Compatibility of Socket AM2, AM2+, AM3 and AM3+ processor sockets

Socket AM3+
Socket AM3+ is a continuation of Socket AM3, mechanically and electrically compatible with Socket AM3 (despite the slightly larger number of contacts - 942, it may also be called SocketAM3b in some sources). Designed to support new AMD processors based on the Zambezi core with the Bulldozer architecture (for example, AMD FX 8150). Socket AM3+ is compatible with Socket AM3 processors and coolers for Socket AM2/AM3.

Socket AM3
Socket AM3 is a further development of Socket AM2+, its main difference is the support of boards and processors with this type of DDR3 memory connector. Socket AM3 processors have a memory controller that supports both DDR2 and DDR3, so they can work in Socket AM2+ motherboards (processor compatibility must be checked on the CPU Support List on the motherboard manufacturer’s website), but the reverse situation is not possible, Socket AM2 and Socket AM2+ processors do not work in Socket AM3 boards.

Socket AM3 motherboards support DDR3 RAM with frequencies from 800 to 1333 MHz (including ECC). With currently produced Socket AM3 processors, memory type PC10600 will operate at a nominal frequency of 1333 MHz only if one module is installed per channel, and when two modules are installed on each channel of the memory controller (when a total of three or four memory modules are installed), their frequency is forced down to 1066 MHz. Registered memory is not supported; ECC (non-Registered) memory is only supported by Phenom II processors for this socket. The memory architecture is dual-channel, so to achieve optimal performance it is necessary to install two or four (preferably identical in pairs) memory modules in accordance with the instructions for the motherboard.

Socket AM2+
Socket AM2+ is an upgraded version of Socket AM2. The differences are support for HyperTransport 3.0 technology with frequencies up to 2.6 GHz and improved power circuits.
Basically, all Socket AM2 processors work great in all Socket AM2+ motherboards (there are exceptions due to the individual technical features of some motherboards). Socket AM2 motherboards do not all support Socket AM2+ processors (compatibility in each specific case must be checked on the motherboard manufacturer's website), secondly, reducing the HyperTransport frequency leads to a noticeable drop in processor performance compared to motherboards Socket boards AM2+. Also, when using Phenom Socket AM2+ processors, the boards allow you to use DDR2 RAM (for example, PC-8500) at the rated frequency without overclocking (when installing one module per channel).

Introduction

Enthusiasts have been eagerly awaiting the release of AMD's new platform, called "AM2", for several weeks now. Rumors and speculation about her flourished. But now it's time to welcome the new platform in all its glory. In addition to the processor, the socket, cooler, chipset and memory were updated. Following in the footsteps of Socket 940, Socket 939 and 754, Socket AM2 is the fourth generation of the Hammer architecture, which came to market in 2002. AMD hasn't always changed platforms quickly. Its longtime competitor Intel, which is often accused of changing too quickly, released two platforms in the same period.

A large assortment of processors has been released for the new Socket AM2 platform: a total of seventeen varieties for different market segments. They are produced at the new Fab 36 plant in Dresden using a 90 nm process technology, but on 300 mm wafers. By the end of the year, it is planned to introduce a 65-nm process technology.

So what are these processors? Standard Athlon 64 X2, Sempron for students or exclusive and mysterious Athlon 64 FX-62? Prices start at $70 for the Sempron 64 2800+ and end at $1200 for the Athlon 64 FX-62. Mid-level processors will cost from $300 to $600. The price structure makes it clear: generation AMD processors already mature and at prices is at the same level as Intel. The previous “freebie”, when AMD processors cost 30% less than those with similar performance from Intel, has already ended. In addition, it is very interesting which processor will be preferred by the public interested in extreme performance? For now, this is definitely a processor from the Athlon FX line. After the release of the first Athlon 64 FX processor, AMD began to lead in this area, but Intel Pentium Extreme Edition literally breathing down my neck.

With the exception of the updated memory interface, technically nothing has changed. The top model Athlon 64 FX-62 now runs at 2.8 GHz and uses two cores. New models Athlon 64 X2 5000+ and Athlon 64 4000+ have appeared. But the maximum clock speed of the cores has now reached its limit, as tests in our laboratory show.

Today, the topic of energy efficiency is constantly discussed - how much performance does the processor provide for each watt expended? In this regard, AMD has been a leader for a long time, and now, it seems, it will remain. In addition to “normal” processors, special energy-saving Athlon and Sempron models with the suffix “EE” appeared. But you will have to pay extra to save energy: EE processors are more expensive.

In principle, the transition from the Socket 939 platform to AM2 can hardly be called necessary. It is rather driven by the desire to avoid confusion and mixing of processors. Chipsets are again supplied not by AMD, but by partners: ATi, nVidia, SiS and VIA. The nVidia nForce5 chipset is at the forefront, offering a set of advanced technologies that are superior to Intel in some areas.

New Socket AM2 with DDR2

Now AMD processors have also switched to DDR2 memory, almost two years after Intel. AMD chose the timing very well, since the market today is flooded with inexpensive DDR memory 2.

But AMD took a different path: unlike Intel platforms The memory interface is integrated into the processor, so simply changing the chipset is no longer enough to migrate to a new platform. Moving the memory interface from the northbridge to the processor leads to the following problems:

• you need to change the processor core;
• a new socket is required.

The question arises: why did AMD wait until now to introduce DDR2 technology? We see three possible reasons.

• DDR2 memory was very expensive at the time of its introduction, so the AMD platform would have been less attractive compared to Intel.
• Memory manufacturers have now begun to produce DDR2 modules with sufficient high speeds, so that the platform will no longer suffer performance degradation due to high DDR2 memory latencies.
• Integration of the DDR2 interface into a processor was not previously possible due to too high cost or limitations on the number of transistors.

What does DDR2 memory provide?

In theory, the throughput of DDR2 modules available today is up to twice that of conventional DDR modules (now often called DDR1). DDR-400 modules for Socket 939 processors, for example, provide a theoretical throughput of 6.4 GB/s (two channels). The AM2 processor with a DDR2 memory interface and modules with a frequency of 400 MHz (DDR2-800) receives a theoretical 12.8 GB/s.

But if we compare the theoretical values ​​with what we get in practice, the old Socket 939 platform with DDR1 memory looks fantastic. At a theoretical 6.2 GB/s, the integrated memory controller in practice squeezes up to 97% of the bandwidth of DDR1 modules. When we started testing, we immediately realized: if new interface DDR2 can achieve the same efficiency, then the new AM2 platform is truly ready for a performance boost.

Memory Speed: Socket AM2 vs Socket 939

AMD decided to integrate the memory controller into the processor to ensure it runs at full CPU frequency and achieve much more high performance than through the northbridge interface and the slow bus. At least in theory. Indeed, in the case of Socket 939 and memory, a miracle happened: at processor frequencies from 2 GHz (Athlon 64 X2 3200+) to 2.8 GHz (Athlon 64 FX-57), memory writing and reading speeds practically do not change.

To analyze memory speed, we used a synthetic test: version 2.80.575 Beta of the Everest diagnostic utility. This benchmark program provided consistent and repeatable results that were not affected by dual cores or Hyper-Threading technology.

Reading speed

With the DDR2 memory interface, reality no longer matches the theory: read speeds change from 6.4 to 8.1 GB/s at the same processor frequencies as with DDR1 memory. The spread is approximately 21%.

Only at clock speeds of 2.6 GHz and above does memory interface performance improve. This is due to the very poor CAS latency (CL4.0) of DDR2 memory compared to DDR1 (CL2.0). The Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (2.6 GHz) reaches 7.6 GB/s, and the Athlon 64 FX-62 at 2.8 GHz shows a top-end throughput of 8.1 GB/s.

Write speed

As for the recording speed, the situation here is even worse. Write speed on CPUs with low clock speeds really lags. With the 2 GHz Athlon 64 X2 3200+ processor, memory bandwidth is 200 MB/s lower than with DDR1 memory: only 5.6 GB/s. Only high clock frequencies - 2.4 GHz and higher - allow you to increase the write speed to a level higher than the “old” DDR1 memory.

The strong dependence of DDR2 memory speed on processor frequency leads to a significant loss in performance of mid-range processors compared to the DDR1 platform. This is reflected in the results of our test applications.

Memory Speed: Socket AM2 vs Socket 939, continued

As with DDR1, the processor supports the Command Rate (CR) 1T. But even in reality high voltage The system could not work stably.

AMD sent a test system to the THG laboratory with DDR2-800 memory and CL4.0-4-4-8 latencies. The memory modules were manufactured by Corsair, and they are not sold in stores.

DDR1 modules with low latency will not surprise anyone today, and they are relatively cheap. But if you want to get the same performance on a DDR2 system with AMD processors, you'll have to shell out a lot of money.

As you can see, in practice the bandwidth of DDR2 memory is scanty. If AMD can only compete with older DDR1 memory with specially selected DDR2 modules, then something is wrong here.

Memory Speed: AMD vs Intel

If we compare the practical throughput of the integrated AMD memory controller and the Intel northbridge, then AMD is not doing so well. The Intel memory interface operates at a constant frequency of 200/266 MHz and, regardless of the processor frequency, almost always shows the same values ​​of 6.3 GB/s (200 MHz) and 8.4 GB/s (266 MHz).

The memory interface in processors must work much faster to provide such performance.

