platform that allows the use of DDR3-1333 and DDR3-1600, we can only expect a performance boost.

It should be added to the above that, as an additional test showed, the performance of the Socket AM3 processor memory controller installed in a Socket AM2+ system with DDR2 memory is identical to the performance of the memory controller of "native" Socket AM2+ processors (provided that the built-in northern bridge). In other words, the versatility of the memory controller in Socket AM3 processors does not reduce its performance when working with DDR2 SDRAM.

Overall Performance

The results obtained in SYSMark 2007, which shows the weighted average performance in real applications, confirm the benefits of the new platform. However, they do not give grounds for excessive optimism. As you can see, switching to DDR3 SDRAM increases the speed of the system based on the Phenom II X4 810 processor quite symbolically. Thus, the superiority of a Socket AM3 system equipped with DDR3-1600 SDRAM over a system with a Socket AM2+ processor and DDR2-1067 memory is only 3-4%.

Gaming Performance

Although games usually show good sensitivity to changes in the characteristics of the memory subsystem, switching to DDR3 does not bring a serious gain. However, it must be emphasized that this does not at all mean the acceptability of a completely disregarding approach when choosing memory. For example, betting on DDR3-1600 SDRAM instead of DDR2-800 can increase platform performance by up to 10%. Therefore, the appearance of the Socket AM3 platform and processors with a universal memory controller cannot be called a useless step. By now, DDR3 memory has received sufficient development so that its advantages over DDR2 cannot be doubted. And this means that AMD was obviously not in vain waiting to launch its new platform.

Although video encoding is primarily a computational task, fast DDR3 memory provides a slight speedup in this case too.

Tellingly, the advantage of the Socket AM3 platform over Socket AM2+ is evident even in the final rendering, which is almost completely indifferent to the choice of memory.

Other Applications

When editing images in a popular graphics editor, the type of memory has a distinct effect. Even when using the most common DDR3-1333 memory, we were able to get higher speeds than demonstrated by a Socket AM2+ system with DDR2-1067 SDRAM.

With the transition to a new platform, the speed of solving computational problems in Excel and Mathematica has slightly increased. The advantage of a Socket AM3 system with DDR3-1600 memory over a configuration using Socket AM2+ and DDR2-1067 SDRAM was almost 3%.

Approximately on a similar scale, the speed of the archiver also increases.

Summing up, we can say that the Socket AM3 platform makes it possible to speed up the execution of typical tasks by Phenom II X4 processors by an average of 2-3%. Today, against the background of the difference in prices between DDR2 and DDR3 modules, this increase seems ridiculous. However, in the light of the trend of further fall in the cost of DDR3 SDRAM, the Socket AM3 platform has quite bright prospects.

AMD Phenom II X4 810 Performance

Despite the fact that the new AMD Phenom II X4 810 processor has a Socket AM3 design, we decided to test its performance, as well as the performance of other today's new products, in a Socket AM2 + system equipped with DDR2 memory. This is due to the fact that in the current realities, these processors belonging to the middle price range will most likely be used in such systems: this is the most logical option in terms of economic feasibility. In addition, DDR2 memory was also used in all other systems we tested, so the choice of the Socket AM2+ platform for the Phenom II X4 810 tests seems to be quite correct.

Overall Performance

Competent construction of a pricing policy is something that AMD has become particularly adept at lately. Therefore, it would be strange to see if any of the new processors looked inadequate among competitors in the same price category. So the slight superiority of the Phenom II X4 810 over the Core 2 Quad Q8200 is by no means surprising, but the more expensive Intel processor, the Core 2 Quad Q8300, is already too tough for today's main novelty.

Gaming Performance

Although the Phenom II processors began to show much better performance in games than their predecessors manufactured using 65-nm technology, we can't speak about the confident victory of the Phenom II X4 810 over the Core 2 Quad of the same price category. In order for the Phenom II X4 810 to receive our unequivocal recommendations as a gaming solution, it clearly lacks clock speed. However, the situation for the AMD processor is by no means catastrophic, and in a number of gaming applications its performance is quite acceptable.

Video encoding performance

But when encoding video Phenom II X4 810 manifests itself exclusively on the positive side. For example, when using the x264 codec, it can even compete on equal terms with the more expensive Core 2 Quad Q8300. This is explained, obviously, by the high efficiency of the FPU/SSE of the processor block with the Stars microarchitecture (K10).

Render performance

The general verdict with this type of load is hard to make. As you can clearly see from the graphs, everything depends heavily on the application that is used for rendering. Nevertheless, the Phenom II X4 810 does not hit the dirt, demonstrating decent results even in 3ds max 2009, where Intel processors are traditionally strong.

Other Applications

Adobe Photoshop and Microsoft Excel are two popular applications where Phenom II processors do a very poor job. This also applies to the Phenom II X4 810, which outperforms the Core 2 Quad Q8200 in our test tasks by 9 and 17 percent, respectively.

In Wolfram Mathematica 7, the results of the Phenom II X4 810 can be called acceptable, although they turn out to be slightly lower than those of the youngest processor in the Core 2 Quad series.

But when archiving in WinRAR, the new AMD processor manages to demonstrate a significantly higher relative performance than in previous cases.

Counting tasks, where integer arithmetic is actively used, are not the most favorable environment for processors with the Stars (K10) microarchitecture. The two diagrams above are a vivid illustration of this well-known thesis.

