Subscription to news. AMD V, Athlon II, Turion II, Phenom II Mobile Processors: Background How phenom differs from athlon

19.05.2021 Interesting

Introduction If you regularly read the materials published on our site, you probably already noticed that the number of reviews of dual-core processors that have come out over the past year can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And this fact does not mean at all our ardent adherence to the concept of multi-core. On the contrary, at every opportunity, we never tire of reminding that at the current stage of development of the software market, processors with two computing cores are quite capable of demonstrating a more than sufficient level of performance. The weakening of attention to the "dual-core" segment of the market is due to the fact that its development has almost completely stopped, as the leading manufacturers of x86-processors for desktop computers concentrate their main efforts on the development and promotion of quad-core models. All the activity associated with dual-core processors for a long time, in fact, consists either in a slight increase in the clock frequencies of the existing product families, or in a decrease in their prices.

However, small quantitative changes of this kind eventually gave a qualitative result, which we were able to find in the recently published article "". As it turned out, AMD's dual-core offerings have ceased to be serious competitors to Intel Core 2 Duo processors, being content only with rivalry with inexpensive Intel Celeron models. Our testing showed that even the relatively new Athlon X2 7000 series cannot be considered as a worthy alternative to at least Pentium processors based on the Wolfdale-2M core, not to mention more "serious" Intel proposals.

Nevertheless, the renaissance currently undergoing by AMD, associated with the emergence and distribution of new cores produced by the 45nm technological process, brings certain adjustments to this gloomy picture. So, in fact, the triple-core Phenom II X3 700 processors turned out to be quite competitive, which, with certain assumptions, can be considered as a kind of alternative to Intel's Core 2 Duo. However, undoubtedly, for a full-fledged presence in the middle part of the market, AMD still lacks normal dual-core processors capable of providing a modern level of performance. AMD specialists also understand this, so the release of updated dual-core processors based on the latest 45-nm cores was one of the main priorities for the company.

And finally, today AMD is filling the gap in the structure of its own offerings, releasing the much-anticipated dual-core processors, whose "official" (that is, the manufacturer's recommended) price is in the range from 70 to 120 dollars, which accounts for one of the peaks of consumer demand. ... Moreover, AMD decided to present its fans with an unexpected surprise and prepared two new generation dual-core families at once: Phenom II X2 and Athlon II X2. The processors of the first family are stripped-down derivatives of the Phenom II processors with a large number of cores, while the Athlon II X2 is in some way an independent product, albeit similar in microarchitecture and other characteristics to the Phenom II. In this article, we will get acquainted with the processors of both families, compare them with each other, and also see if we can say that dual-core processors have appeared in the structure of AMD's offerings, which can somehow change the situation on the market.

AMD Phenom II X2

The whole motley set of Phenom II processors is entirely a vivid example of unification. The Phenom II X2 500 family we are considering today is the fourth version of the CPU, using the same Deneb semiconductor crystal, which was first used in the Phenom II X4 900 processors. Moreover, the Phenom II X2 is, at first glance, one of the most irrational applications the original quad-core crystal, because in this case, two cores are subject to shutdown. However, on the other hand, the remaining dual-core CPU with L3 cache is also an amazing example of prudence: thanks to the Phenom II X2, AMD is able to use crystals with multiple defective blocks.

The resulting "cut" was codenamed Callisto. On the Phenom II family tree, it takes an extreme position: AMD has no plans for even more stripped-down versions of its new quad-core crystal, manufactured using 45 nm technology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The AMD Phenom II X2 550 isn't the only processor in the Phenom II X2 500 series coming out today. At the same time, AMD is releasing the 3 GHz Phenom II X2 545, which, like its twin brother, will oppose the Intel Core 2 Duo E7000 processors. However, before looking at the benchmark results, let's take a look at another dual-core novelty that AMD has prepared today.

AMD Athlon II X2

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

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

As a result, the total area of the Regor semiconductor crystal is 117.5 sq. Mm, which is more than half the area of the Deneb core. And this figure roughly corresponds to the area of the cores of Intel's dual-core processors belonging to the Core 2 Duo E8000 family, which are also manufactured using a 45nm technological process. However, it should be borne in mind that Intel processors are much more complex: they consist of about 410 million transistors, while the number of transistors in a Regor semiconductor crystal reaches only 234 million. That is why modern Intel dual-core processors based on Wolfdale core have 6 MB L2 cache, while Athlon II X2 cores of the same area are equipped with only 2 MB L2 cache in total.

The custom-engineered Regor dual-core semiconductor chip from AMD has also set the bar for heat dissipation and power consumption. The dual-core Phenom II X2 500 based on the Deneb core have a calculated heat dissipation of 80 W, and the TDP characteristic of Athlon II X2 processors built on the Regor core has been reduced to 65 W. Therefore, AMD hopes that as a result of the introduction of 45 nm process technology in the production of dual-core processors, they will be able to compete with Intel's offerings not only in terms of performance, but also in terms of economy.