The bottom line is this: switching to DDR2 memory erases the advantage of a faster memory interface in the processor.

Multiplier problem

The DDR2 memory speed that we set, for example 736 MHz for the Athlon 64 X2 4400+, was not chosen randomly, but was set by the processor.

If we look at the operation of the DDR1 interface of the old Socket 939 platform, we will see that the processor converts the CPU frequency using a multiplier to obtain the correct memory frequency. The built-in memory interface used DDR400 (200 MHz) from the very beginning.

Athlon 64 X2 4200+: 2200 MHz/11 = 200 MHz (DDR400)

Athlon 64 X2 3200+: 2000 MHz/10 = 200 MHz (DDR400)

It is for this reason that AMD only sells processors with frequencies that are multiples of 200 MHz.

When switching to DDR2, AMD encountered a problem: DDR2-800 has a clock frequency of 400 MHz, so it can no longer be taken so easily from the processor frequency.

But how should the processor react if the memory frequency cannot be obtained by an integer multiplier of the processor frequency?

AMD came up with a smart idea: let the multiplier give a different frequency, next after the JEDEC-compatible memory standard (400, 533, 667, 800). Examples:

Athlon 64 X2 4800+: 2400 MHz/6 = 400 MHz (DDR2-800)

Athlon 64 X2 4000+: 2000 MHz/5 = 400 MHz (DDR2-800)

Athlon 64 X2 5000+: 2600 MHz/7 = 371 MHz (DDR2-742)

Athlon 64 X2 4400+: 2200 MHz/6 = 366 MHz (DDR2-733)

As a result, we get very unusual clock speeds like DDR2-742 or DDR2-733. The choice of multiplier cannot be influenced or changed.

Therefore, it would be a good idea for performance-demanding users to arm themselves with a calculator before purchasing and see whether the processor frequency is divisible by 400 MHz without a remainder. The clock speed of the memory bus depends on the processor frequency. And in some applications, it may be that a processor clocked 200 MHz higher will run slower. Look at the example.

Athlon 64 X2 4200+: 2200 MHz with DDR2-733

Athlon 64 X2 4000+: 2000 MHz with DDR2-800

And if you add to the lower memory clock speed of a 2200 MHz processor the size of the L2 cache is halved compared to a 4000+ processor at 2000 MHz, you can’t help but scratch your head in bewilderment.

Below is an overview of all possible memory configurations at standard clock speeds.

Red memory frequencies are non-standard. They are selected next when moving down after the corresponding JEDEC standard, resulting in a drop in performance. Click on the picture to enlarge.

DDR2 SLI memory: 10.3 GB/s

The design of Socket AM2 processors takes into account the maximum clock speed of DDR2-800. Not the brightest prospect for overclockers, since there are already memory modules that operate at frequencies up to DDR2-1066. That's why AMD decided to work with nVidia to introduce the SLI memory feature. The name promises a lot, but the idea is very simple.

Special memory modules will appear in stores, the name of which will contain the addition “SLI”. For this purpose, nVidia and AMD have entered into a partnership agreement with Corsair. The technology is open, so other manufacturers will probably present their SLI modules. Corsair has announced that all XMS2 modules will support SLI in the future.

How does SLI memory work?

The memory module stores several overclocking profiles that can be selected in the BIOS.

These overclocking profiles are recorded in the SPD EEPROM chip, where information about possible frequency modes and module delays is stored.

The corresponding SLI memory standard is called Enhanced Performance Profiles (EPP). But in EEPROM chip There is only enough space for two profiles. You can record two full profiles or four stripped-down versions (with less data). The following table shows the information that is included in the profile and written to the EEPROM chip.

EPP information in EEPROM chip
Data	Full version	Stripped down version
Voltage	X	X	Address Cmd Rate	X	X
Chip Select Drive Strength	X
Clock Drive Strength	X
Data Drive Strength	X
DQS Drive Strength	X
Address/Command Fine Delay	X
Address/Command Setup Time	X
Chip Select Delay	X
Chip Select Setup Time	X
Minimum Cycle at Sup. CAS Latency	X	X
CAS Latency	X	X
Minimum RAS to CAS delay (tRCD)	X	X
Minimum Row Precharge Time (tRP)	X	X
Minimum Active to Precharge Time (tRAS)	X	X
Write Recovery Time (tWR)	X
Minimum Active to Active/Refresh Time (tRC)	X

Automatic overclocking of SLI memory

The frequency of memory modules is set using a divider that uses the CPU frequency. We get a maximum of DDR2-800 with a base HyperTransport channel frequency of 200 MHz. When SLI memory technology is activated, the HTT channel frequency increases, which, taking into account the standard divider, leads to an increase in clock frequency. In this case, the CPU multiplier is reduced so that the processor does not overclock.

Standard:
200 MHz * 14x = 2800 MHz / 7 = 400

Overclocking:
254 MHz * 11x = 2800 MHz / 6 = 466

But there is still a protective mechanism in place that reduces memory speed to a maximum of DDR2-800.

At 2.8 GHz, which corresponds to the FX-62, the divider can take the following values:
DDR2-800: dividers 6 and 7;
DDR2-667: dividers 8 and 9;
DDR2-533: dividers 10 and 11;
DDR2-400: dividers 12 and 13.

The processor believes that it is running at a base HTT frequency of 200 MHz, so it reduces the divisor. But the base frequency has actually increased to 254 MHz, which in combination with the 6 divider results in a memory frequency of 466 MHz (DDR2-933).

With a processor multiplier of 11, the memory divider is not optimal. Despite the high clock speed of HTT, you can only get a memory speed of 466 MHz.

With DDR2-800 memory frequencies, 6 and 7 dividers are available. Due to the CPU protection mechanism, the divider is set to 6.

2800 / 6x = 466 MHz (DDR2-933)

Thanks to this, the memory frequency can be increased to 465 MHz. This value cannot be set manually.

If the multipliers are changed to 12, the processor will be overclocked to 3 GHz, which will lead to a corresponding memory divider. At the same time, the memory receives a significant performance increase: at 508 MHz we get almost DDR2-1066.

Such overclocking has a corresponding effect on the test results. For example, the Copy test in Everest showed 10.3 GB/s.

So there is good news for overclockers. Overclocking can now be done using a single BIOS parameter, and stable operation is guaranteed. But it is not yet known how much such memory modules will cost.

We don't really understand why Nvidia decided to use the name "SLI memory", since this feature has nothing to do with dual SLI graphics card technology. It would make more sense to use the name "EPP".

New AM2 processors

As we mentioned earlier, AMD has introduced 17 new processors with DDR2 memory interface for socket AM2. This includes six Sempron processors, two new Athlon 64s, and the top-of-the-line Athlon 64 FX-62 at 2.8 GHz. According to AMD, processors for Socket 939 will continue to be produced, but new models will not be developed.

The transition to DDR2 also leads to an update in processor stepping. The old E stepping in the Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX lines has been replaced with new version F. At the same time, the number of transistors in the processor has slightly increased: for processors with 1 MB of L2 cache, the number of transistors has increased from 223.5 to 227.4 million, and for processors with 512 KB of L2 cache - from 150 to 153.8 million. Area The die size of models with 1 MB cache was 230 mm², and for 512 MB processors it was 183 mm 2. But in the latter case, the area can be the same as that of processors with 1 MB of cache, but the cache will be halved due to rejection. New processors will continue to be produced using 90nm technology.

AMD Athlon AM2 processors
Model	Clock frequency	Number of cores	L2 cache	Memory frequency
FX-62	2.80 GHz	Two	1 MB	DDR2-800
X2 5000+	2.60 GHz	Two	512 kbytes	DDR2-743
X2 4800+	2.40 GHz	Two	1 MB	DDR2-800
X2 4600+	2.40 GHz	Two	512 kbytes	DDR2-800
X2 4400+	2.20 GHz	Two	1 MB	DDR2-733
X2 4200+	2.20 GHz	Two	512 kbytes	DDR2-733
X2 4000+	2.00 GHz	Two	1 MB	DDR2-800
X2 3800+	2.00 GHz	Two	512 kbytes	DDR2-800
3800+	2.40 GHz	One	512 kbytes	DDR2-800
3500+	2.20 GHz	One	512 kbytes	DDR2-733
3200+	2.00 GHz	One	512 kbytes	DDR2-800

Take a close look at the processor table, including frequencies, L2 cache size and memory frequency. It is quite obvious that the X2 5000+ model is highly questionable. Among the "middle peasants" there appeared the X2 4000+ processor, which was not available for Socket 939.

AMD Sempron AM2 processors
Model	Clock frequency	Number of cores	L2 cache	Memory frequency
3600+	2.00 GHz	One	256 kbytes	DDR2-800
3500+	2.00 GHz	One	128 kbytes	DDR2-800
3400+	1.80 GHz	One	256 kbytes	DDR2-720
3200+	1.80 GHz	One	128 kbytes	DDR2-720
3000+	1.60 GHz	One	256 kbytes	DDR2-800
2800+	1.60 GHz	One	128 kbytes	DDR2-800

The Sempron processor is now equipped with more than 81.1 million transistors. All previous Sempron models were produced, as a rule, for Socket 754 and used a single-channel memory interface. All this is already a thing of the past. All new processors for Socket AM2 use a dual-channel interface. Since Sempron processors have a very small cache of 128 or 256 KB, they are very dependent on memory bandwidth. Therefore, Sempron fans can be recommended to choose models with the fastest memory bus.