Overclocking

With the release of the Phenom II family, the topic of overclocking AMD processors has become relevant again. These processors, which are based on 45-nm cores, among other things, have received good overclocking potential: as shown by our earlier tests, these models, when using air cooling, are capable of operating at frequencies reaching 3.7-3.8 GHz. However, our conclusions were made for 900-series processors using full-fledged Deneb cores. Now we have a Phenom II X4 810 processor in our hands, which has a reduced L3 cache, and, moreover, a Socket AM3 design.

To study the overclocking potential of the new processor, we used the new Socket AM3 motherboard Gigabyte MA790FXT-UD5P. The use of this board will allow us, among other things, to draw conclusions about the suitability for overclocking of Socket AM3 platforms in general. CPU cooling during the tests was performed by a Scythe Mugen cooler with a Noctua NF-P12 fan installed on it.

We managed to get the best result by increasing the processor supply voltage from the standard 1.3 to 1.525 V. In this state, the processor overclocked to 3.64 GHz, which is quite comparable with the results of overclocking other Phenom II obtained earlier.

Note that since the Phenom II X4 810 processor does not belong to the Black Edition class and does not have a free multiplier, it was overclocked by increasing the frequency of the base clock generator. In particular, in order to obtain a processor frequency of 3.64 GHz, we had to increase the frequency of the clock generator to 280 MHz, which the Socket AM3 motherboard we use coped with without any problems. In other words, overclocking processors in Socket AM3 systems is absolutely similar to overclocking in systems with a Socket AM2+ processor socket and can be performed in full accordance with our guide.

As for the Phenom II X4 810 itself, its 40% overclocking can be an additional argument in favor of the AMD platform. Moreover, it is often possible to overclock comparable Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 processors only up to 3.4 GHz. And in this regard, a system built on the basis of Phenom II X4 810 can be quite attractive for overclockers.

conclusions

To be honest, AMD has chosen a somewhat strange moment to launch its new Socket AM3 platform, designed for processors with DDR3 memory support. For some reason, this platform did not appear a month ago, along with a new line of Phenom II processors, but only now. As a result, in view of the fact that older modifications of Phenom II are already offered in Socket AM2+ variations, models from the middle price range have to accompany the announcement of Socket AM3. However, these processors seem to be very poor candidates for installation in Socket AM3 motherboards: the DDR3 memory required for such systems is about one and a half to two times more expensive than the widely used DDR2 SDRAM, which makes it a dubious investment compared to the option of choosing a more expensive processor.

However, the main advantage of Socket AM3 processors lies in the fact that they are equipped with a flexible memory controller that can work with both DDR3 and DDR2 memory. Therefore, no one is forcing you to use the medium-priced Phenom II processors presented today in Socket AM3 systems in Socket AM3 systems. They also work great in existing, time-tested Socket AM2+ or even Socket AM2 infrastructure.

However, thanks to the testing of the new processor in the Socket AM3 motherboard, we were able to verify the viability of this platform as well. The use of DDR3 SDRAM with Phenom II processors has a quite tangible effect, consisting in about a three percent increase in performance even compared to DDR2-1067 SDRAM.

Fortunately, the lack of high-performance processors for the Socket AM3 platform is a temporary situation. Over the coming months, AMD will obviously adjust its proposals, and the new platform will receive decent high-speed processors. This period of time is given to motherboard manufacturers that obviously need it so that they can finally bring their Socket AM3 products to perfection.

As for the Phenom II X4 810 processor reviewed in this article, it should be taken as another embodiment of AMD's strategy to offer higher performance for less money. Testing showed that in terms of performance it is comparable to the Core 2 Quad Q8200, but at the same time it costs a little less. As a result, AMD has an acceptable alternative to all cheap quad-core Intel processors, up to the Core 2 Quad Q9400. In other words, AMD was able to take an important step - to offer a competitive line of processors that can be recommended for purchase.

To what has been said in this article, it only remains to add that we are not finishing our acquaintance with Phenom II yet, and in the near future we will have another article about new three-core processors based on the Heka core, produced using a 45-nm process technology.

Check availability and cost of AMD Phenom II processors

AMD Phenom II X2

The entire motley set of Phenom II processors is a vivid example of unification. The Phenom II X2 500 family reviewed today is already the fourth CPU variant that uses the same Deneb semiconductor chip, which was first used in the Phenom II X4 900 processors. Moreover, Phenom II X2 is, at first glance, one of the most irrational applications of the original four-core crystal, because in this case two whole cores are subjected to shutdown. However, on the other hand, the remaining dual-core CPU with a third-level cache is also an amazing example of prudence: thanks to Phenom II X2, AMD gets the opportunity to use chips with multiple defective blocks.

The resulting "cut" was codenamed Callisto. On the Phenom II genealogical tree, it occupies an extreme position: even more stripped-down versions of its new quad-core crystal, manufactured using 45 nm technology, are not in AMD's plans.

It is easy to guess that due to the use of the same semiconductor crystal, the new Phenom II X2 500 inherited the main properties from their older counterparts. This primarily concerns their compatibility with Socket AM3 motherboards and the possibility of using high-speed DDR3 memory. Naturally, like for all other Phenom II, the possibility of installing new dual-core processors in Socket AM2/AM2+ of the board is also preserved. In other words, the new dual-core Phenom II X2 can be used both to create new systems and to improve old ones.

At the same time, despite the fact that Phenom II X2 is essentially a by-product for AMD, the company treated the quantitative characteristics of this family quite responsibly. So, along with the fact that these processors have a 6 MB L3 cache (the same size as the representatives of the Phenom II X4 900 family), their clock frequencies are at a fairly high level. The older Phenom II X2 550 processor operates at a frequency of 3.1 GHz, which is only 100 MHz less than the frequency of the flagship of the entire Phenom II squadron, the Phenom II X4 955 processor. active cores is lower than the calculated heat dissipation of all other tri-core and quad-core Phenom II (with the exception of energy efficient models) - it is 80 watts.