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

In our opinion, both processor families are dual-core solutions of the same class. And the fact that Athlon II X2 and Phenom II X2 are equally compatible with the new Socket AM3 platform makes all these inexpensive processors an excellent locomotive for promoting this platform to the market. Moreover, inexpensive Socket AM3 motherboards based on the AMD 770 chipset are currently appearing on store shelves.

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

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

AMD Athlon II X2 Cache

Considering that the only fundamental innovation made in the cores of the Athlon II X2 processors was a change in the cache memory scheme, we decided to pay a little extra attention to it. As we found out in our a review of the first Phenom II processors, while implementing the 45 nm manufacturing process, AMD engineers did not make any changes to the cache algorithms. As a result, the cache memory of the Phenom II processors based on the Deneb core operates at exactly the same speed as the cache memory of the first generation Phenom processors. However, the Regor core can be fraught with some surprises, as the L2 cache has doubled in size.

Phenom II X2 (Callisto)

Athlon II X2 (Regor)

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

In practice, it looks like this.

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

Athlon II X2 250 (3.0 GHz)

As expected, in real measurements we got approximately the same L2-cache speeds both for processors with a Deneb core and for new products with a Regor core. At the same time, the Athlon II X2 memory subsystem turned out to be slightly faster, which is quite explainable by the absence of overhead costs associated with the need to search for data in the L3 cache.

Description of test systems

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

1. Socket AM3 platform:

Processors:

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

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

2. Platform Socket AM2:

Processors:

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

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

3. LGA775 platform:

Processors:

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

Motherboards:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The evolution of AMD dual-core processors

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

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

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

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

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

Phenom II X2 vs Athlon II X2

Despite the fact that the root causes of the appearance of two families of dual-core processors that are similar to each other are generally understood, the expediency of launching them simultaneously raises some questions. Comparing the test results of Phenom II X2 and Athlon II X2 operating in identical platforms and at the same clock frequency - 3.0 GHz can help to answer them.

In general, the Callisto core with L3 cache performed better in the overwhelming majority of tests. And this fully corresponds to the positioning of the new families of dual-core processors relative to each other by their manufacturer: Phenom II X2 will cost potential buyers about 7-10% more than the equal-frequency Athlon II X2.

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

The average advantage of Phenom II X2 over its younger brother working at the same clock speed is not very convincing 5%. This means that Athlon II X2, which has at least 200 MHz higher frequency, will already outperform a processor from the more expensive Phenom II X2 family. Therefore, in order to preserve orderliness in the positioning of products, AMD will have to carefully monitor the "cleanliness of the ranks" of its new dual-core proposals, and not allow too rapid an increase in the nominal frequencies of processors in the Athlon II X2 model line.

Performance

Overall performance

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

However, as you can see, the new Athlon II X2 and Phenom II X2 processors pose a hidden threat to AMD's triple-core processors. Thanks to the high clock speed, these dual-core models turn out to be faster than the three-core brother Phenom II X3 710, which, incidentally, is positioned by AMD as a higher-level processor, competing for the Intel Core 2 Duo E8000 series.

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

Gaming performance

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

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

Audio and video encoding performance

MP3 audio encoding in Apple iTunes is significantly faster when the heart of the system is an Intel processor. Here, the new dual-core processors from AMD are not helped by either the increased cache or the K10 (Stars) microarchitecture. But when encoding video using the DivX codec and using the increasingly popular x264, the Athlon II X2 and Phenom II X2 processors are capable of boasting relatively good speed. In fact, thanks to the clock speed that has finally reached a decent level, the new items may well compete for the palm with the representatives of the Core 2 Duo E7000 series. By the way, please note that the tasks of encoding media content belong to those applications that are rather indifferent to the size and structure of the cache memory. And it is the clock frequency that plays a decisive role here.

Other applications

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

Though [email protected] also applies to counting tasks, the results of the new dual-core processors from AMD are slightly better here. Athlon II X2 250 works on a par with Pentium E5400, and Phenom II X2 550 "reaches" the speed of Core 2 Duo E7400.

When performing arithmetic calculations using Microsoft Excel, AMD's new dual-core processors continue to show depressing performance. As well as in 3ds max, only triple-core Phenom II X3 can become a worthy alternative to dual-core Intel processors.

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

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

Energy consumption

Previous tests have shown that AMD offers based on cores produced using 65nm process technology cannot compete with modern Intel dual-core processors. It seems that the release by AMD of the latest series of CPUs Phenom II X2 and Athlon II X2 is quite capable of changing this situation, because these new processors use obviously more economical semiconductor crystals produced using the 45nm process technology. This is especially true for Athlon II X2, since it is based on the new Regor core with significantly reduced complexity. In addition, for this processor, AMD itself indicates a 65-W level of typical heat dissipation - the same as Intel sets for its dual-core models.

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

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

We see about the same picture under load: Pentium and Core 2 Duo processors consume clearly less than the new dual-core models from AMD. Unfortunately, in terms of performance-per-watt ratios, AMD hasn't managed to catch up with the competitor's products. At the same time, it is impossible not to notice the tendency towards the fact that the power consumption of AMD processors is gradually entering acceptable limits. The consumption of the Phenom II X2 550, which, by the way, is built on an originally quad-core semiconductor crystal, turned out to be almost 20 W less than that of the previous generation dual-core processor, Athlon X2 7850.

