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 And to answer this accurately, you need to know both the performance of new processors and the level of outdated ones.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 the backward compatibility of the two platforms, but the 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 bug fix directly into its OS. It 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 TLB-patch in Setup when working under modern OS Windows family it no longer affects anything (we did a quick check of this to make sure). Or, by the way, this situation can be considered as another reason not to rush to install a new OS on old computer, and without that it’s not too fast so that there is a desire to work with the “latest” versions of application software on it - 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, throw it away system unit 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 frequency random access memory- although officially all dual-core AM2 processors support DDR2-800, for 5200+ and 6000+ the actual 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 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 processor AMD Athlon II X4 620, 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" ones AMD processors Neither the frequency nor the number of cores can save it - the Athlon 64 X2 6000+, which has already 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 not enough to compete with modern processors clearly not enough.

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) did 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

Then for the initial assessment you can use the table:

	Motherboard AM2	Motherboard AM2+	Motherboard AM3	Motherboard AM3+	Motherboard AM4	Motherboard FM1	Motherboard FM2	Motherboard FM2+
Processor AM2
Processor AM2+
Processor AM3
Processor AM3+
Processor AM4
Processor FM1
Processor FM2
Processor FM2+

After the initial comparison, you must definitely check the presence specific model in the motherboard manufacturer's compatibility lists.

What is SocketAM4 and what is it compatible with?
SocketAM4 is an AMD processor socket for high-performance processors with Zen microarchitecture (Ryzen brand) and subsequent ones. Processors with this socket have 1331 pins, support DDR4 memory and contain up to 24 PCI-E 3.0 lanes. Processors with Socket AM3+/FM2+ are not physically compatible with AM4 motherboards; in addition, the mounting of the processor cooling system has changed, and a new cooler will be required for the new socket. Both high-performance processors without built-in video and APUs with built-in graphics are available for Socket AM4.

At what frequencies does RAM run with AMD Ryzen?
As you know, AMD Ryzen processors work with DDR4 memory and have a built-in dual-channel memory controller. Depending on the number of modules per channel and memory rank, the memory operating frequency differs. This situation is not new - in server systems this has generally become a problem, so they came up with ones that, all other things being equal, work faster than “regular” RDIMM memory modules.
In any case, specifically AMD Ryzen processors work with RAM as follows:

Memory type	Number of modules per processor	Memory rank	Maximum memory speed
DDR4	2	Single Rank	2667 MHz
		Dual Rank	2400 MHz
	4	Single Rank	2133 MHz
		Dual Rank	1866 MHz

Will SocketAM4 processors be compatible with SocketAM3+ boards?
Will not. AM4 processors are both physically and electrically incompatible with legacy sockets.

What is SocketAM3+ and what is it compatible with?
, mechanically and electrically compatible with SocketAM3 (despite the slightly larger number of pins - 942, may also be called SocketAM3b in some sources), but designed to support new AMD Zambezi-core processors based on the Bulldozer architecture like the AMD FX 8150. All old ones are also supported by them, and, naturally, such boards only work with and are compatible with the previous ones.

Will SocketAM3+ processors be compatible with
Judging by all the signs, they won’t.(For example, due to the larger diameter of the processor legs.) A board on an old chipset that will be able to support SocketAM3+ processors after BIOS updates, can be distinguished by the characteristic black color of the socket, but in such boards some of the functionality related to power saving and monitoring may be lost. This information may be updated in the future.

What is SocketAM3 and what is it compatible with?
SocketAM3 is a further development of SocketAM2+, its main difference is the support of boards and processors with this type of DDR-III memory connector.
have a memory controller that supports both DDR-II and DDR-III, so they can work in SocketAM2+ boards (the performance of a specific processor in a specific board must be checked using the CPU Support List on the motherboard manufacturer’s website), but the reverse situation is not possible, SocketAM2 and SocketAM2+ processors do not work.

What types of memory do boards with SocketAM3 support?
- Only DDR-III with frequencies from 800 to 1333 MHz, both unbuffered (“regular”) and with ECC, i.e. absolutely the same memory that is used by motherboards with LGA1155, LGA1156 and LGA1366 connectors for .
With currently produced SocketAM3 processors, memory of the PC10600 type can operate at the nameplate 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 forcibly reduced up to 1066 MHz.
Registered memory is not supported; memory with ECC (without Registered!) is supported only by Phenom II processors for this socket.
The memory organization is the same as in Socket939/940/AM2/1156, i.e. dual-channel, and 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.

What is SocketAM2+, and how is it different from just AM2?
SocketAM2+ is an upgraded version of SocketAM2, featuring support for HyperTransport version 3.0 with a frequency of up to 2.6 GHz, as well as improved power circuits.
As a rule (exceptions are extremely rare and are associated with the individual characteristics of specific motherboards), absolutely all SocketAM2 processors work perfectly in all SocketAM2+ boards. WITH backwards compatible the situation is worse, not all SocketAM2 boards support SocketAM2+ 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 performance compared to the “native” SocketAM2+ board.
Also, when using Phenom SocketAM2+ processors, the boards allow you to use DDR-II memory of the PC-8500 type at the rated frequency without overclocking (when installing one module per channel).