New Socket AM2 with 940 pins

At first glance, the new socket is no different.

U old model Socket 939 contacts, naturally 939.

Socket AM2 has exactly the same number of pins as the original Athlon 64 on the Hammer core (Socket 940), but the sockets are not compatible. New AM2 processors cannot be installed in Socket 940.

New cooler mounting system

The size of the cooler mounting module has changed noticeably. The module is now secured with four screws instead of two.

AMD has made several improvements to the module.

• The sides of the mounting module have disappeared, making it easier to remove the radiator. If everything is done correctly, the CPU will no longer stick to it when you remove the radiator. Now the radiator can be moved slightly to the side before removal. But it all depends on the board design: it may be necessary to remove memory modules.
• Since the beads are gone, cooler manufacturers can now use larger radiators that will dissipate heat better.
• The mounting module now uses four screws, which not only improves stability, but also gives more flexibility to cooler manufacturers.

What's nice is that the new mounting module allows you to install old coolers.

The new mounting module can also be installed on old boards.

The larger number of holes and larger area of ​​the new mounting module will warm the hearts of those users who plan to install a complex cooler or water cooling system.

Low heat generation guaranteed

As usual, AMD paid a lot of attention to heat dissipation. For mid-range processors, heat dissipation has decreased, but for top-end processors, on the contrary, it has increased.

Energy consumption
Model	New (AM2)	Old (939)
FX-62	125 W
FX-60		110 W
FX-57		104 W
X2 5000+	89 W
X2 4800+	89 W	110 W
X2 4600+	89 W	110 W
X2 4400+	89 W	110 W
X2 4200+	89 W	110 W
X2 4000+	89 W
X2 3800+	89 W	110 W
Athlon 64 3800+	62 W	89 W
Athlon 64 3500+	62 W	89 W
Athlon 64 3200+	62 W	89 W
Athlon 64 3000+	62 W	89 W
Sempron 3600+	62 W
Sempron 3500+	62 W
Sempron 3400+	62 W
Sempron 3200+	62 W
Sempron 3000+	62 W
Sempron 2800+	62 W

According to AMD data, the heat dissipation of all single-core Athlon 64 processors decreased by 27 W, that is, by about 30%. Power consumption of X2 processors decreased by 19%, from 110 to 89 W. Compared to its predecessor FX-60, the new Athlon 64 FX-62 will produce 15 W more, that is, the thermal package has increased to 125 W. So the top processors from AMD and Intel today have approximately equal heat dissipation.

The processors still support Cool"n"Quiet technology, which reduces, for example, the heat dissipation of the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ from 89 to 31 W, and the supply voltage from 1.3 to 1.1 V. As for the Athlon 64 FX- 62, then the heat dissipation decreases from 125 W to 38.

We measured the power consumption of a fully assembled system (without a monitor). Each system has a motherboard with a processor and memory, a video card (7800 GTX), two hard drives, DVD-ROM and power supply (PC Power & Cooling Turbocool 510 SSI).

Energy consumption was measured without activating the Cool"n"Quiet or Speedstep technologies, since they do not work on all test samples.

For dual-core processors, we loaded both cores.

As you can see, AMD is still in the lead in terms of power consumption. Compared to the old platform, the power consumption of most new processors has decreased.

New processors with lower power consumption

AMD has long been famous for its processors with reduced power consumption. But the company decided to take it one step further by introducing energy efficiency classes, which are designated by the letter:

• A: regular processors with normal power consumption;
• O: Improved power processors, 65W maximum;
• D: Improved power processors, 35W maximum.

Processors with improved power consumption
Model	A (normal)	O	D
FX-62	125 W
X2 5000+	89 W
X2 4800+	89 W	65 W
X2 4600+	89 W	65 W
X2 4400+	89 W	65 W
X2 4200+	89 W	65 W
X2 4000+	89 W	65 W
X2 3800+	89 W	65 W	35 W
Athlon 64 3800+	62 W
Athlon 64 3500+	62 W		35 W
Athlon 64 3200+	62 W
Athlon 64 3000+	62 W
Sempron 3600+	62 W
Sempron 3500+	62 W
Sempron 3400+	62 W		35 W
Sempron 3200+	62 W		35 W
Sempron 3000+	62 W		35 W
Sempron 2800+	62 W

Processors of classes "O" and "D" will cost several tens of dollars more.

Coolers will be louder

To guarantee heat dissipation of up to 125 W, AMD had to develop a new cooler for Socket AM2.

"Boxed" version of the cooler for Socket AM2.

As you can see, the new “boxed” radiator uses a smaller copper base (compared to the previous cooler model), but has four heat pipes. They transfer heat from the base to steel ribs located vertically.

As before, the cooler uses a 70mm fan.

Two coolers in comparison: a new model...

...and an old cooler for Socket 939.

The new model is still attached using two brackets that fit onto the hooks of the mounting module. AMD has also improved the lever: it is now difficult to break off, as often happened on older Socket 939 coolers.

The new "boxed" Socket AM2 cooler from AVC weighs 445 g, that is, slightly lighter than the old model for Socket 939 (486 grams).

But we were not pleased with the higher noise level emanating from the small fan, which is slowly but surely approaching the noise level of Intel "boxed" coolers. If there is poor ventilation in the case, then the cooler quickly begins to “scream” so that it is no longer possible to concentrate on work. Such problems did not happen with the old cooler. In general, we recommend buying third-party coolers. Moreover, we recently released summary review of coolers .

As with Intel models, AMD uses a four-pin plug to connect the cooler. And now AMD processor motherboards can more accurately control fan speed using pulse width modulation (PWM). But the "boxed" cooler that AMD sent us still does not have a corresponding plug. So we had to make do. At least for now.

The cooler connector on the motherboard has four pins, but our cooler was equipped with a three-pin plug.

AMD still uses a four-pin plug to supply power to the processor.

Features: Virtualization and TCPA

All Athlon 64 and FX processors use Pacifica virtualization technology. It is fully compatible with Intel VT technology.

Moreover, these processors support new technology security codenamed "Presidio". This implies support for TCPA/Palladium, which Intel, for its part, calls Vanderpool. AMD has decided to penetrate deeper into the software development camp, helping to potentially reduce the flow of pirated software and improve the security of banking, military applications and other services that require increased protection.

AMD should announce more details about both features in the near future. Sempron 64 processors do not support the mentioned functions.

Prices: you will have to pay extra for less heat emission

The following table lists the prices for processors in quantities of 1000 pieces.

Prices for AM2 processors in batches of 1000 pieces
FX-62	$1 031
X2 5000+	$969
X2 4800+	$645
X2 4600+	$558
X2 4400+	$470
X2 4200+	$365
X2 4000+	$328
X2 3800+	$303
Athlon 64 3800+	$290
Athlon 64 3500+	$189
Athlon 64 3200+	$138
Sempron 3600+	$123
Sempron 3500+	$109
Sempron 3400+	$97
Sempron 3200+	$87
Sempron 3000+	$77
Sempron 2800+	$67

If you decide to save on energy consumption, then you won’t be able to save on price: the difference today ranges from 3.9 to 33.1%. Sempron processors with lower power consumption are clearly overpriced. In general, “cheap and cheerful” will not work.

Price difference between processors with improved power consumption
CPU	89 W	65 W	Surcharge percentage
X2 4800+	$645	$671	3,9%
X2 4600+	$558	$601	7,2%
X2 4400+	$470	$514	8,6%
X2 4200+	$365	$417	12,5%
X2 4000+	$328	$353	7,1%
X2 3800+	$303	$323	6,2%
CPU	89 W	35 W	Surcharge percentage
X2 3800+	$303	$364	16,8%
CPU	62 W	35 W	Surcharge percentage
Athlon 64 3500+	$189	$231	18,2%
Sempron 3400+	$97	$145	33,1%
Sempron 3200+	$87	$119	26,9%
Sempron 3000+	$77	$101	23,8%

AMD is well aware of the popularity of lower power processors, so why not make money here? If you need a processor for overclocking, you will have to pay more.

Price comparison: AMD is more expensive than Intel

In the wake of price cuts for Intel processors, prices for models from AMD no longer look very attractive.

The cheapest dual-core AMD Athlon X2 3800+ processor costs just $13 less than the high-end Intel Pentium D 950.

If we compare prices in one of the large online stores, then the AM2 Athlon 64 X2 4000+ costs the same as the Pentium D 950. It is clear that the AMD processor in this case does not reach the Pentium D in terms of performance. That is, the price/price ratio AMD's performance in this case is worse.

motherboards

Our laboratory received six motherboards based on the nForce5 chipset. We will soon publish their comparative testing in a separate article. Now a six-phase voltage stabilizer is becoming a reality, which is able to properly cope with higher heat dissipation. When processors appear in stores, a large number of boards will be available: for every taste and budget.

Gigabyte GA-M59SLI-S5 and GA-M57SLI-S4

New nForce5 chipset for Socket AM2

AMD announced Socket AM2 at the same time Nvidia announced its new nForce5 chipset. Compared to its predecessor nForce4, nVidia has equipped latest model completely new features.

IDE controller

nVidia has improved its IDE controller in three ways. It now supports six SATA ports, but has lost one IDE port. Thus, only two parallel ATA (IDE) devices can be connected to the board.