But the consumption of the platform with the Athlon II X2 250 processor is much more impressive. The 65 W thermal package has been assigned to it for a reason. Under load, the power consumption of a platform with this processor is only 10 W higher than that of a system built on the Core 2 Duo E7500. This means that from the point of view of electrical characteristics Athlon II X2 250 is quite comparable to the Core 2 Duo of the E8000 series, which is a significant achievement for AMD.

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

Overclocking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, we did not get any fundamentally different results. By increasing the voltage by 0.175 V (up to 1.5 V), this processor was able to operate stably at a frequency of 3.9 GHz - and this turned out to be the limit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the same time, it is quite difficult to choose a more optimal overclocking option from the reviewed AMD products even after reading the tests. Despite the fact that we managed to increase the frequency of the Athlon II X2 250 more than that of the Phenom II X2 550, it was not able to demonstrate an unambiguously better result. After all, the L3 cache available in the Phenom II X2, in some cases, turns out to be much more important than a high clock frequency.

Enabling locked cores

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

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

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

Secondly, since the release of Phenom II X3, in the situation with the implementation of Advanced Clock Calibration technology in the BIOS of many motherboards, something has changed. AMD didn’t look at the jubilation of the enthusiasts and tried to get the motherboard manufacturers to update the microcode so that the unlocking possibilities were eliminated. But, fortunately, not all companies satisfied AMD's desire. For example, the new BIOS versions of the Gigabyte MA790FXT-UD5P motherboard used in our tests received an additional option that allows you to choose which version of the microcode to use: new, without the ability to turn on cores, or old.

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

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

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

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

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

conclusions

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

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

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

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

However, in comparison with the previous generation Athlon X2, the new Athlon II X2 family is still a huge step forward. These processors offer good overclocking potential, much lower power consumption and, of course, increased performance. At the same time, it is obvious that AMD is not going to stop at what has been achieved, and the Athlon II X2 series will soon be further developed both towards higher clock frequencies and towards lower power consumption and heat dissipation.

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

Processor specifications

Both test processors are made according to the 45-nm process technology, have the same TDP of 95 W, differ only in the presence of a third-level cache (in the Phenom II) and a slightly higher clock frequency (in the Athlon II).

Despite the fact that Athlon II x4 processors are significantly cheaper than their older counterparts Phenom II x4, their architecture differs insignificantly. In the photo of the crystals of the Deneb (left) and Propus (right) cores, we see that they are very similar and the Propus core is a Deneb crystal with the missing L3 memory.

In this regard, it becomes quite obvious that Athlon II processors based on the Propus core do not have any hidden possibility of enabling the L3 cache, which one would expect from a "cut-down" version of a top-end product. Perhaps the very first batches of Athlon II processors were built on the Deneb core with disabled cache, which gave rise to a lot of rumors (based on the lucky few) about the possibility of using it by enabling the Advanced Clock Calibration (ACC) function in the motherboard BIOS.

Reducing the die area by a third significantly reduced the cost of the processor, which ultimately led to favorable prices for the buyers for the AMD Athlon II x4 quad-core processors.

Detailed processor specifications are listed below:

Name	Athlon II X4 630	Phenom II X4 810
Number of Cores	4	4
CPU socket	AM3	AM3
Core	Propus	Deneb
Process technology, nm	45	45
Number of transistors, mln.	300	758
Clock frequency, MHz	2800	2600
L1, KB	4 x 128	4 x 128
L2, KB	4 x 512	4 x 512
L3, MB	-	4
Crystal size, mm 2	169	258
TDP, W	95	95
price, rub.	3 770	4 280

Both processors run on 2000 MHz Hyper Transport bus and support both DDR2 and DDR3 memory modules.

Stand configuration, test applications

Test stand:

MSI 790FX-GD70 motherboard, BIOS version 1.6
RAM 2 x 2 GB DDR3-1600, Corsair TR3X6G1600C8D, 8-8-8-24
Tuniq 950W Power Supply
Western Digital WD15EADS 1.5TB Hard Drive
Sapphire AMD (ATi) Radeon HD 4890 graphics card
CPU Cooling System: BOX Cooler

Software:

Operating system Windows 7 Ultimate EN x64
ATI Catalyst ™ 9.10 video card drivers

Test applications:

3D Mark 06
Science Mark- test package for scientific computing.
LightWork- scene calculation in 300x200 resolution
POV-Ray Render- scene calculation in a resolution of 1280x1024
PC Mark 05- CPU Score result, default settings
Crysis warhead
WinRar 3.80- built-in performance test
Unreal Tournament 3- maximum quality settings, 8xAF 4xAA
FarCry 2- DX10 mode, maximum quality settings, 8xAF 4xAA
DVD 2 AV I - single-pass encoding of mpeg2 video with xVid codec
CineBench R10- multithreaded rendering, default settings
Call of Duty: World at War- maximum quality settings, 4xAF, 4xAA