In order to form a clear and complete picture of the position of dual-core new products in the ranks of other Phenom II processors, we have compiled a table with their main characteristics.

For testing, AMD sent us an older model of a new generation dual-core processor, the Phenom II X2 550. Its specific characteristics can be gleaned from a screenshot of the CPU-Z diagnostic program.

The utility, as we can see, shows that the code name of our processor is Deneb, which, of course, is not inherently wrong. But at the same time, it should be borne in mind that the quad-core crystal used in the basis of the Phenom II X2 550 with two disabled computing cores is called by AMD itself by its own code name Callisto.

Also, the screenshot shows that the Phenom II X2 550 processor belongs to the Black Edition class, that is, it has an unfixed multiplier, which means that it can be easily and easily overclocked. Considering the cost of this processor, which, according to official data, should be $102, the Phenom II X2 550 may well be a good option for low-cost overclocking platforms. Moreover, the new AMD processors, based on the 45 nm core, have a fairly good frequency potential.

The AMD Phenom II X2 550 is not the only processor in the Phenom II X2 500 series coming out today. At the same time, AMD also releases the 3 GHz Phenom II X2 545, which, like its twin brother, will compete with the Intel Core 2 Duo E7000 processors. However, before looking at the results of comparative tests, let's get acquainted with another dual-core novelty that AMD has prepared today.

AMD Athlon II X2

Judging by the characteristics, the Phenom II X2 500 series processors should be a very good deal in the "about $100" price category. However, the release of such processors is a very expensive pleasure for AMD. The die area of this CPU can be compared with the area of the die used in Intel's flagship processors of the Core i7 family, which means that their cost of production Phenom II X2 500 is relatively high. From this it is obvious that the birth of the Phenom II X2 500 series owes only to the desire of AMD to usefully attach defective quad-core Deneb crystals. To sacrifice full-fledged quad-core crystals for dual-core AMD processors, most likely, if it does, then with great reluctance. Simply put, AMD's ability to bring the Phenom II X2 500 to market is very limited, and these processors are unlikely to be able to fully solve all the company's problems with mid-range dual-core processors.

Therefore, it is not at all surprising that along with the Phenom II X2, AMD also introduces another processor - the Athlon II X2, which, although similar in characteristics, is based on the much cheaper Regor core. The main differences between Regor and Deneb lie on the surface: this semiconductor chip contains only a couple of processing cores, and in addition, to further reduce the area and reduce costs, it also lacks a third-level cache. Architecturally, the Athlon II X2 cores do not differ from the Phenom II X2 processor cores: they use an absolutely identical K10 (Stars) microarchitecture that does not differ in any details. The only change made by AMD engineers is an increase in the amount of cache belonging to each L2 computing core from 512 KB to 1024 KB, which, obviously, should somehow compensate for the lack of a shared L3 cache in the Regor core.

As a result, the total area of the Regor semiconductor chip is 117.5 square mm, which is more than half the area of the Deneb core. And this value roughly corresponds to the area of the cores of dual-core Intel processors belonging to the Core 2 Duo E8000 family, which are also manufactured using a 45-nm process technology. However, it should be borne in mind that in this case, Intel processors are much more “complex”: they consist of approximately 410 million transistors, while the number of transistors in a Regor semiconductor crystal reaches only 234 million. That is why modern dual-core Intel processors based on Wolfdale cores have a 6 MB L2 cache, while Athlon II X2 cores of similar size have only 2 MB L2 cache in total.

AMD's custom-engineered Regor dual-core design semiconductor die, among other things, lowers the heat and power consumption bar. The dual-core Phenom II X2 500 processors based on the Deneb core have an estimated heat dissipation of 80W, while the TDP of the Athlon II X2 processors based on the Regor core is reduced to 65W. Therefore, AMD hopes that as a result of the introduction of the 45 nm process technology in the production of dual-core processors, they will be able to compete with Intel's offerings not only in terms of performance, but also in terms of economy.

At the same time, AMD wants to present the Athlon II X2 family as if it were a simpler and cheaper processor than the Phenom II X2 500. That is why the clock speeds of this family of processors will be lower, as well as the prices: for example, the older model Athlon II X2 250 has an official price of $87 - $15 cheaper than the Phenom II X2 550. However, looking at the differences between these processors, it is impossible It's unambiguous to say that the Athlon II X2 200 is at least somewhat inferior to the Phenom II X2 500. To make it clearer, let's compare the characteristics of the new dual-core processors: the Phenom II X2 500 series and the Athlon II X2 200.

In our opinion, both families of processors are dual-core solutions of the same class. And the fact that Athlon II X2 and Phenom II X2 are equally compatible with the new Socket AM3 platform makes all these low-cost processors an excellent locomotive for promoting this platform to the market, the interest in which, against the backdrop of lower prices for DDR3 SDRAM, will certainly only grow. Moreover, at present, inexpensive Socket AM3 motherboards based on the AMD 770 chipset appear on store shelves.

To explore the capabilities of the Athlon II X2 200 processors, today we will use the senior representative of this model range, the 3 GHz Athlon II X2 250. The characteristics of this particular processor can be seen in the CPU-Z screenshot below.

The diagnostic utility we are using is not yet familiar with the new Regor processor core. Nevertheless, it displays all the parameters correctly, and already now you can pay attention to the fact that the core stepping of the Athlon II X2 processor differs from the stepping of the Callisto core used in Phenom II X2, which again emphasizes their different origin.