The RAID controller now allows you to combine up to six drives into an array. RAID 0, 1 and 5 modes are supported.

LAN at 2 Gbps

Another highlight: two network controllers that can be combined into a single adapter and transmit data at a speed of 2 Gbit/s over two LAN cables. This corresponds to a theoretical limit of 250 MB/s.

Different versions of the nForce chipset

The nForce5 chipset will be released in different versions, from model 550 for the mass segment to 590 for the high-end sector. The following table shows the differences between the different versions.

Test configuration

System hardware
Socket 775 processors	Intel Pentium EE 965 (Presler 65 nm, 3.73 GHz, 2x 2 MB L2 cache) Intel Pentium EE 955 (Presler 65 nm, 3.46 GHz, 2x 2 MB L2 cache) Intel Pentium D 950 (Presler 90 nm, 3.40 GHz, 2x 2 MB L2 cache) Intel Pentium D 940 (Presler 90 nm, 3.20 GHz, 2x 2 MB L2 cache) Intel Pentium D 930 (Presler 90 nm, 3.00 GHz, 2x 2 MB L2 cache) Intel Pentium D 920 (Presler 90 nm, 2.80 GHz, 2x 2 MB L2 cache) Intel Pentium EE 840 Intel Pentium D 840 (Smithfield 90 nm, 3.20 GHz, 2x 1 MB L2 cache) Intel Pentium D 830 (Smithfield 90 nm, 3.00 GHz, 2x 1 MB L2 cache) Intel Pentium D 820 (Smithfield 90 nm, 2.80 GHz, 2x 1 MB L2 cache) Intel Pentium 4 EE 3.72 (Prescott 90 nm, 3.72 GHz, 2 MB L2 cache) Intel Pentium 4 EE 3.46 (Gallatin 130 nm, 3.46 GHz, 512 KB L2 cache, 2 MB L3 cache) Intel Pentium 4 EE 3.40 (Gallatin 130 nm, 3.40 GHz, 512 KB L2 cache, 2 MB L3 cache) Intel Pentium 4 670 (Prescott 90 nm, 3.80 GHz, 1 MB L2 cache)
Socket 939 processors	AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (Toledo 90 nm, 2.40 GHz, 2x 1 MB L2 cache) AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Manchester 90 nm, 2.40 GHz, 2x 215 KB L2 cache) AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Manchester 90 nm, 2.20 GHz, 2x 215 KB L2 cache) AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (Manchester 90 nm, 2.00 GHz, 2x 215 KB L2 cache) AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 (Toledo 90 nm, 2.60 GHz, 2x 1 MB L2 cache) AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 (San Diego 90 nm, 2.80 GHz, 1 MB L2 cache) AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 (San Diego 90 nm, 2.60 GHz, 1 MB L2 cache) AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 (Clawhammer 130 nm, 2.60 GHz, 1 MB L2 cache)
Socket AM2 processors	AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (Windsor 90 nm, 2.60 GHz, 2x 215 KB L2 cache) AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (Windsor 90 nm, 2.40 GHz, 2x 1 MB L2 cache) AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Windsor 90 nm, 2.40 GHz, 2x 512 KB L2 cache) AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ (Toledo 90 nm, 2.20 GHz, 2x 1 MB L2 cache) AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Windsor 90 nm, 2.20 GHz, 2x 512 KB L2 cache) AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (Windsor 90 nm, 2.00 GHz, 2x 1 MB L2 cache) AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (Windsor 90 nm, 2.00 GHz, 2x 512 KB L2 cache) AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 (Windsor 90 nm, 2.80 GHz, 2x 1 MB L2 cache)
AMD I platform	ASUS A8N32-SLI Deluxe (Socket 939), Rev. 1.01 nVidia nForce4 SLI X16, BIOS 8060
AMD II platform	ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe (Socket AM2), Rev. 1.03G nVidia nForce5 SLI X16
Intel I platform	Asus P5WD2-E Premium (Socket 775), Rev. 1.01G Intel 975X, BIOS 0304
Intel II platform	Intel D975XBX (Socket 775), Rev. A.A. Intel 975X, BIOS BX97510J.86A.0807.2006.0314.1158
Memory I	Infineon HYS64T64000GU-3.7-A 2x 512 MB DDR2-667 (333 MHz, CL 4.0-4-4-8)
Memory II	GEIL GLX1GB3200DC 2x 512 MB DDR-400 (200 MHz, CL 2.0-2-2-5, 1T)
Hard drive I	Western Digital WD160
Hard drive II	Western Digital WD160 160 GB, 7,200 rpm, 8 MB cache, SATA150
DVD-ROM	Gigabyte GO-D1600C (16x)
Video card	Gigabyte GV-NX78X256V-B (PCI Express)
Sound card	Terratec Aureon 7.1 Space (PCI)
AMD Network	nForce5 Network Controller
Intel Network	Marvell 88E8001 PCI Express 1 Gb/s
power unit	PC Power & Cooling Turbo-Cool 510, ATX 2.01, 510 W
System software and drivers
OS	Windows XP Professional 5.10.2600, Service Pack 2
DirectX version	9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
AMD platform drivers	nVidia nForce4 6.82 AMD Edition
Intel Platform Drivers	Intel 7.2.2.1006
Video card driver	nVidia ForceWare 81.95

Tests and settings

Tests and settings
OpenGL
Quake III Team Arena	Version 1.32 1280x1024 - 32 bit Timedemo1/demo thg3 "custom timedemo" Graphics detail = High Quality
Quake 4	Version: 1.0.5 Beta (Dual-Core Patch) Video Mode: 1280x1024 timedemo demo4.demo 1 (load textures)
DirectX
F.E.A.R.	Version: 1.0 Retail Video Mode: 1280x920 Computer: High Graphics Card: High Options/Performance/Test settings
Call of Duty 2	Version: 1.0 Video Mode: 1280x1024 timedemo testdemo03
3DMark05	Version 1.2.0 1024 x 786 - 32 bit Graphics and CPU Default Benchmark
Video
Mainconcept MPEG Encoder	Version: 1.5.1 1.2 GB DV to MPEG II (720x576, Audio) converting
Pinnacle Studio 10 Plus	Version: 10.1.2.2150 from: 352x288 MPEG-2 41 MB to: 720x576 MPEG-2 95 MB Encoding and Transition Rendering to MPEG-2/DVD no Audio
TMPEG 3.0 Express	Version: 3.0.4.24 (no Audio) 182 MB VOB MPEG2-source (704x576) 16:9
DivX 6.1	Version: 6.1 (4 Logical CPUs) Profile: High Definition Profile Multipass, 3000 kbit/s Encoding mode: Insane Quality
XviD 1.1.0	Version: 1.1.0 Beta 2 Encoding type: Twopass - Single pass Profile @ Level: DXN HT PAL Target size (kbytes): 570000
Windows Media Encoder	Version: 9.00.00.2980 720x480 AVI to WMV 320x240 (29.97 fps) 282 kbps streaming
Clone DVD	Version: 2.8.5.1 DVD-9 Terminator II SE Convert DVD-9 to DVD-4.7
Audio
Lame MP3	Version 3.97 Beta 2 (11-29-2005) wave to mp3 160 kbps
OGG	Version 1.1.2 (Intel P4 MOD) Version 1.1.2 ( Intel AMD MOD) Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 74 min wave to ogg Quality: 5
Applications
AVG Anti-Virus 7.1	Version: 7.1.0.352 (File) Version: 7.1.362 (Program) (3.85 GB, 14.007 Files, 1.177 Folders)
Winrar	Version 3.51 (303 MB, 47 Files, 2 Folders) Compression = Best Dictionary = 4096 kB
Autodesk 3D Studio Max	Version: 8.0 Characters "Dragon_Charater_rig" HTDV 1920 x 1080
ABBYY FineReader	Version: 8.0.0.714 Pro Part4591 convert PDF to DOC 950 pages PDF-Book "War and Peace"
Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5 HDTV	Version: 1.5
Mainconcept MPEG Pro 1.5 HD	Version: 1.5 Windows Media Video 9 Advanced Profile 10 sec MPEG2-HDTV 1920 x 1080 (66 MB) to WMV-9 1080i 24p
Adobe Photoshop CS 2	Version: 9.0 VT-Runtime Script Rendering from 5 Pictures (66 MB, 7 Filters)
Applications (Multitasking)
Multitasking Tests I	Lame (10:41 Minutes)
Multitasking Tests II	Winrar (181 MB, 23 Files, 1 Folder) Lame 3.97 Beta 2 Ogg (10:41 Minutes) WMV (720x480, 32 Sec)
Multitasking Tests III	Finereader (150 Pages PDF-Book) AVG Anti-Virus (3.85 GB, 14,007 Files, 1,177 Folders)
Synthetic tests
PCMark05 Pro	Version: 1.0.1 CPU and Memory Tests
SiSoftware Sandra 2005	Version 2005.7.10.60 SR2 CPU Test = MultiMedia / CPU Arithmetic Memory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark
Other
Windows Media Player 10	Version: 10.00.00.36.46

Evaluation of test results

Athlon 64 FX: forget about overclocking

The Athlon 64 FX-62 rightfully became the new leader in the tests. Thanks to two cores at 2.8 GHz, the DDR2 memory interface shows its full potential. This processor demonstrates performance much better than its predecessor (FX-60 with DDR1 memory).