Overclocking

Experience shows that Phenom II processors can usually be overclocked to 3.7-4 GHz. Since Athlon II processors are built on a similar core, we hope that their overclocking potential will be comparable to that of Phenom II. Since the test processors do not belong to the Black Edition series, we will not be able to increase their multiplier over the nominal one; overclocking has to be done only by increasing the system bus frequency. Fortunately, the MSI 790FX-GD70 motherboard has the means to conveniently change the FSB frequency on the fly. With the help of the hardware function OS Clock Dial, we will be able to raise the system bus frequency directly in Windows, simultaneously controlling the stability of the system. In a number of experiments, when overclocking was carried out directly from the BIOS, we did not notice any difference with overclocking through the OS Clock Dial.

We used the AMD Overdrive Utility program and its built-in benchmark to control the temperature of the processor and, in part, to test the stability of the system. We started overclocking by raising the processor supply voltage to 1.51 V (1.50 V under load) and, already at this voltage, we began to increase the FSB frequency. Our Phenom II sample showed very good frequency potential. With a supply voltage of 1.5 V, the maximum frequency was 3848 MHz (296 MHz FSB, 2072 MHz Hyper Transport). To achieve this result, we had to reduce the Hyper Transport bus multiplier to x7. With the HT x10 multiplier, the maximum stable frequency turned out to be 3250 MHz (250 MHz FSB, 2500 MHz Hyper Transport). By increasing the voltage to 1.53 V, we managed to reach a frequency of 3900 MHz (300 MHz FSB, 1800 MHz Hyper Transport). But when passing tests in this mode, the processor temperature rose to 70 degrees Celsius, as a result of which the system hung from overheating. Therefore, we returned to a stable frequency of 3848 MHz and all tests were carried out at it. In this mode, the processor temperature did not exceed 68 degrees Celsius.

Athlon II 630 has the maximum stable frequency of 3570 MHz. To achieve it, we had to raise the FSB frequency to 255 MHz and reduce the Hyper Transport bus multiplier to 8x. The processor temperature, in this case, under load did not exceed 52 degrees Celsius. A further increase in the processor voltage (over 1.5 V) allowed the processor to be overclocked to 3640 MHz, but the system turned out to be unstable even at this frequency.

Unfortunately, the stable overclocking limit of the Athlon II x4 630 did not meet our expectations. We were able to raise the frequency of the Phenom II x4 by almost 50%, practically without straining, and at the same time, we failed when trying to overclock the Athlon II x4 by more than 27%. So far we are unclear about such modest overclocking results - is this a feature of a particular Athlon II 630 or a feature of the new Propus core? This question can be answered only by typing statistics on overclocking a sufficient number of processors on a new core.

How important is L3 cache for AMD processors?

Indeed, it makes sense to equip multi-core processors with dedicated memory that will be shared by all available cores. In this role, the fast L3 cache can significantly speed up access to the most frequently requested data. Then the cores, if there is such a possibility, will not have to access the slow main memory (RAM, RAM).

At least in theory. Recently AMD announced the Athlon II X4 processor, which is a Phenom II X4 model without L3 cache, hinting that it is not so necessary. We decided to directly compare two processors (with and without L3 cache) to see how the cache affects performance.

How does the cache work?

Before we dive into tests, it's important to understand some of the basics. The way the cache works is pretty simple. The cache buffers data as close as possible to the processing cores of the processor to reduce CPU requests to more distant and slower memory. On modern desktop platforms, the cache hierarchy includes as many as three levels that precede access to RAM. Moreover, the caches of the second and, in particular, the third level serve not only for data buffering. Their purpose is to prevent overloading the processor bus when the cores need to exchange information.

Hits and misses

The efficiency of the cache architecture is measured by the hit rate. Data requests that can be satisfied by the cache are considered hits. If this cache does not contain the required data, then the request is forwarded down the memory pipeline, and a miss is counted. Of course, misses result in a longer time to obtain information. As a result, bubbles (downtime) and delays appear in the computation pipeline. Hits, on the other hand, help maintain peak performance.

Cache entry, exclusivity, coherence

Replacement policies dictate how space is made available in the cache for new entries. Since the data written to the cache must sooner or later appear in the main memory, systems can do this simultaneously with writing to the cache (write-through), or they can mark the data areas as "dirty" (write-back), and write to memory when it will be evicted from the cache.

Data in several levels of the cache can be stored exclusively, that is, without redundancy. Then you won't find the same lines of data in two different cache hierarchies. Or caches can work inclusively, that is, the lower cache levels are guaranteed to contain data present in the upper cache levels (closer to the processor core). AMD Phenom uses an exclusive L3 cache and Intel follows an inclusive cache strategy. Coherence protocols keep track of the integrity and relevance of data between different cores, cache levels, and even processors.

Cache size

A larger cache can hold more data, but it tends to increase latency. In addition, a large cache consumes a large number of processor transistors, so it is important to find a balance between the "budget" of the transistors, die size, power consumption and performance / latency.