AMD Athlon II X2 Cache

Considering that the only fundamental innovation made in the cores of the Athlon II X2 processor family was a change in the cache memory scheme, we decided to give it a little extra attention. As we found out in our review of the first Phenom II processors, when introducing a technological process with production standards of 45 nm, AMD engineers did not make any changes to the cache operation algorithms. As a result, Deneb-based Phenom II processor caches operate at exactly the same speed as first-generation Phenom processor caches. However, the Regor core may be fraught with some surprises, because the L2 cache has doubled in size in it.

Phenom II X2 (Callisto)

Athlon II X2 (Regor)

However, despite this, the L2 cache associativity remains the same: Athlon II X2, like Phenom II X2, uses a L2 cache with 16-channel associativity. This gives reason to expect approximate equality in the speed of the L2 cache for the Athlon II X2 and Phenom II X2 processors. The advantage of the more capacious Athlon II X2 L2 cache will be a higher probability of data getting into it.

In practice, it looks like this.

Phenom II X2 545 (3.0 GHz). Note that Everest incorrectly defines the codename for this processor.

Athlon II X2 250 (3.0 GHz)

As expected, in real measurements we got approximately the same L2 cache speeds both for processors with the Deneb core and for new products with the Regor core. The Athlon II X2 memory subsystem turned out to be slightly faster, which can be explained by the absence of overhead costs associated with the need to search for data in the third level cache.

Description of test systems

To fully test the new dual-core Callisto and Regor processors, we decided to compare them not only with competing Intel offerings, but also with their predecessors offered by AMD, although they belong to a slightly different price segment. Therefore, in preparing this material, we had to use three different platforms.

1. Socket AM3 platform:

Processors:

AMD Phenom II X3 710 (Heka, 2.6 GHz, 3 x 512 KB L2, 6 MB L3);
AMD Phenom II X2 550 (Callisto, 3.1 GHz, 2 x 512 KB L2, 6 MB L3);
AMD Athlon II X2 250 (Regor, 3.9 GHz, 2 x 1024 KB L2).

Motherboard: Gigabyte MA790FXT-UD5P (Socket AM3, AMD 790FX + SB750, DDR3 SDRAM).
Memory: Mushkin 996601 4GB XP3-12800 (2 x 2 GB, DDR3-1600 SDRAM, 7-7-7-20).

2. Socket AM2 platform:

Processors:

AMD Athlon X2 7850 (Kuma, 2.8 GHz, 2 x 512 KB L2, 2 MB L3);
AMD Athlon X2 6000 (Brisbane, 3.1GHz, 2 x 512KB L2);
AMD Athlon X2 6000 (Windsor, 3.0 GHz, 2 x 1024 KB L2).

Gigabyte MA790GP-DS4H (Socket AM2+, AMD 790GX + SB750, DDR2 SDRAM).

3. LGA775 platform:

Processors:

Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 (Wolfdale, 2.93GHz, 1067MHz FSB, 3MB L2);
Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 (Wolfdale, 2.8GHz, 1067MHz FSB, 3MB L2);
Intel Pentium E6300 (Wolfdale-2M, 2.8 GHz, 1067 MHz FSB, 2 MB L2);
Intel Pentium E5400 (Wolfdale-2M, 2.7 GHz, 800 MHz FSB, 2 MB L2).

Motherboards:

ASUS P5Q Pro (LGA775, Intel P45 Express, DDR2 SDRAM);
ASUS P5Q3 (LGA775, Intel P45 Express, DDR3 SDRAM).

Memory: GEIL GX24GB8500C5UDC (2 x 2GB, DDR2-1067 SDRAM, 5-5-5-15)

In addition to the listed components, all tested platforms included the same general set of hardware and software components:

Graphics card: ATI Radeon HD 4890.
Hard drive: Western Digital WD1500AHFD.
Operating system: Microsoft Windows Vista x64 SP1.
Drivers:

Intel Chipset Software Installation Utility 9.1.0.1007;
ATI Catalyst 9.5 Display Driver.

It should be noted that within the framework of this study, we considered it possible to use a full-fledged Socket AM3 platform equipped with DDR3 SDRAM to test relatively inexpensive AMD dual-core processors. This decision is explained by the significantly reduced prices for this type of memory and its active distribution on the market.

At the same time, we continue testing LGA775 processors in a system with DDR2 SDRAM, since the use of higher-frequency memory with CPUs of the Core 2 Duo and Pentium families, whose bus frequency does not exceed 1067 MHz, is impossible due to the limitations inherent in the logic sets used with them. Nevertheless, when overclocking LGA775 processors, where the use of memory operating at frequencies higher than 1067 MHz becomes possible, we replaced the above ASUS P5Q Pro board with a similar ASUS P5Q3, but equipped with slots for DDR3 SDRAM.

The evolution of AMD dual-core processors

AMD dual-core processors have a rich history: the first CPUs under the Athlon X2 trademark were released back in 2005. And, surprisingly, many subspecies of AMD dual-core processors released since that time remain interesting to this day and do not leave store shelves. Speaking of such age-old but relevant models, we first of all mean that among the Athlon X2 processors sold today, designed for use in Socket AM2 motherboards, there are representatives of the 5000 and 6000 series with the old K8 microarchitecture, released using technological processes with standards of 90 and 65 nm; and Athlon X2 7000 based on 65nm cores with K10 microarchitecture. Now Athlon II X2 and Phenom II X2 processors with modern 45-nm cores are added to them, but this does not mean at all that the old Athlon X2 will disappear overnight from retail offers. Dual-core CPUs based on the K8 microarchitecture continue to this day even on the official price list.