What is Socket AM2?
– a new socket for AMD desktop processors working with dual-channel DDR-II memory, replacing Socket939.

How many legs does he have?
– 940, but it is in no way compatible with Socket940 itself (the legs are located differently), which is why it was called Socket AM2. (Its “descendants” SocketAM2+ and SocketAM3 also have 940 contacts)

Which ones are and will be produced for the new connector?
– Athlon64 (single-core, production will be discontinued in 2007), Athlon64 X2, Athlon64 FX (actually older versions of Athlon64 X2), Sempron (Athlon64 with a reduced second-level cache), corresponding Opterons will appear soon (actually Athlon64 X2 with ECC support ( not Registered!) memory)

What types of memory do boards with SocketAM2 support?
- Only DDR-II with frequencies from 400 to 800 MHz, specifically - PC4200 (533 MHz), PC5300 (667 MHz), PC6400 (800 MHz), i.e. absolutely the same memory that is used by motherboards with an LGA775 connector on Intel chipsets 945/955/965. Registered memory is not supported; memory with ECC (without Registered!) is supported only by Opteron processors for this socket.
The memory organization is the same as in Socket939/940, i.e. dual-channel, and 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.
Installing high-speed memory modules such as PC6400, or modules with reduced timings, is justified only in the case of older models of dual-core processors - with single-core Athlon64 and Sempron, installing faster memory does not affect the overall performance of the system.

Do the Socket AM2 versions of processors differ from their Socket939 counterparts in anything other than the type of memory they support?
- No, no fundamental differences for users were found; moreover, the integral performance of systems with equal-rated and equal-frequency processors, but working with DDR-II and DDR memory, accordingly, in the general case, approximately the same. But for Socket AM2, processors are and will be released that are basically absent in the Socket939 version, for example, Athlon64 FX62, Athlon64 X2 5200+, etc. SocketAM2 processors also support AMD Virtualization (“Pacifica”) virtualization technology.

Will new processor models for Socket939 be released?
- No, moreover, the production of both motherboards and processors for this socket has already ceased.

What chipsets are used in Socket AM2 boards?
- The same as in Socket754/Socket939, there is no fundamental difference between the sockets from the point of view of the chipset. But on the new generation of chipsets for AMD processors, boards with the old connectors will no longer be produced.

What coolers can be used with SocketAM2 processors?
- Coolers designed for Socket754/Socket939/Socket940 are suitable if they are attached to the plastic teeth of the fasteners installed on the motherboard, but previously released coolers that have their own fasteners to the motherboard cannot be attached to the AM2 socket due to changes in the number and location of fasteners holes. To use such coolers, you need to purchase their upgraded version or (possibly!) a separate mounting kit.
The power connector for the processor cooler on Socket AM2 motherboards is completely similar to the PWM 4-pin used in LGA775 boards and is compatible with older 3-pin connectors.

What power supplies can be used with Socket AM2 boards?
- The same as with Socket939/PCI Express boards, i.e. ATX 24+4, and in most cases - 20+4 if there is sufficient power reserve in the +12V circuit.

I can’t guarantee that in other countries the problem of gradually upgrading a computer is just as acute, but in our country, buyers often think about the further possibility of upgrading the desktop system they are purchasing. AMD has long been loved for its ability to use new processors in old motherboards, but after integrating the memory controller into the processor core, ensuring such continuity has become more difficult.

The transition from Socket AM2 to Socket AM2+ was supposed to calm those AMD supporters who were afraid of the inevitable comprehensive computer upgrade. As is known, Socket AM2+ processors belonging to the K8L (K10) generation will be compatible with existing motherboards equipped with Socket AM2 connectors. You will only have to sacrifice support for the HyperTransport 3.0 bus, but continuity of platforms always requires some sacrifices, and this is not the worst of them. In addition, Socket AM2+ processors in motherboards with a Socket AM2 connector will not be able to manage their power supply as flexibly as is provided for them in “native” motherboards.

advertising

Socket AM2 processors will work in motherboards with Socket AM2+ connector, this is quite natural. Some uncertainty existed only regarding the compatibility of processors and motherboards with the Socket AM3 connector and previous platforms. Until now, it was believed that Socket AM3 processors would only be compatible with motherboards with Socket AM2+ and Socket AM3 connectors. Motherboards with a Socket AM3 socket will not be able to accept Socket AM2 and Socket AM2+ processors, since they do not support DDR-3 memory.

French colleagues from the site

To the processor socket Socket AM2. At the time, we noted a slight increase in performance where there was some, and a change in the rating system. Today we continue our tour of Socket AM2 and see what it brings to the regular (single-core) AMD Athlon 64 processors.