Associativity

Records in RAM can be directly mapped to the cache, that is, there is only one position in the cache for a copy of data from RAM, or they can be n-way associative, that is, there is n possible locations in the cache where this data might be stored. A higher degree of associativity (up to fully associative caches) provides the best caching flexibility because existing data in the cache does not need to be rewritten. In other words, a high n-degree associativity guarantees a higher hit rate, but it also increases latency because it takes more time to check all of these associations to hit. As a rule, the highest degree of association is reasonable for the last caching level, since there is the maximum capacity available, and searching for data outside of this cache will result in the processor accessing slow RAM.

Here are a few examples: the Core i5 and i7 use 32 KB of L1 cache with 8-way associativity for data and 32 KB of L1 cache with 4-way for instructions. Intel understandably wants instructions to be available faster and L1 data cache has a maximum hit rate. Intel's L2 cache has 8-way associativity, while Intel's L3 cache is even smarter, since it implements 16-way associativity to maximize hits.

However, AMD is pursuing a different strategy with the Phenom II X4 processors, which use L1 cache with 2-way associativity to reduce latency. To compensate for possible misses, the cache capacity was doubled: 64 KB for data and 64 KB for instructions. L2 cache has 8-way associativity, like Intel's design, but AMD L3 cache works with 48-way associativity. But the decision to choose a particular cache architecture cannot be judged without considering the entire CPU architecture. Quite naturally, test results are of practical importance, and our goal was to practically test this entire complex multi-level caching structure.

Every modern processor has a dedicated cache that stores instructions and processor data, ready for use almost instantly. This level is commonly referred to as the first level of caching, or L1, and was first introduced with the 486DX processors. Recently AMD processors have become standard with 64KB L1 cache per core (for data and instructions), while Intel processors use 32KB L1 cache per core (also for data and instructions)

The first level cache first appeared on the 486DX processors, after which it became an integral function of all modern CPUs.

The second level cache (L2) appeared on all processors after the release of the Pentium III, although the first implementations on the packaging were in the Pentium Pro processor (but not on a crystal). Modern processors are equipped with up to 6 MB of L2 cache on a chip. Typically, this amount is shared between two cores on an Intel Core 2 Duo processor, for example. Typical L2 configurations provide 512 KB or 1 MB of cache per core. Processors with less L2 cache are generally lower priced. Below is a diagram of early L2 cache implementations.

For the Pentium Pro, the L2 cache was in the processor package. In subsequent generations of Pentium III and Athlon, L2 cache was implemented through separate SRAM chips, which was very common at that time (1998, 1999).

The subsequent announcement of the 180nm process technology allowed manufacturers to finally integrate the L2 cache onto the processor die.

The first dual-core processors simply used existing designs when two dies were installed in the package. AMD introduced a dual-core processor on a monolithic die, added a memory controller and a switch, and Intel simply bundled two single-core die in one package for its first dual-core processor.

For the first time, L2 cache was used jointly by two computational cores on Core 2 Duo processors. AMD went further and built its first quad-core Phenom from scratch, while Intel again used a pair of dies for its first quad-core processor, this time with two dual-core Core 2 dies to keep costs down.

L3 cache has existed since the early days of the Alpha 21165 (96 KB, introduced in 1995) or the IBM Power 4 (256 KB, 2001). However, in x86-based architectures, L3 cache first appeared along with the Intel Itanium 2, Pentium 4 Extreme (Gallatin, both in 2003) and Xeon MP (2006).

Early implementations simply provided one more level in the cache hierarchy, although modern architectures use the L3 cache as a large and shared buffer for inter-core data exchange in multi-core processors. This is also emphasized by the high n-degree of associativity. It is better to look for data a little longer in the cache than to get a situation where several cores are using very slow access to the main RAM. AMD first introduced L3 cache on a desktop processor alongside the aforementioned Phenom line. The 65nm Phenom X4 contained 2MB of shared L3 cache, while modern 45nm Phenom II X4s have 6MB of shared L3 cache. Intel Core i7 and i5 processors use 8MB of L3 cache.

Modern quad-core processors have dedicated L1 and L2 caches for each core, as well as a large L3 cache shared by all cores. The shared L3 cache also allows the exchange of data on which the cores can run in parallel.

In our comparison, two different AMD processors took part, which will just help to compare the advantages of the additional L3 cache in a quad-core processor.

Click on the picture to enlarge.

On the one hand, we had the new AMD Athlon II X4 620 - an entry-level AMD quad-core processor. By the way, Athlon II X4 620 became the first four-core processor available for $ 100 (unfortunately, not in Russia), so we get a new level of performance for this price. However, do not forget that the impressive performance of the 620 concerns only serious multi-threaded applications, and even then not always, since the Athlon II X4 lacks the L3 cache at all. For comparison, we took the Phenom II X4 965 processor.

Click on the picture to enlarge.

The positioning of the two products is completely different. The Phenom II is AMD's current leader in the top Black Edition lineup, and the "junior" Athlon II X4 is aimed at the entry-level market.