Therefore, it is very easy to trace the evolutionary development of AMD dual-core processors: most of the representatives of different generations of Athlon X2 have not become a part of history yet. The following table contains the characteristics of the main cores used in CPUs compatible with the current Socket AM2 processor socket.

What has brought AMD such a multi-stage improvement of its products, which are, in fact, part of the same platform? Will the new Athlon II X2 and Phenom II X2 be much faster than the time-tested dual-core processors with 90 and 65 nm cores and K8 microarchitecture? Having asked this question, we tested all five varieties of processors listed above, forcibly setting them to the same clock frequency - 3.0 GHz.

Progress does not stand still. With each new core (with the exception of one - Brisbane), AMD consistently improved the performance of its own processors. And all this has led to the fact that today's pinnacle of evolution - the Phenom II X2 processors - are about 25% faster than the first Athlon X2 in Socket AM2 version, operating at the same clock frequency. At the same time, the most significant increase in speed occurred with the introduction of the K10 (Stars) microarchitecture, however, new products with 45-nm cores do not lose face. When operating at the same clock frequency, the new Athlon II X2 is able to outperform the Athlon X2 of the 7000 series based on the Kuma core by almost 7% on average, and Phenom II X2 increases this superiority to 11%.

In other words, the introduction of new 45nm dual-core processors not only opens up room for AMD to further increase clock speeds, but also raises the performance bar for mid-range processors through microarchitecture improvements and increased cache capacity.

Phenom II X2 vs Athlon II X2

Despite the fact that the underlying reasons for the emergence of two families of dual-core processors similar to each other are generally clear, the expediency of their simultaneous launch raises some questions. Comparison of test results between Phenom II X2 and Athlon II X2, operating in identical platforms and at the same clock frequency - 3.0 GHz, can help answer them.

In general, the Callisto core, which has a third-level cache, showed a higher result in the vast majority of tests. And this fully corresponds to how the manufacturer positions the new families of dual-core processors relative to each other: Phenom II X2 will cost potential buyers about 7-10% more than the equal frequency Athlon II X2.

In addition, the fact that the L3 cache of the Phenom II X2 processor has the greatest positive effect in games and office work looks quite interesting. It is in applications of this nature that it makes sense to use the Phenom II X2 500 series processors in the first place. When processing media content, rendering and other computing tasks, the presence of L3 cache provides a much smaller gain in performance, so in these cases cheaper processors of the Athlon II X2 family can boast a more favorable combination of price and performance.

The average advantage of the Phenom II X2 over its younger brother, running at the same clock frequency, is not very convincing 5%. And this means that the Athlon II X2, which has at least 200 MHz higher frequency, will already overtake the processor from the more expensive Phenom II X2 family. Therefore, in order to keep harmony in the positioning of products, AMD will have to carefully monitor the "purity of the series" of its new dual-core offers, and not allow too rapid growth of the nominal frequencies of processors in the Athlon II X2 model range.

Performance

Overall Performance

From the point of view of the SYSmark 2007 test, which assesses the performance of systems during normal operation, the new AMD processors look very, very tempting. So, Athlon II X2 250 outperforms Intel's novelty in the Pentium line with processor number E6300, and Phenom II X2 550 fights on equal terms even with Core 2 Duo E7500. That is, in both cases, the new AMD processors confidently outperform the competing Intel offerings, which have a higher cost. And in light of our recent comparison of Ahlon X2 and Pentium processors, we can say that thanks to the transfer to the 45nm process technology, AMD is really returning to the mid-range dual-core processor market.

However, as you can see, the new Athlon II X2 and Phenom II X2 processors pose a hidden threat to AMD's triple-core processors. Due to the high clock speed, these dual-core models are faster than the tri-core counterpart Phenom II X3 710, which, by the way, is positioned by AMD as a higher-level processor that competes with the Intel Core 2 Duo E8000 series.

An analysis of the results shown by the novelties in various SYSmark 2007 scenarios allows us to draw some more interesting conclusions. For example, the ratio of CPU speeds in the Productivity subtest suggests that for normal office work, a very important characteristic of the processor is the amount of its cache memory, the amount of which is often more significant than the clock frequency. But when working with video content, the Athlon II X2 250 processor without L3 cache shows even higher speed than Phenom II X2 550. Another interesting case is work in 3D modeling programs. In such tasks, despite the general lag in other scenarios, Intel processors show themselves with a strong side, overtaking not only the dual-core AMD novelties, but even the tri-core CPU of the new generation Phenom II X3 710.

Gaming Performance

AMD's new dual-core processors perform quite well in games as well. This is especially true for the Phenom II X2 550, which, thanks to its L3 cache, outperforms not only the Pentium E6300 and Core 2 Duo E7400, but also the Core 2 Duo E7500. This makes the Phenom II X2 550 an excellent low-cost dual-core gaming processor. As for the Athlon II X2 250, its performance in gaming applications turned out to be paler than that of its older brother. However, it outperforms its 65 nm predecessor, the Athlon X2 7850, by 13-17%. True, the new Athlon II X2 250 still falls short of the performance level of Core 2 Duo processors.

In addition, it should be noted that many modern games can already effectively use more than two processor cores. That is why the tri-core Phenom II X3 710 running at 2.6 GHz can in some cases offer better performance than dual-core 3 GHz CPUs with the same microarchitecture.