As we are already accustomed, the FX line features an unlocked multiplier. But we managed to overclock our FX-62 processor by only 200 MHz - up to 3 GHz. Here the limitations imposed by the 90 nm process technology are already obvious. Another significant fact in favor of this can be considered the increase in voltage and thermal package to achieve 2.8 GHz. Indeed, heat dissipation increased from 110 to 125 W.

If we compare the supply voltage of all dual-core processors, then the Athlon 64 FX-62 is supplied with 3.7% more volts. With a current of 90.4 A, the difference is 5 W.

Athlon X2 line: 1.30 V - 1.35 V.

Athlon FX line: 1.35 V - 1.4 V.

Note that the second decimal place of the 1.4V value is not specified in AMD's specifications.

WITH retail price At around $1,200, the FX-62 is by far the most expensive desktop CPU available. It is about $200 more expensive than the top model Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 965. But the performance is appropriate.

The FX-62 is a safe choice if you want the fastest processor on the market and don't plan on overclocking.

Athlon 64 X2: now a little slower

Buyers of the Athlon 64 X2 will be somewhat disappointed by the new platform. And according to three characteristics.

• To get the same performance as the old Socket 939 platform, you need to find low latency (CL4.0) DDR2-800 memory. Such memory is rare, and its price is appropriate.
• Processors on average price segment(up to $500) suffer from reduced performance of the DDR2 memory controller.
• Since the memory divider for Athlon 64 X2 5000+, 4400+ and 4200+ processor models cannot provide DDR2-800 values, the memory frequency will be from DDR2-733 to DDR2-740, which also negatively affects performance.

One of the most popular processors will probably be the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ with a thermal package of 89 W and a price of $303. If you prefer the 35W version with more overclocking potential, then get ready to shell out $364. The intermediate 65 W model costs $323.

Sempron 64: more speed

Sempron fans will finally rejoice in getting more performance, as the new processors use a dual-channel memory interface.

Evaluation of test results

AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 vs Intel Extreme Edition 965

In applications, the FX-62 performs no worse than the fastest Intel Extreme Edition 965 processor. The AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 processor beats Intel in almost every application. Three multitasking tests also tilt in AMD's favor. The reason for this was the transfer of the DDR2 interface to the new platform, which, when paired with the FX-62, manifests itself in all its strength.

As for games, the score is 4:1 in favor of the FX processor. So before us, without a doubt, best processor for the gamer that can be found in the market.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ vs Intel Pentium D 950

We decided to compare the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ with the Intel Pentium D 950, since these processors cost about the same, and the first of them is the cheapest dual-core processor from AMD with 2 x1-MB L2 cache. Will AMD with its processor be able to withstand the Intel Pentium D 950?

By the way, the youngest dual-core model AMD X2 3800+ costs only $30 less than the 4000+.

As the results show, Intel today offers best ratio price/performance. And the reason for such a rapid revolution is the sharp decline in prices for Intel processors and the loss of speed of low- and mid-range AMD processors due to the transition to DDR2.

Conclusion: Good energy efficiency, but poor price/performance ratio

AMD launched the new AM2 platform and a large number of new processors for the new socket. The main argument for switching to a new platform is DDR2 memory, which the competitor has been supporting for a long time. For the user, almost everything in the AM2 platform has been updated: processor, cooler, motherboard and memory. In some cases, you will have to upgrade your video card and hard drives (if you have not previously acquired a PCI Express video card and SATA hard drives).

The situation in the world of high-speed x86 processors has remained virtually unchanged. If you're looking for the fastest desktop processor in the world, the top model in the AMD FX lineup, the Athlon 64 FX-62, is once again the leader. But there is a catch: the 2.8 GHz frequency leaves virtually no room for overclocking.

AMD has been emphasizing the power efficiency of its processors for several years now, and today the company has once again managed to beat Intel. Athlon processors perform particularly well under light loads because they significantly reduce clock speed and supply voltage. Special versions of Sempron and Athlon processors (labeled "EE") have significantly reduced power consumption, but they are more expensive. As for the top processors, they consume approximately the same amount of energy: 125 W for the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 and 130 W for the Intel Pentium EE 965.

With the transition to Socket AM2, you will have to install DDR2 memory. In theory, it should provide higher throughput, but in practice this is only true for expensive top-end processors. Most AMD processors do not benefit from upgrading to new DDR2 memory over "old" DDR memory. A careful analysis of the tests shows even a slight decrease in the performance of the new processors compared to the previous ones. It is quite obvious that DDR2 memory begins to show its best side only at processor speeds of 2.4 GHz and higher. And for this you will have to buy expensive processors, for example, the same Athlon 64 X2 4800+, and this will cost 600 dollars, no less.

If we compare one of the younger models of dual-core processors Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (2.0 GHz, 2x1 MB L2 cache) with a dual-core Intel Pentium D 950 (3.4 GHz, 2x2 MB L2 cache), which cost approximately the same, then the processor Intel performance will be up to 20 percent higher.

The new generation of AMD processors has finally fulfilled a long-set goal: to reach the price level of Intel processors. The “freebie” is over: forget about 30% reduced prices with equal performance. Switching to a new platform will cost a pretty penny. If potential buyers figure this out, AMD could quickly lose its hard-won market share. The company still needs to take some measures, although the choice between AMD and Intel, especially among end customers, is primarily a matter of principle.

The relatively long lifespan and good stability of the “5.0 method” led to the fact that we tested all current families of processors with its help (and in some cases, more than one or two representatives of each), and there was still time left to work on excursions into history :) In general, from a practical point of view, they are no less important than tests of new products - many old platforms still have and work, so the question of “how many grams” can be won with an upgrade does not apply to idle people. And to answer this accurately, you need to know both the performance of new processors and the level of outdated ones. You can, of course, use the results of tests conducted a long time ago, but they all relate to software versions that have been popular for a long time, and it tends to change. Therefore, new tests are needed. It is quite difficult to carry out - and the processors themselves still need to be found, and other environments must be prepared to meet the requirements of the methodology. Therefore, for example, within the framework of the main version of the testing methodology, we basically cannot touch on Socket 754, since it is impossible to find 8 GB DDR SDRAM and a board on which all this will work. There is a similar problem with Socket 939, but it’s possible to cope with the newer (but, in principle, equivalent to the previous one in terms of performance) AM2 platform. What we will actually do today, fortunately, we managed to find as many as five suitable processors. More precisely, seven, but two stood out too much from the general range in terms of performance, which is why they were considered last time. And today is the era of late AM2 and even AM2+.

Test bench configuration

CPU	Athlon 64 X2 3800+	Athlon 64 X2 5200+	Athlon 64 FX-62	Athlon 64 X2 6000+
Kernel name	Windsor	Windsor	Windsor	Windsor
Production technology	90 nm	90 nm	90 nm	90 nm
Core frequency, GHz	2,0	2,6	2,8	3,0
	2/2	2/2	2/2	2/2
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB	128/128	128/128	128/128	128/128
L2 cache, KB	2×512	2×1024	2×1024	2×1024
RAM	2×DDR2-800	2×DDR2-800	2×DDR2-800	2×DDR2-800
Socket	AM2	AM2	AM2	AM2
TDP	65 W	89 W	125 W	125 W

Unfortunately, we didn’t get our hands on a single single-core Athlon 64. More precisely, one was found in storage, but studying it showed that it was a model for Socket 939. Which is a pity, since at first only such models made it into the mass segment - on At the time of the announcement of the platform, the company estimated the minimum dual-core processor (which was 3800+) at as much as $303 (the reason is clear - there were still several months left before the release of the Core 2 Duo, and the Pentium D had lower performance than the Athlon 64 X2). But we found the legendary 3800+, and not even the ADA3800, but the ADO3800 - it cost $20 more, but had a TDP of only 65 W, which for that time was quite “cool” for a dual-core model.

Unfortunately, we could not find any other junior “classic” 90 nm dual-core processors or any representatives of the 65 nm process technology. So conclusions about the dual-core family will have to be drawn on the basis of the mentioned “initial” 3800+ and three models (since two of them appeared after this family lost the status of devices with maximum performance) of a high level: 5200+, 6000+ and FX- 62. Strictly speaking, we could do without the latter, since testing it will not bring us any exclusive information - the clock frequency is exactly in the middle between the two other participants. But we couldn’t pass by the processor, which at the time of the announcement was sold at a price of around 1250 (!) dollars, having the opportunity not to pass it. A legend after all. Although it has been greatly devalued over the past years, the processor once rightfully occupied its price level, being the most productive x86 solution on the market.

CPU	Phenom X4 9500	Phenom II X4 940
Kernel name	Agena	Deneb
Production technology	65 nm	45 nm
Core frequency, GHz	2,2	3,0
Number of cores/threads	4/4	4/4
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB	256/256	256/256
L2 cache, KB	4×512	4×512
L3 cache, MiB	2	6
UnCore frequency, GHz	1,8	1,8
RAM	2×DDR2-1066	2×DDR2-1066
Socket	AM2+	AM2+
TDP	95 W	125 W

And for comparison, two models of subsequent generations are already Phenom. The first damn thing is lumpy in the form of the Phenom X4 9500 and the breakthrough Phenom II X4 940. Again, the latter is not so interesting, since we tested the Phenom II line under AM3, and they differ only in the supported memory, but formally the 940 is the best that was made under AM2+. In practice, many boards with this socket can use more productive solutions, thanks to backward compatibility two platforms, but formal status is also a reason to get acquainted :)

As for the first Phenoms, we have a representative of the very first generation - with the so-called “TLB bug”. Its discovery forced the company to switch to the corrected B3 stepping (such models are easily distinguished by the fact that their number ends in “50”), and BIOS patches appeared to ensure stable operation of already sold processors. At one time, we tested one of the engineering samples of Phenom with the TLB patch enabled and disabled and came to the conclusion that its use reduces performance by an average of 21% (in some programs - several times). Well, since this error did not always spoil the user’s life with system instability, many, naturally, preferred to disable this fix if possible at their own peril and risk.