However, in terms of architecture, the processors are very similar. The Athlon II X4 cores, including their L1 and L2 caches, are identical to the Phenom cores. AMD didn't even change the cache associativity. The only real change is that AMD has disabled the Athlon II X4 cache on processors where the L3 cache was having validation issues. (This is only true for the early Athlon II X4. In the future, more and more processors will be based on a completely different and more cost-effective crystal.)

We were able to make a 1: 1 comparison by reducing the clock speed of the Phenom II X4 from 3.4 GHz to just 2.6 GHz - that's exactly the nominal clock speed of the Athlon II X4 620.

Test configuration

Hardware for performance tests
Motherboard (Socket AM3)	Gigabyte MA790FXT-UD5P (Rev. 1.0), chipset: AMD 790GX, SB750, BIOS: 5c (04/01/2009)
DDR3 memory (two channels)	2 x 2 GB DDR3-1600 (Corsair CM3X2G1600C9DHX) 2 x 1 GB DDR3-1600 (Crucial BL12864BA1608.8SFB) in DDR3-1066 mode
General hardware
CPU AMD I	AMD Phenom II X4 965 (45nm, 3.4GHz, 4 x 512K L2 and 6MB L3 Cache, TDP 140W, Rev. C2)
CPU AMD II	AMD Athlon II X4 620 (45nm, 2.6GHz, 4 x 512K L2 Cache, TDP 95W, Rev. C2)
Video card	Zotac GeForce GTX 260², GPU: GeForce GTX 260 (576 MHz), video memory: 896 MB DDR3 (1998 MHz), stream processors: 216, shader frequency: 1242 MHz
HDD	Western Digital VelociRaptor, 300GB (WD3000HLFS), 10,000 RPM, SATA / 300, 16MB cache
Blu-ray drive	LG GGW-H20L, SATA / 150
Power Supply	PC Power & Cooling, Silencer 750EPS12V 750 W
System software and drivers
Operating system	Windows Vista Enterprise Version 6.0 x64, Service Pack 2 (Build 6000)
AMD Chipset Drivers	Catalyst Control Center 9.4

Tests and settings


Far cry 2	Version: 1.0.1 Far Cry 2 Benchmark Tool Video Mode: 1280x800 Direct3D 9 Overall Quality: Medium Bloom activated HDR off Demo: Ranch Small
Gta iv	Version: 1.0.3 Video Mode: 1280x1024 - 1280x1024 - Aspect Ratio: Auto - All options: Medium - View Distance: 30 - Detail Distance: 100 - Vehicle Density: 100 - Shadow Density: 16 - Definition: On - Vsync: Off In-game Benchmark
Left 4 dead	Version: 1.0.0.5 Video Mode: 1280x800 Game settings - Anti Aliasing none - Filtering Trilinear - Wait for vertical sync disabled - Shader Detail Medium - Effect Detail Medium - Model / Texture Detail Medium Demo: THG Demo 1
Audio and video encoding
iTunes	Version: 8.1.0.52 Audio CD ("Terminator II" SE), 53 min. Convert to AAC audio format
Lame MP3	Version 3.98 Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min convert WAV to MP3 audio format Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kbps)
TMPEG 4.6	Version: 4.6.3.268 Video: Terminator 2 SE DVD (720x576, 16: 9) 5 Minutes Audio: Dolby Digital, 48000 Hz, 6-Kanal, English Advanced Acoustic Engine MP3 Encoder (160 Kbps, 44.1 kHz)
DivX 6.8.5	Version: 6.8.5 == Main Menu == default == Codec Menu == Encoding mode: Insane Quality Enhanced multithreading Enabled using SSE4 Quarter-pixel search == Video Menu == Quantization: MPEG-2
XviD 1.2.1	Version: 1.2.1 Other Options / Encoder Menu - Display encoding status = off
Mainconcept Reference 1.6.1	Version: 1.6.1 MPEG2 to MPEG2 (H.264) MainConcept H.264 / AVC Codec 28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG2) Audio: MPEG2 (44.1 kHz, 2 Channel, 16 Bit, 224 kbps) Codec: H.264 Mode: PAL (25 FPS) Profile: Settings for eight threads
Adobe Premiere pro CS4	Version: 4.0 WMV 1920x1080 (39 sec) Export: Adobe Media Encoder == Video == H.264 Blu-ray 1440x1080i 25 High Quality Encoding Passes: one Bitrate Mode: VBR Frame: 1440x1080 Frame Rate: 25 == Audio == PCM Audio, 48 kHz, Stereo Encoding Passes: one