Audio and video encoding performance

Encoding mp3 audio in Apple iTunes is much faster if the heart of the system is an Intel processor. Here, neither the increased cache nor the K10 microarchitecture (Stars) helps the new AMD dual-core processors. But when encoding video using the DivX codec, and using the increasingly popular x264, the Athlon II X2 and Phenom II X2 processors can boast of relatively good speed. In fact, thanks to the clock frequency that has finally reached a decent level, the new products may well compete for the palm with representatives of the Core 2 Duo E7000 series. By the way, please note that the tasks of encoding media content are among such applications that are quite indifferent to the size and structure of the cache memory. And it is the clock frequency that plays the decisive role here.

Other Applications

We have repeatedly drawn attention to the relatively low performance of AMD processors when performing final rendering, especially in the popular 3ds max package. With the advent of new 45-nm cores in AMD processors, the situation has not changed. The oldest of today's novelties, Phenom II X2 550, can only boast that its performance has reached the level of performance of the budget processor Intel Pentium E5400. It's a shame to talk about the younger Athlon II X2. Thus, in this case, only three-core AMD processors can compete with Core 2 Duo.

Though [email protected] also applies to computational tasks, the results of the new AMD dual-core processors are slightly better here. The Athlon II X2 250 performs on par with the Pentium E5400, while the Phenom II X2 550 is up to the Core 2 Duo E7400 in speed.

When performing arithmetic calculations using Microsoft Excel, the new AMD dual-core processors continue to show depressing speed. Just like in 3ds max, only tri-core Phenom II X3 can become a worthy alternative to dual-core Intel processors today.

Things are not going well in Adobe Photoshop either. As you can see from the results, the new dual-core Phenom II X2 and Athlon II X2 processors are not always able to solve AMD's performance problems with mid-range processors. A fairly large number of popular tasks remain, where AMD products are significantly inferior to Intel processors, and the roots of this state of affairs lie in the weaknesses of the K10 (Stars) microarchitecture. It is especially annoying that there is no hope for correcting the situation in such applications in the foreseeable future.

On the other hand, new processors built on cores manufactured according to the 45-nm process technology can boast of high data compression speed in archivers. The test results in WinRAR are a vivid illustration of this. Even the Athlon II X2 250 is ahead of the Core 2 Duo processors of the E7000 series. The Phenom II X2 550, in comparison with its younger brother, demonstrates another 11% higher result.

Energy consumption

Previous testing has shown that AMD's offerings based on 65nm cores cannot compete with modern dual-core Intel processors. It seems that AMD's release of the new CPU Phenom II X2 and Athlon II X2 series is quite capable of turning this situation around, because these new processors use obviously more economical semiconductor crystals manufactured using the 45-nm process technology. This is especially true for the Athlon II X2, since it is based on the new Regor core with a significantly reduced complexity. In addition, for this processor, AMD itself specifies a 65-W typical heat dissipation level - the same as Intel sets for its dual-core models.

That is why we approached testing the power consumption of AMD's new products with particular interest. The figures below represent the total power consumption of the test platforms assembly (without monitor) "from the outlet". During the measurements, the load on the processors was created by the 64-bit version of the LinX 0.5.8 utility. In addition, to correctly assess idle power consumption, we activated all available energy-saving technologies: C1E, Cool "n" Quiet 3.0 and Enhanced Intel SpeedStep.

Despite AMD's best efforts to reduce the power consumption of its platforms and the introduction of Cool "n" Quiet 3.0 technology, which introduces additional power-saving states for 45nm processors, systems built on dual-core Intel processors remain slightly more economical.

We see approximately the same picture under load: Pentium and Core 2 Duo processors consume clearly less than the new dual-core models from AMD. Unfortunately, in terms of performance per watt, AMD has not been able to catch up with the competitor's products. At the same time, the trend towards the fact that the power consumption of AMD processors is gradually entering acceptable limits cannot be overlooked. The consumption of the Phenom II X2 550, which, by the way, is built on an initially quad-core semiconductor chip, turned out to be almost 20 W less than that of the dual-core processor of the previous generation, the Athlon X2 7850.

But the consumption of the platform with the Athlon II X2 250 processor is much more impressive. The 65-watt thermal package was assigned to it for good reason. Under load, the power consumption of a platform with this processor is only 10 W higher than that of a system built on the Core 2 Duo E7500. This means that in terms of electrical characteristics Athlon II X2 250 can be compared with the Core 2 Duo E8000 series, which is a significant achievement for AMD.

Nevertheless, for the time being, there is no need to talk about any particular success of AMD in creating dual-core processors that are efficient in terms of performance and power consumption ratio. However, so far AMD has not exhausted all its possibilities. In the near future, the company is going to introduce even more economical dual-core processors based on the Regor core, which differ from the Athlon II X2 250 considered today by a lower TDP of 45 W.

Overclocking

Another aspect of the practical study of the new AMD dual-core processors that we could not leave aside is overclocking. The fact is that the emergence of new cores, the production of which uses a technological process with production standards of 45 nm, has returned the interest of enthusiasts to AMD products. The new Phenom II class processors began to overclock very well, especially in comparison with their predecessors. And although we know that the overclocking limit for processors based on the Deneb core and its derivatives when using air cooling is in the region of 3.7-3.8 GHz, we tried to overclock the Phenom II X2 550 and Athlon II X2 instances that ended up in our laboratory. 550. As a cooler in our experiments, we used a relatively old, but well-proven Scythe Mugen.

First of all, the Phenom II X2 550 went to the test bench. Note that this processor belongs to the Black Edition class, and therefore it can be overclocked by simply changing the multiplier, which is not blocked by the manufacturer.

To be honest, we didn't expect overclocking results from this processor that were significantly different from those we got when testing the Phenom II X3 and Phenom II X4. But, nevertheless, this processor could surprise us a lot. The fact is that when the supply voltage was increased by 0.15 V above the nominal value (up to 1.475 V), it was able to function at a frequency of 3.98 GHz. The stability of work in this mode was confirmed by testing with the help of the LinX utility, which severely loads the processor by executing the Linpack code.