Unfortunately, using modern software, this is already very difficult to do, unlike the days of Windows XP - Microsoft built the error correction directly into its operating systems. This started with SP1 for Windows Vista and, naturally, migrated to Windows 7. In principle, there are ways to disable this “parking brake”, but we did not do this, since most users do not do this. And from the point of view of testing processors in modern software Tweaks like these are not correct. But it’s worth remembering about their capabilities, if someone still has to use a computer based on the first generation Phenom (and, according to reviews, performance increases on models with the correct stepping). As well as the fact that simply disabling the TLB-patch in Setup when working under modern Windows operating systems no longer affects anything (we did a quick check of this to make sure). Or, by the way, this situation can be seen as another reason not to rush to install a new OS on an old computer, which is already not very fast so that there is a desire to work with the most “fresh” versions of application software - it’s better either “the old fashioned way” or , after all, start an upgrade.

In general, this is the set of subjects. Strongly skewed in favor of the fastest models and generally not covering many of the once popular branches of the Athlon family tree, however, we will test what we managed to scrape together.

CPU	Celeron G530T	Celeron G550	Pentium G860	Core i3-2120T
Kernel name	Sandy Bridge DC	Sandy Bridge DC	Sandy Bridge DC	Sandy Bridge DC
Production technology	32 nm	32 nm	32 nm	32 nm
Core frequency GHz	2,0	2,6	3,0	2,6
Number of cores/threads	2/2	2/2	2/2	2/4
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB	64/64	64/64	64/64	64/64
L2 cache, KB	2×256	2×256	2×256	2×256
L3 cache, MiB	2	2	3	3
UnCore frequency, GHz	2,0	2,6	3,0	2,6
RAM	2×DDR3-1066	2×DDR3-1066	2×DDR3-1333	2×DDR3-1333
Video core	HDG	HDG	HDG	HDG 2000
Socket	LGA1155	LGA1155	LGA1155	LGA1155
TDP	35 W	65 W	65 W	35 W
Price	N/A(0)	N/A(0)	N/A()	N/A()

With whom to compare? We decided to take four processors from modern Intel products. Celeron G530T and G550 have the same clock speed as the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and 5200+, respectively (the second pair also has the same “lower” level cache capacity; however, Celeron has a common L3, while Athlon has a separate one L2, but the number is the same). The Pentium G860 is no longer the fastest of Intel processors priced under $100, after the appearance of the G870, but it has exactly 3 GHz frequencies, like the 6000+. Well, to complete the picture, there is another energy-efficient processor, namely the Core i3-2120T, operating at a frequency of 2.6 GHz, fortunately, we recently compared it with the Core 2 Duo of the same era as the older Athlon 64 X2, and indeed A direct comparison of the equal-frequency G550, 2120T and 5200+ is extremely interesting and revealing. It is clear that all these models are a priori somewhat lower than the Phenom II X4, but we have already examined this family (albeit in a different design) in detail, both with modern (and not so modern) Intel processors has also been compared several times.

CPU	A4-3400	A6-3670K	Phenom II X2 545	Phenom II X3 740
Kernel name	Llano	Llano	Callisto	Heka
Production technology	32 nm	32 nm	45 nm	45 nm
Core frequency, GHz	2,7	2,7	3,0	3,0
Number of cores/threads	2/2	4/4	2/2	3/3
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB	128/128	256/256	128/128	192/192
L2 cache, KB	2×512	4×1024	2×512	3×512
L3 cache, MiB	—	—	6	6
UnCore frequency, GHz	—	—	2,0	2,0
RAM	2×DDR3-1600	2×DDR3-1866	2×DDR3-1333	2×DDR3-1333
Video core	Radeon HD 6410D	Radeon HD 6530D	—	—
Socket	FM1	FM1	AM3	AM3
TDP	65 W	100 W	85 W	95 W
Price	N/A()	N/A(0)	N/A()	N/A(0)

And four more models from the AMD range. Firstly, A4-3400 and A6-3670K. The second, after a recent price reduction, “lives” at the level of older Pentiums, and the first is comparable to Celeron. In addition, the FM1 platform is interesting to us because it offers the buyer a good level of integrated graphics - higher than the discrete graphics from the AM2 heyday. Accordingly, if someone has not yet raised their hand to throw out a system unit from five years ago, the cheaper FM1 can stimulate this process. An additional convenience is that both processors operate at a clock frequency of 2.7 GHz, i.e. exactly between 5200+ and FX-62. And two old Phenom IIs, operating at a clock frequency of 3 GHz, are also asking to be included in the list of test subjects: X2 545 and X3 740. From a practical point of view, of course, it’s too late to remember them, but from a theoretical point of view, they’ll do.

	Motherboard	RAM
AM2	ASUS M3A78-T (790GX)	8 GB DDR2 (2x800; 5-5-5-18; Unganged)
AM3	ASUS M4A78T-E (790GX)	Corsair Vengeance CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B (2×1333; 9-9-9-24; Unganged)
FM1	Gigabyte A75M-UD2H (A75)	G.Skill F3-14900CL9D-8GBXL (2×1866/1600; 9-10-9-28)
LGA1155	Biostar TH67XE (H67)	Corsair Vengeance CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B (2×1333/1066; 9-9-9-24 / 8-8-8-20)

A small note about the RAM frequency - although officially all dual-core AM2 processors support DDR2-800, for 5200+ and 6000+ the real memory frequencies are somewhat different from the theoretical ones: 746 and 752 MHz, respectively, which is due to a limited set of dividers (which we are talking about already mentioned last time). The difference from the standard mode, however, is small, but it may have an effect somewhere in comparison with the FX-62, which operates in a “canonically correct way,” since its frequency is completely divided by 400 (the 3800+ too, but, naturally, these “monsters” » a priori not competitors). And all Phenoms (both the first and second generations) support DDR2-1066, but only in the “one module per channel” configuration, which for obvious reasons does not suit us: the volume required “according to the standard” for the technique is 8 GB with two modules We were unable to provide it. In general, these are also small things, but we focus on them to reduce the number of subsequent questions :)

Testing

Traditionally, we divide all tests into a number of groups, and show the average result for a group of tests/applications in diagrams (you can find out more about the testing methodology in a separate article). The results in the diagrams are given in points; the performance of the reference test system from the 2011 sample site is taken as 100 points. It is based on the AMD Athlon II X4 620 processor, but the amount of memory (8 GB) and video card () are standard for all tests of the “main line” and can only be changed within the framework of special studies. For those who are interested in more detailed information, again, it is traditionally proposed to download a table in Microsoft Excel format, in which all the results are presented both converted into points and in “natural” form.

Interactive work in 3D packages

The almost identical results of the three Phenom IIs once again show that these tests are unable to utilize more than two computation threads. It would seem that the ideal situation is for the older Athlon 64 X2 - high-frequency dual-core processors with a relatively large and fast L2. But... even the 6000+ lags behind not only the A4-3400 with a frequency of 2.7 GHz, but also the two-GHz (!) Celeron G530T, and the results of the others in this situation need not even be mentioned. In general, over the past years, processor architectures have stepped far forward (not overnight, but the overall progress is good), which cannot be ignored. There were, of course, extremely unsuccessful steps along this path, such as the first Phenom. The lion's share of responsibility for the failure of the 9500 lies with the TLB "patch", but even without this one cannot count on high results from the first K10 - low-frequency models with a small (by modern standards) cache memory capacity, and even slow. And the cores here, we repeat, are useless.

Final rendering of 3D scenes

They are useful in these subtests, but the Phenom X4 9500 still managed to overtake only a portion of dual-core processors, and even then not the fastest. The reason is simple - low frequency. And cache memory is important for these tasks. Although it is clear that be it a carcass or a stuffed animal These processors had to be released (at least for such loads), since the Athlon 64 X2 was even slower, and AMD did not have any other processors at that time. Later, Phenom II X4 turned out to be an excellent work on fixing the mistakes, so they are still relevant in the quad-core modification. By the way, the fastest processors for FM1 (Athlon II X4 651 and A8-3870K) in this group show a result of 124 points, i.e. almost the same as what became available to AM2+ “holders” almost four years ago. Not so bad, in general :) Well, unless, of course, you focus too much on the fact that the Core i7-920, which appeared at the same time at a fairly close price, is capable of 182 points.