Grisoft AVG Anti Virus 8	Version: 8.5.287 Virus base: 270.12.16 / 2094 Benchmark Scan: some compressed ZIP and RAR archives
Winrar 3.9	Version 3.90 x64 BETA 1 Compression = Best Benchmark: THG-Workload
Winzip 12	Version 12.0 (8252) WinZIP Commandline Version 3 Compression = Best Dictionary = 4096 KB Benchmark: THG-Workload
Autodesk 3D Studio Max 2009	Version: 9 x64 Rendering Dragon Image Resolution: 1920 x 1280 (frame 1-5)
Adobe Photoshop CS4 (64-Bit)	Version: 11 Filtering a 16MB TIF (15000x7266) Filters: Radial Blur (Amount: 10; Method: zoom; Quality: good) Shape Blur (Radius: 46 px; custom shape: Trademark symbol) Median (Radius: 1px) Polar Coordinates (Rectangular to Polar)
Adobe Acrobat 9 professional	Version: 9.0.0 (Extended) == Printing Preferenced Menu == Default Settings: Standard == Adobe PDF Security - Edit Menu == Encrypt all documents (128 bit RC4) Open Password: 123 Permissions Password: 321
Microsoft PowerPoint 2007	Version: 2007 SP2 PPT to PDF Powerpoint Document (115 Pages) Adobe PDF-Printer
Deep Fritz 11	Version: 11 Fritz Chess Benchmark Version 4.2
Synthetic tests
	Version: 1.02 Options: Performance Graphics Test 1 Graphics Test 2 CPU Test 1 CPU Test 2
PCMark Vantage	Version: 1.00 PCMark Benchmark Memories Benchmark
SiSoftware Sandra 2009	Version: 2009 SP3 Processor Arithmetic, Cryptography, Memory Bandwith Benchmark Results: Sandra 2009, PCMark Vantage

Performance notes

Typically we measure idle power consumption and under maximum load, and then evaluate the system's efficiency by tracking the energy required to run a given load (usually a PCMark Vantage run). This allows us to calculate efficiency as a ratio of performance per watt. However, in this case, we had to take several steps, which are not typical for real conditions. We lowered the clock speed of the Phenom and had to turn off Cool'n'Quiet so that the Phenom II X4 965 could run at 2.6 GHz instead of the nominal 3.4 GHz. Since the slowest Phenom II X4 starts at 3.0 GHz, it is unlikely that anyone will be running a processor at low clock speeds. In addition, we reduced the frequency of the Phenom II memory to DDR3-1066 in order to meet AMD's specifications for the Athlon II X4.

Then we got a noticeable power advantage for a processor without an L3 cache. By itself, the cache takes up about a third of all transistors in the processor. This is also evident from the energy consumption data. AMD claims the Phenom II is rated at 95W to 140W, while the Athlon II X4 runs at 95W. Our test system with the Phenom II X4 965 at 3.4GHz peaked at 226W, while the 2.6GHz Athlon II X4 peaked at 170W.

In idle mode, we see very similar results. We got 84 W for the Athlon II X4 620 and 85 W for the same system with the Phenom II X4 965 processor. In these cases, Cool'n'Quiet technology was active, so both processors reduced their frequency to 800 MHz and also lowered the voltage. Since most of the cpu blocks are idle and shut down, the idle power consumption of our two processors is very close.

Test results

We see a 5% advantage in the 3DMark Vantage CPU benchmark, but in the overall result and in the GPU benchmark we see no gain at all. Let's see what the gaming performance will be like.

Frame rates increased by 8% in Far Cry at medium detail settings when we swapped out the entry-level Athlon II X4 quad-core processor for a Phenom II X4 at the same clock speed.

The 5.7% advantage in GTA IV is also not very much. L3 cache has little effect on performance.

In Left 4 Dead, the results are completely different, with a processor with 6 MB of L3 cache giving almost 20% higher frame rates.

Creating PDFs with Adobe Acrobat 9 from a Microsoft PowerPoint document doesn't benefit much from the L3 cache.

WinRAR archiver is very sensitive to memory performance, so it takes 16% less time to complete the job.

WinZip, on the other hand, was less critical of the lack of an L3 cache. L3 cache was 9.2% faster.

The speed of filter execution in Photoshop CS4 does not benefit much from the presence of the L3 cache in the Phenom II. The three seconds difference is tiny.

iTunes needs a higher clock speed to improve audio transcoding performance. Therefore, the tiny difference between processors with and without L3 cache did not come as a surprise to us.

Here the results are generally the same, which is not surprising.

DivX transcodes a movie from MPEG-2 format on the Phenom II X4 just a little faster.

Xvid encoding wins a little more, although this operation takes much longer than converting an MPEG-2 clip to DivX.

MainConcept derives performance from the number of cores and their clock speed. We don't see any noticeable benefit from having an L3 cache.

We decided to create a performance index that would take into account the results of all tests. Since CPU intensive applications require the most performance, we rated them at 50%, games we counted at 25%, and PCMark Vantage and 3DMark Vantage were weighted at 12.5% each. As a result, we got a 5.8% performance advantage of the Phenom II X4 over the Athlon II X4, or a 5.5% drop in performance if you use the Phenom II X4 as your basis. Of course, you may have other priorities for using your PC, so it is important to mention the minimum and maximum difference. In some tests, we got a 20% advantage from having an L3 cache, and in some tests, the processors give absolutely identical performance, despite the presence / absence of an L3 cache. In general, it seems to us that it is better to focus on the difference in performance from 5% to 6%, which we calculated from the results of all tests.