AMD Athlon 64 AM2

Let us recall that the transition to Socket AM2 was necessary in order to give AMD processors the opportunity to work with faster DDR2 memory, thereby increasing the performance of the system based on them. Unlike the budget Sempron line, Athlon 64 processors received support not only for DDR2-400/533/667, but also for DDR2-800. Otherwise, no other significant changes have occurred, either architecturally or in the rating systems. Let us recall the main characteristics of new and outgoing processors, in the form of tables: Athlon 64 Socket AM2

	CPU frequency, GHz	HT frequency, MHz		Technical process

Athlon 64 Socket 939

	CPU frequency, GHz	HT frequency, MHz		Technical process	Dual channel memory controller

Athlon 64 Socket 754

	CPU frequency, GHz	HT frequency, MHz		Technical process	Dual channel memory controller
				90nm/130nm, SOI
				90nm/130nm, SOI
				90nm/130nm, SOI
				90nm/130nm, SOI
				90nm/130nm, SOI
				90nm/130nm, SOI

As can be seen from the tables, acceleration of the memory subsystem did not affect the rating system. And here the lineup decreased. This is partly due to the refusal to produce more expensive chips with 1 MB of L2 cache, which were good competitors to the Athlon 64 X2, especially in games. In addition, already at the beginning of next year, there are visible trends in replacing the entire line of Athlon 64 processors with dual-core X2, the price of the younger models of which (Athlon 64 X2 3600+) should approach the $100 mark by the end of this year, despite the fact that Sempron processors should also become dual-core and displace Athlon 64 from below. But let’s not bury the still fairly new processors just yet.

If we compare the sizes of the boxes, then for AM2 the packaging has become more compact, which can be characterized positively - it will be more convenient to carry many processors.

Inside the package there are: a processor, an “updated” cooler, a user manual and a logo sticker - nothing unexpected.

AMD Athlon 64 Socket 939 and Socket AM2 on top

As already noted, the updated processors have very few external changes. The only thing that gives them away from the top is the marking, which now looks like ADA3200IAA4CN. Everything is deciphered approximately as follows: ADA – Athlon 64 for workstations, 3200 – processor rating, I – case type 940 pin OµPGA (Socket AM2), A – variable core supply voltage (≈1.25-1.35 V), A – variable maximum permissible temperature (≈65-69°C), 4 – second level cache size 512 KB, CN – Orleans core.

AMD Athlon 64 Socket 939 and Socket AM2 at the bottom

From the bottom, the processor for Socket AM2 is relatively easy to distinguish by the extra leg (in the photo it can be found on the right processor in the lower left corner). And now a complete information summary about the tested processor and used GEIL DDR2-800 memory, obtained using the CPU-Z utility.

For comparison, we provide information about the AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Socket 939 with DDR-400 Hynix.

Overclocking

The test sample of the Athlon 64 3200+, with a standard “boxed” cooler, was almost immediately overclocked to 2700 MHz, but further increasing the frequency led to a decrease in the stability of the system.

At the same time, GEIL DDR2-800 modules were able to run in DDR2-900 mode, although with an increase in Command Rate to 2T.

Testing

To compare the performance of the Socket 939 and Socket AM2 platforms, the following test systems were assembled, differing, in addition to processors, in motherboards and RAM. Test bench for Socket 939: Test bench for Socket AM2:

Before direct comparison Athlon 64 Socket 939 and Socket AM2, we decided to investigate how sensitive the latter are to the speed of RAM. For this we use BIOS settings, turned DDR2-800 into DDR2-667, DDR2-533 and DDR2-400 (timings were set according to SPD) and checked how performance changes.

GEIL DDR2-800 in DDR2-667 mode

GEIL DDR2-800 in DDR2-533 mode

Since the processor core has not undergone any changes, performance does not change much, even with a significant acceleration of RAM. So, on Socket AM2, judging by the results of synthetic tests, a small increase in performance can only be observed in resource-intensive applications that are demanding, first of all, to the volume and speed of the memory subsystem, increased clock speeds which are eaten up by increased latency and, possibly, some shortcomings in memory controllers. Let's move from synthetics to practice:

The surprise came right away in Quake 3, which turned out to be very sensitive to memory latency and revealed imperfections in the memory controller. The test became a smooth transition from synthetic tests to the results obtained in modern games.

The Socket AM2 platform was a little disappointing with the drop in performance in games - although the result is not much worse, and in some places the same, but, unfortunately, not better, which we really expected.

conclusions

As our testing showed, having acquired support for faster DDR2 memory, AMD Athlon 64 processors in most tasks not only did not gain, but also lost a little in performance. Accordingly, there is no point in recommending “transferring” to a new platform. But during assembly new system You’ll have to think about it and answer the question for yourself: “Is this the final configuration of the system or do I plan to upgrade after a while?” If after some time there is a desire to replace the processor, say with a dual-core one, and increase the memory, then the system on Socket AM2 will look much more promising - updating it will not only be cheaper, but also easier. In addition, Socket AM2 has already given a slight increase in performance in some tasks - if they are basic, then you will have to think even less. We express our gratitude to the company PF Service LLC (Dnepropetrovsk) for the processors and other equipment provided for testing.