Packing and Unpacking

A very indicative group of tests. Firstly, the terrible results of the Phenom X4 9500 were predetermined in advance: at one time, including a “patch” for the TLB slowed down the engineering sample three times. However, even without it, the Phenom at 2.6 GHz (and not 2.2 as here) was only slightly ahead of the Athlon 64 X2 6000+, so we can even say that its performance has improved slightly over the past years, the reason for which is the support for multi-threading new versions of 7-Zip. But it also did not allow (this is the second observation) the Phenom II X4 940 to overtake at least the three-core Phenom II X3 740, which has a higher cache memory frequency and works with faster DDR3 RAM. The third curious point is that the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ scores exactly 100 points: the same as the reference Athlon II X4 620, which operates at a lower frequency. But it cannot reach the Celeron and others like them at the same frequency. And the A4-3400 (2.7 GHz, 2x512 KB L2) is faster than the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (2.6 GHz, 2x1024 KB L2).

Well, one more interesting result (albeit from a slightly different story): the Core i3-2120T is approximately equal to the Phenom II X3 740. Although the second has twice the L3 capacity, almost 15% higher frequency, and there are three cores, which, all other things being equal , still better than two cores with Hyper-Threading support.

Audio encoding

The cache is unimportant - pure mathematics, so the Phenom X4 9500 was able to demonstrate relatively good (within the scope of this article, of course) results: it outperformed all the processors we took for comparison that support a smaller number of computation threads, and also operate at a higher frequency Core i3-2120T not radically faster. However, the dual-core Pentium G860 is not at all much slower, and it also managed to overtake the equal-frequency triple-core Phenom II X3 740. Apparently, it is for this reason that the “classic” three-core processors have died for a long time (three-module FX are a slightly different story). And the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ managed to outperform the Celeron G530T and A4-3400: new instruction sets and other improvements in modern architectures are not used in these subtests, so the high frequency saved the day. Although, of course, if we remember that it is one and a half times higher than that of the 530T... But let’s not talk about sad things - there is already more than enough of it. In particular, all other Athlon 64s, including the once legendary FX-62, are, for obvious reasons, even slower. And the 3800+ is only slightly faster than modern single-core models (such as the Celeron G460/G465 equipped with HT support), despite the fact that there is no alternative to multi-core for this group of tests.

Compilation

For once, the FX-62 managed to beat both the Celeron G530T and the A4-3400 - a pyrrhic victory, but a victory. At least, compared to other groups of tests. Another thing worth paying attention to is that the FX-62’s results are closer to 6000+ than 5200+, although in terms of core frequency it is exactly in the middle between them - the features of the K8 line memory controller are of considerable importance under such a load. Accordingly, the defeat of the Phenom X4 9500 was predetermined - the TLB-patch “kills” L3 performance so much that only the presence of four cores allowed this processor to overtake the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and even almost catch up with the Celeron G550. Well, we also had no doubt that the Phenom II X4 940 would be the best of all test participants - the frequency is high (the rest are either the same or slower), four full-fledged cores and 6 MiB of L3 speak for themselves.

Mathematical and engineering calculations

But here the benefit from multithreading is small, so the 940 only slightly outperformed the 545, but lagged behind the 740. However, this is also a good result, even if it is only suitable for intra-company competition - professional packages have a certain “pro-Intel” essence, and this is of no help no escape. But AMD clearly did not stand still - even though the A4-3400 loses to the Celeron, its “specific” (per unit clock frequency) advantage over the Athlon 64 X2 is about 20%.

Raster graphics

Some of the tests are multi-threaded, some are not, so among AMD products the Phenom II X3 looks quite sufficient to solve such problems: the 940 turned out to be only slightly faster than the 740 due to slow memory and lower cache frequencies, and the A6-3670K “hangs out” on that the same level due to the complete absence of the latter and a lower clock frequency. But, generally speaking, high-frequency Celeron and Pentium look best here, and low-frequency ones are also not bad. “Old” AMD processors cannot be saved by either the frequency or the number of cores - the Athlon 64 X2 6000+, which has become common, lags behind the A4-3400.

Vector graphics

As we have already established, these programs are undemanding in terms of the number of computation threads, but their performance depends on the cache memory, so it is not surprising that three equal-frequency Phenom IIs showed similar results with a slight loss of 940 - there the L3 frequency is 200 MHz lower . But this is just the Sandy Bridge level with a frequency of 2.6 GHz (i3 is slightly faster than Celeron due to the “extra” megabyte of cache memory), and one of the best Athlon 64 X2 managed to overtake only the A4-3400 and the two-GHz Celeron. The other representatives of the line are even slower, and for the Phenom X4 9500 such a load promises an inglorious defeat - the core frequency is low, and this is not the first time that the TLB patch has had a disgusting effect on cache memory performance. However, it is obvious that even without it we would have gotten results only slightly higher than those of the Athlon 64 X2 3800+, which is clearly not enough to compete with modern processors.

Video encoding

The Phenom X4 9500 once again managed to outperform some relatively modern dual-core processors: the cache doesn’t interfere much with it, and there are still four cores. But slow. Athlon 64 X2 cannot suffer from the “TLB bug” for obvious reasons, so this bug will also be fixed, but their cores are just as slow architecturally, and there are only two of them. And even the frequency doesn't help much. The results of the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and 6000+ are especially indicative - they are almost twice as inferior to the equal-frequency Celeron G530T and Pentium G860. And the 5200+ is a third slower than the A4-3400 with a comparable clock speed. In general, the big thing can be seen from a distance - just a little over six years ago there was simply no line on the market better than the Athlon 64 X2, and now it is simply unable to compete even with budget models from both AMD itself and Intel. The Phenom II X4 940 is capable of this with ease, but this is significantly more new processor, and his brothers now live in the public sector. The Phenom II X4 955, for example, the company has been shipping in bulk since September for $81, but what distinguishes it from the 940? Only support for DDR3 memory and +200 MHz to cores and L3. By the way, we remember that at the time of the announcement the recommended price of 940 was neither more nor less, and 275 full dollars - quickly in modern world processors are being devalued :)

Office software

The vast majority of tests in this group are single-threaded, and do not use intensive improvements in modern architectures, so for such applications the Athlon 64 X2 is quite sufficient. Unless, of course, energy costs are a concern - the 6000+ traditionally lags behind both the G530T and the A4-3400, but these processors do not require hundreds of watts at all. It is clear that the “old people” are also not fully loaded with such work, so they will get by with a few dozen, but “a few” is more in their case. And you will also need some kind of additional video. But in general, it’s enough for work. Which is quite consistent with the fact that many people in offices still use a variety of Celeron or Sempron devices, even slower ones than we recently tested. Accordingly, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ will be at least no worse, and if you use some kind of voracious antivirus, it will be much better :)

Java

The Phenom X4 9500 once again had a blast, since there are still four cores, and the cache memory and its performance are not particularly important here, but in its case, “to the fullest” only means a result equal to the Celeron G550. However, taking into account the fact that above, as a rule, everything was much worse, and such a victory over oneself (and over the patches) inspires respect. What about the other participants? As usual: the Athlon 64 X2 is unsuccessfully trying to catch up with at least some modern budget processor, and the Phenom II X4 demonstrates that it can very well be considered one :)

Games

There was a time when the Athlon 64 (not even the X2) were the best gaming processors. Now, let’s face it, even the Phenom II X4 and younger Core i3 can only apply for this position “through pull,” not to mention dual-core models. Modern dual-core models. And not the ancient ones, to which even laptop processors can be considered competitors only in the terminology of Russian tenders :) Regarding the Phenom X4 9500, we’d better refrain - just as in a hanged house it’s not customary to talk about rope, so in comments to the results of one of the most “cash-loving” groups should not remember the “TLB martyrs”.

Multitasking environment

By the way, even here this founder of multi-core AMD processors failed to overtake earlier dual-core models from the same manufacturer - the last Chinese warning to those who like to buy “cores for the sake of prospects” without regard to what kind of cores they are. Otherwise, everything is the same as usual - Athlon 64 X2 are unable to cope with at least a two-gigahertz Celeron or dual-core Llano (by the way, the younger Athlon II X2 has the same performance as the A4), and the Phenom II X4 940 is just a Phenom II X4 . Not a bad processor for about a hundred dollars, even if it was worth almost three hundred at one time - devaluation, sir.

Total

In the end, we have what was expected - a mishmash of one-, two- and multi-threaded tests (which, in fact, is an exact projection of modern software; including that which is difficult to benchmark, and, therefore, in test methods fits just as poorly) made the best processor for Socket AM2+ approximately equal to the equal-frequency Pentium. Two conclusions follow from this - good and bad. The first is due to the fact that the compatibility of this platform with AM3 is almost complete - unlike owners of LGA775 systems, owners of a good motherboard with AM2+ and a sufficient amount of DDR2 memory can upgrade their computer to a very good level. Not top-end, of course, but the Phenom II X6 1100T has a “weighted average” performance of 159 points, and the Phenom II X4 980 has 143 points. Minus the inevitable 5% (or so) for slower memory - we get somewhere between 150 and 135 points. And the maximum for LGA775 is 132 points. And even then, only if you’re lucky enough to find a Core 2 Quad Q9650 somewhere on the secondary market for a reasonable price, since “during its lifetime” it never dropped below $316 wholesale, and if it also works on an existing board: despite the name the same socket, LGA775 are four limited compatible platforms (however, problems are also possible with the oldest AM2 boards). AMD, on the contrary, continues to sell both the 980 and 1100T for $163 and $198, respectively. To a certain extent, it is a little expensive, but if you really want to “boost” the system by replacing only the processor, such costs may well turn out to be optimal (in any case, a new set of Core i5, a board with LGA1155 and memory will cost much more).