This is a very unexpected result, running counter to the achievements that we managed to get earlier when overclocking AMD processors based on Deneb and Heka cores. However, unfortunately, the joy was short-lived, and as further performance testing showed, despite passing many "heavy" processor tests in this mode, the system turned out to be unstable in 3D applications, including games.

Therefore, we had to reduce the achieved frequency and quite a lot. The Phenom II X2 550 could only boast of unconditionally stable operation at a frequency of 3.8 GHz.

As you can see from the screenshot, the CPU supply voltage was increased to 1.475 V. The second processor voltage, related to CPU NB, did not change during overclocking, since even its increase did not allow increasing the frequency of the north bridge built into the processor above the standard 2.0 GHz. Already at 2.2 GHz, the test processor started having memory problems. As a result, despite a promising start, the Phenom II X2 550 processor behaved almost the same as its older brothers. Obviously, the use of the same semiconductor crystal as in Phenom II X3 and Phenom II X4 predetermined the overclocking results of this processor.

Another thing is the Athlon II X2 250. This processor is based on a truly unique semiconductor core, which is not yet used in any other processors. And since this core has a smaller area and less calculated heat dissipation, we can expect certain surprises from it in terms of overclocking.

However, we did not obtain fundamentally different results. With a voltage increase of 0.175 V (to 1.5 V), this processor was able to work stably at a frequency of 3.9 GHz - and this turned out to be the limit.

Note that, since the Athlon II X2 250 does not belong to the Black Edition class, it was overclocked by increasing the clock generator frequency, which as a result reached 260 MHz. Here, by the way, the lack of an L3 cache in the processor played into our hands: thanks to this, the Athlon II X2 250 reacted quite calmly to the acceleration of the north bridge built into it, and we did not even have to reduce the corresponding multiplier. The result of overclocking was an increase in its frequency to 2.6 GHz, with which it coped well with a slight increase in its supply voltage by 0.1 V.

As a result, the Athlon II X2 250 turned out to be a slightly more overclock-friendly processor than its older brother, the Phenom II X2 550, even though it does not belong to the Black Edition overclocker series. Of course, it is too early to draw any conclusions based on the results of the study of the first specimens, but it seems that the Regor core does indeed have a slightly better frequency potential than Deneb and its derivatives - Heka and Callisto.

We would like to supplement what has been said with a small number of tests. The fact is that after overclocking we wanted to compare the performance of Phenom II X2 550 and Athlon II X2 250 with each other, as well as with the performance of dual-core Intel processors, also operating in freelance mode. Therefore, the charts below contain performance figures for the following overclocked processors:

AMD Phenom II X2 550 at 3.8 GHz = 19 x 200 MHz. Memory – DDR3 1600 with 7-7-7-20 timings;
AMD Athlon II X2 250 at 3.9 GHz = 15 x 260 MHz. Memory – DDR3 1386 with 6-6-6-18 timings;
Intel Pentium E5400 at 4.0 GHz = 12 x 333 MHz. Memory – DDR3 1333 with 6-6-6-18 timings;
Intel Pentium E7400 at 4.0 GHz = 10 x 400 MHz. Memory - DDR3 1600 with 7-7-7-20 timings.

Note that the overclocking frequency of 4.0 GHz for Intel processors was chosen as the most typical result, easily achievable with air cooling.

Performance tests have shown that dual-core Intel processors are more attractive solutions for use in overclocked systems. Even compared to AMD's new 45nm processors, they are able to offer better overclocking potential, higher overall frequencies and, as a result, faster performance in overclocked systems. However, the situation for AMD processors is not so dramatic, and often the gap in the speed of platforms is not so big. So given that overclocking is a bit of a lottery, we don't think enthusiasts should give up on AMD's new dual-core offerings.

At the same time, it is rather difficult to choose the best option for overclocking from the reviewed AMD products even after getting acquainted with the tests. Despite the fact that we managed to increase the frequency of the Athlon II X2 250 more than the Phenom II X2 550, it could not demonstrate a clear better result. After all, the L3 cache available in the Phenom II X2 is in some cases much more important than a high clock frequency.

Enabling Locked Cores

It seems that there is no need to remind our readers in detail of the main pleasant surprise that accompanied the release of the Phenom II X3 tri-core processors. Since these processors were based on the same quad-core semiconductor die as their Phenom II X4 family brethren, it suddenly turned out that there was an undocumented possibility to enable a deactivated core and turn a 3-core processor into a quad-core one. Moreover, what is especially pleasant, this procedure does not require any hardware modifications, it is enough to activate the BIOS option responsible for the Advanced Clock Calibration (ACC) technology. Of course, the fourth core is not successfully enabled in all processors, but only in those based on a full-fledged semiconductor crystal without marriage. Fortunately, for the first batches of the Phenom II X3, the probability of getting a "successful" processor was quite high, and the trick with increasing the number of cores in the Phenom II X3 significantly increased the popularity of this AMD product.

Whether such a number will pass with dual-core processors is a question that worries many enthusiasts. Let's figure it out.

First of all, we must remind you that it makes sense to talk about enabling locked cores in dual-core processors only in relation to Phenom II X2. After all, its younger brother Athlon II X2 initially uses a dual-core core, in which there are no blocked parts.