And now the bad news, which directly follows from the good news - using a board with AM2+ together with a processor for AM2 or AM2+ does not make any sense. And it’s not even necessary to take a closer look at the top-end models for AM3 mentioned above - besides them, AMD has a lot more in its assortment. And not only among new processors, but also among inventory in retail stores or on the secondary market. Where can you buy some kind of Athlon II X3 or even X4 very cheaply - since now the manufacturer values ​​the younger Phenom II X4 at only 80-90 dollars. Is there any reason? Yes, I have. After all, even the best Athlon 64 X2, as we saw today, is inferior to the A4-3400, and this processor is approximately equal to the Athlon II X2 215. Note that the X2 is also the best. Well, replacing, for example, an Athlon 64 X2 3800+ with a long-discontinued Athlon II X4 630 will simply double the average performance.

It is clear that all these arguments are justified only if the existing board supports AM3 processors: otherwise it is easier to change the platform (to LGA1155, FM1 or FM2 - without much difference). And it’s even more clear that it makes sense to bother with them only when the performance of the existing computer is no longer enough. In the end, many people still somehow use Pentium 4, Athlon XP, or Celeron and Sempron (and even slower ones than we recently tested). Accordingly, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ will already seem to them something no less reactive than the famous Pink Panther (after all, even within the framework of AM2 it is 53 points versus 30 for the Sempron 3000+), and the owner of it will seem like a person taken to heaven in flesh, like one of the biblical prophets :) But that’s all.

Despite the fact that in the summer of 2006 the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ was a dream (and the Athlon 64 FX-62 was a pipe dream) of many users, today one can only look at their results with a grin or nostalgic sadness. Moreover, the process of devaluation began back in 2006 - the FX-62 was the “king of the hill” for only one quarter, after which it was inferior not even to the top-end, but only to the close Core 2 Duo (over the past years, the ratio, by the way, has not actually changed: according to the latest method, the FX-62 scored 73 points, and the E6600, above which there were also the E6700 and X6800, scored all 77). Well, later both companies went far ahead. Let's emphasize - both.

Of course, Intel's success looks more clear: the Celeron G530T has a frequency of only 2 GHz and a TDP of 35 W (including the graphics core). But the A4-3400 outperforms the same old guys to a similar extent. Yes, of course, it requires 2.7 GHz for this (that is, the specific performance is about a third lower than that of the “bridges”), and the thermal package is already 65 W, but the A4 has a rich internal graphics world that is more powerful. Moreover, both of these processors are not new products: they were announced last year and are already giving way to faster “successors” on the shelves, and AMD has launched a new architecture. It caused a lot of criticism at the start, but at least it all happened without the kind of scandal that accompanied the release of the first Phenoms. Moreover, it is worth noting that even if there were no notorious “TLB bug” and the need to fix it, Phenom X4 still could not count on good results. Simply because even the best model in the line with the index 9950 (which the company did not get right away) operated only at a frequency of 2.6 GHz. The closest analogue from the modern line is A6-3650 with the same frequency. And, by the way, the cache memory capacity is the same, despite the L3 of the first Phenoms - a total of 4 MiB in both. Even if the A6 had separate, but full-speed, the Phenom had only L2 as such.

Well, how the performance of the “old” and “new” AMD cores compares was clearly shown by today’s testing - the “extra” 100 MHz and the increased cache still did not prevent the FX-62 from falling behind the A4-3400 by almost 10%. Accordingly, a similar picture would be seen when comparing the Phenom X4 9950 with the A6-3650. The latter has a result of 110 points, i.e. the best that 9950 could hope for - 100 points. Reference. Which are typical for the Athlon II X4 620 (by the way, with the same frequency of 2.6 GHz; we have already seen something similar) or... Celeron G550/G555 :) What can we say in this case about the younger representatives of the line, where the frequencies are also low ? Let's say that without problems with TLB, the 9500 would have caught up with the FX-62 (at one time, our testing showed that the patch reduces overall performance by about 21%) - what would it change? Nothing!

In general, the best that can be said about the Agena chip processors are the debug versions of the Stars family, through work on which (and improvement of the technical process, of course) we managed to move on to the truly successful Deneb, which still remains relevant. No other advantages were found in them. Unlike FX, where it immediately became possible to evaluate not only the minuses, but also the pluses. And how AMD knows how to work on errors is very clearly seen in the example of the first and second generation Phenom. Well, there’s only a little time left before the release of Piledriver, so let’s cross our fingers and expect similar results :)

We thank the companies, "" and « »
for help in setting up test benches

In a very difficult situation in 2006, AMD announced a socket for installing an AM2 CPU. Processors for sockets 754 and 939 at that time had completely exhausted themselves and could no longer show a sufficient level of performance. As a result, it was necessary to offer something new with higher performance to provide a worthy response to the eternal competitor in the person of Intel Corporation.

How and why did this computing platform appear?

In 2006 on the market personal computers Sales of a new type of RAM, called DDR2, have started. The sockets that existed at that time for installing AMD CPUs 754 and 939 were focused on using the outdated, but most common type of RAM - DDR.

As a result, the last socket was redesigned and became known as AM2. Processors for this socket received a 30% increase in performance compared to their predecessors. The main factor that allowed for such an increase in performance was the increased RAM bandwidth.

Sockets up to AM2. Subsequent processor sockets

As noted earlier, the predecessors for this processor socket can be considered sockets 754 and 939. Moreover, from the point of view of organizing the functioning of the RAM to the hero this review It was the second of them that was closer, which also had a 2-channel RAM controller. But server socket 940 can also be classified as the predecessors of AM2. The processors in this case had an identical organization of the RAM subsystem and a similar number of contacts, which was equal to 940 pieces.

In one form or another, AM2 existed until 2009. At this time, instead of him and him updated version in the form of AM2+, a new processor socket AM3 was released, the key innovation of which was the use of a new modification of RAM - DDR3. AM2 and AM3 are physically compatible with each other. Moreover, even the AM2+ CPU can be installed in AM3. But the reverse use of the CPU is unacceptable due to the incompatibility of microprocessor RAM controllers.

Models of central processors for AM2

Socket AM2 was aimed at the following segments of the PC market:

• The products of the Septron line made it possible to assemble budget system units. Such CPUs had only one computing module and a two-level cache. Technologically, these semiconductor solutions were produced at 90 nm (the CPU frequency range was limited to 1.6-2.2 GHz) and 65 nm (1.9-2.3 GHz). These chips had a very, very affordable price and an acceptable level of performance for solving office tasks, and it was for these two reasons that they could often be found in the budget PC segment.
• The mid-segment solutions included all Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 X2 CPUs. The level of performance in this case was ensured by an increase in the size of the cache memory, higher clock frequencies, and even the presence of 2 computing modules at once (processors with the X2 prefix).

• The most productive products on this platform were the Phenom family of chips. They could include 2, 3 or even 4 computing unit. Also, the cache memory size has been significantly increased.
• Socket AM2 was aimed at creating entry-level servers. Opteron family processors could also be installed in it. They were available in 2 modifications: with 2 computing modules (based on the Athlon 64 X2 CPU and labeled 12XX) and with 4 cores (in this case, Phenom chips acted as a prototype, and such products were already designated 135X).

Chipsets for this platform

AMD AM2 processors could be used in combination with motherboards based on the following chipsets from AMD:

• The maximum level of functionality was provided by the 790FX. It allowed you to connect 4 video cards at once in 8X mode or 2 in 16X mode.
• The niche of mid-level products was occupied by 780E, 785E and 790X/GX. They allowed the installation of 2 graphics accelerators in 8X mode or 1 in 16X mode. Also, solutions based on the 790GX were equipped with a built-in Radeon 3100 video adapter.
• Even lower one step in terms of functionality were solutions based on the 785G, 785G/V and 770. They allowed the use of only 1 discrete graphics accelerator.

RAM and its controller

The AM2 socket was designed to install the newest DDR2 modules at that time. Processors, as noted earlier, received an additional 30% performance due to this important innovation. As with the 940, the RAM controller was integrated into the central processor. This engineering approach allows for increased performance with the RAM subsystem, but limits the number of types of RAM modules supported by the CPU.

The subsequent appearance of new modifications of the modules leads to the fact that the architecture of the RAM controller needs to be redesigned. It is for this reason that the intermediate solution AM2+ appeared between AM2 and AM3+. It did not have any fundamental differences from its predecessor, and the only difference was that support for DDR2-800 and DDR2-1066 RAM modules was added. In its pure form, AM2 could fully work with DDR2-400, DDR2-533 and DDR2-667. It is possible to install faster RAM modules in such a PC, but in this case their performance was automatically reduced to the DDR2-667 level, and there was no particular benefit from using faster RAM.

The current situation with this platform

Today Socket AM2 is completely obsolete. Processors and motherboards for this platform can still be found in new condition in warehouses. But it is not recommended to consider this socket as a basis even for assembling the most budget PC: the difference in price with the most affordable entry-level processor solutions of more recent sockets is insignificant, but the difference in terms of performance will be noticeable.

Therefore, such components can be used in cases where an AM2-based PC has failed and needs to be urgently restored at minimal cost.

Let's sum it up

A landmark in 2006 for the world of computer technology was the release of the AM2 CPU connector. In this case, the processors received a very significant increase in performance and made it possible to solve more complex problems. But now products based on this platform are outdated, and consider them as the basis for building a new system unit Not recommended.