Secondly, since the release of Phenom II X3, something has changed in the situation with the implementation of the Advanced Clock Calibration technology in the BIOS of many motherboards. AMD did not calmly look at the jubilation of enthusiasts and tried to get microcode updates from motherboard manufacturers so that the unlocking capabilities were eliminated. But, fortunately, AMD's desire was not satisfied by all companies. For example, the new BIOS versions of the Gigabyte MA790FXT-UD5P motherboard we use in our tests have received an additional option that allows you to choose which microcode version to use: a new one, without the ability to enable cores, or an old one.

This option is called EC Firmware for Advanced Clock Calibration, and setting it to Hybrid and then enabling Advanced Clock Calibration allows the cores to be enabled as before. And, to our great joy, we can report that this method works not only for the Phenom II X3, but also for the new Phenom II X2, too.

So, our copy of Phenom II X2 550 allowed us to activate both locked cores and in the blink of an eye turned into a full-fledged quad-core processor. Which, by the way, was immediately overclocked to 3.8 GHz.

In other words, the dual-core Phenom II X2 550 could easily be a high-speed quad-core processor. But it may not turn out - everything here, of course, depends on which semiconductor crystal underlies a particular instance: fully functional with blocked cores, or still with marriage. Moreover, given the fact that AMD is going to sell its dual-core processors at very affordable prices, the probability of a favorable outcome of unlocking the cores in dual-core models seems extremely low to us. Most likely, successful instances of Phenom II X2 processors will come across quite often only in the first deliveries. Therefore, if you are seriously hoping to get a "happy" dual-core, then we recommend not to delay the purchase.

In addition, we should not forget that in order to successfully unlock the Phenom II X2, you need not only a good processor, but also a suitable motherboard with the ability to enable “old-style” ACC, the number of which is steadily declining under pressure from AMD.

By the way, it should be noted that the unlocked Phenom II X2 is still different from the real Phenom II X4. Firstly, it is defined by the motherboard as a processor unknown to science called Phenom II X4 B50. And, secondly, just as in the case of three-core processors, unlocking the cores leads to the inoperability of processor thermal sensors.

conclusions

Unfortunately, we still cannot say that AMD has managed to unconditionally outperform its main competitor in any way. But this does not mean at all that the new dual-core processors have failed. On the contrary, against the background of their predecessors Phenom II X2 and Athlon II X2 look more than revolutionary. If earlier dual-core AMD processors could be opposed only to junior representatives of the budget Intel Pentium series, and even then with certain reservations, now we can say that quite worthy dual-core processors have appeared among AMD's proposals, closing the price category from $80 to $100.

Among the new products, the Phenom II X2 processors look especially attractive, which several times during the testing caused us exclamations of admiration. Among the main positive points, one should note the high (for their price) performance of these processors in games, office applications and video encoding, as well as the existing non-zero probability of unlocking two additional cores. These qualities make the Phenom II X2 a very attractive proposition, even despite the relatively high power consumption for dual-core processors and not the best overclocking results. In other words, thanks to the Phenom II X2, AMD has a real chance to squeeze some models of competing processors from the Core 2 Duo family on the market.

However, a certain concern is the availability of these models. The use of quad-core Deneb semiconductor crystals in their basis makes the production of such dual-core chips an unprofitable event for AMD. Therefore, most likely, for their manufacture, rejection from the release of three-core and four-core processors will be mainly used. This means that Phenom II X2 supply volumes will not directly depend on demand, but on the quality of the 45-nm process technology and production volumes of older processor models. That is why you should be mentally prepared for the fact that there will be some shortage of Phenom II X2 on the market, which will lead to an undesirable price increase.

The role of a truly massive dual-core solution, AMD assigns to another family of processors - Athlon II X2. And it has noticeable weaknesses in comparison with Phenom II X2. These processors use their own Regor dual-core semiconductor chip, devoid of L3 cache. As a result, the performance of Athlon II X2 in a number of applications is significantly lower. In fact, we can even say that processors of this type can compete only with the older representatives of the Pentium series, but not with the younger Core 2 Duo. Besides, Athlon II X2 doesn't bring any gifts like the ability to activate locked cores.

However, compared to the previous generation Athlon X2, the new Athlon II X2 family is still a huge step forward. These processors offer good overclocking potential, much lower power consumption and, of course, increased performance. At the same time, it is obvious that AMD is not going to stop there, and the Athlon II X2 series will soon be further developed both in the direction of increasing clock frequencies and in the direction of reducing power consumption and heat dissipation.

And, of course, we can't deny the fact that to promote the Phenom II X2 and Athlon II X2, as well as all its other processors built on 45 nm cores, AMD has chosen an extremely attractive pricing policy from a consumer point of view. It obeys a very simple rule: any Phenom II and Athlon II models currently offer higher average performance than similarly priced Intel processors.

phenom b-series processors. Processors. Test stand configuration

Introduction

Phenom vs Core 2

Return of AMD Phenom II

What is the ideal frequency for the Phenom?

AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition (BE)

Phenom II Models

Flexible CPU selection

Overclocking and power consumption

Platform: Jetway HA07 Ultra based on AMD 790GX chipset

Diversity

Specifications

Branded sets

junior relative

Reviews

Average fellow

The Phenom II Family: Species Diversity

Socket AM3 platform

Processor Phenom II X4 810

Impact of L3 cache size on performance

Motherboard Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P

How We Tested

Performance: DDR3 vs DDR2

AMD Phenom II X4 810 Performance

Overclocking

conclusions

Other materials on this topic

AMD Phenom II X2

AMD Athlon II X2

AMD Athlon II X2 Cache

Description of test systems

The evolution of AMD dual-core processors

Phenom II X2 vs Athlon II X2

Performance

Energy consumption

Overclocking

Enabling Locked Cores

conclusions

Other materials on this topic