Conclusion

Comparison of prices and performance clearly shows that "budget" users should not look at the Phenom II X4 at all. The Phenom II X4 945 (3.0 GHz) processor starts at $ 170 (), and the new Athlon II X4 processor for $ 100 () gives very similar performance, all other things being equal. The AM2 + models of the Phenom II X4 processors may sell for less, but they do not offer support for DDR3 memory.

Overall, the main performance difference between the Athlon II X4 and the Phenom II X4 has to do with the clock speed. A simple increase in the clock speed of the Athlon II X4 by 200 MHz will allow it to catch up with the performance of the Phenom II X4, despite the presence of 6 MB of L3 cache in the latter. Knowing this, you will surely understand why there will be no Athlon II processors on the market, which in frequency will equal (or even exceed) the Phenom II model.

Of course, you need to take into account different market segments, which we have blurred quite a lot in our article. The Phenom II is a high-end mainstream processor that retails for $ 150 to $ 250, while the Athlon II X4 is targeting the "budget" audience that is willing to shell out more than $ 100 for a CPU. In any case, it is quite clear that the Athlon II X4 provides an excellent performance / price ratio, especially for those users planning to overclock the processor.

Finally, it should be noted that L3 cache is required to achieve high levels of performance. At 2.6GHz CPU this might not be so obvious, but at 3GHz and above we see the Phenom II's performance scale much better than the Athlon II X4.

Today there are many manufacturers of computer equipment, which, first of all, include AMD. This way the company has been engaged in the production of central processors and video cards for many years.

Today, many buyers who want to buy a central processor are thinking about which model is best to choose. Today we will consider several processor options - amd athlon x2 and amd phenom. As a rule, according to their technical characteristics, both of these processors are very high-quality and efficient, but each of them has its own purpose.

The phenom processor is designed to perform a huge number of different tasks that have a direct bearing on graphics, that is, it has a lot of power and several cores. Thanks to this, this processor will be able to perform the most complex graphics tasks without any slowdowns. It has to do with the classification of professional processors. It is made of high quality materials, thanks to which it practically does not heat up when performing various complex tasks, thus ensuring the quiet and reliable operation of a particular computer. It also has a deliberately low power consumption, which prevents the possibility of overheating of the power supply and the motherboard. The downside of this product is that it is intended exclusively for professional use, which means that you cannot play powerful games on such a computer.

Also on the topic: Why is there no sound on the computer?

Another thing with the central processing unit amd athlon x2. This product is also designed with dual cores, so the number of tasks to be performed can also be overwhelming. This product is more related to the number of game processes, since it operates at a still powerful frequency, and has great performance. That is why he is able to pull the latest gaming news from well-known gaming companies. This processor also has a great power consumption, and as a result, it heats up. As a result, this requires a powerful ycooler and a radiator, which are needed to cool it.

Each of the above listed processors has a huge number of advantages and some disadvantages. For example, if you buy a processor for games, then you should pay attention to amd athlon x2, and if the device is purchased for various 3D design, and display graphics, then you need to buy amd phenom.

Intel has long and firmly established itself as a leader in the supply of key hardware components for mobile computers - processors and system logic chips. Actually, its only serious competitor was and remains AMD. The battle for the laptop market between the two developers is proceeding with mixed success, but it's no secret that the popularity of AMD processors has been steadily declining over the past couple of years. Having created a successful Pentium M processor that combined low power consumption and good performance, Intel regained its title of technology leader and is not going to give it up to this day.

So far, AMD has not been able to catch up with a competitor: its mobile processors, despite their more progressive architecture, were produced according to outdated technical processes, did not provide the required performance / W ratio, and, therefore, were inferior to Intel processors in all key characteristics important for mobile computers. AMD was finally able not to lose the market only thanks to its aggressive pricing policy: laptops based on its platforms have always won in terms of price / functionality ratio over similar laptops based on Intel platforms.

AMD got a chance to rectify the shaky positions in the mobile market in early 2010. The company has unveiled an updated hardware platform, officially called Vision, which has more balanced performance than before and covers virtually all segments of both the desktop and mobile computer market. It should be noted right away that the developer did not use anything fundamentally new in this platform. Yes, the company has some very promising and bold ideas, but they will be implemented in the next generation processors. The current Vision platform is the result of the modernization of the microarchitecture of AMD processors, their optimization in terms of intelligent power consumption management, revision of the system logic in accordance with modern requirements.

A large-scale marketing and advertising campaign aimed at both end users and computer manufacturers played a significant role in increasing the attractiveness of the new platform. The fruits of the work done were not long in coming: the new AMD mobile platform was immediately adopted by all laptop manufacturers and implemented in models of various classes - from netbooks to gaming machines. Today, almost every model on the Intel platform has an inexpensive counterpart in the same package and with the same functionality, but on the AMD platform.

The lineup

For notebooks, AMD has offered two hardware platforms that are similar in terms of functionality, but differ in power consumption. Codenamed platform Danube is the base for classic notebooks. It includes a processor with a maximum heat dissipation of 25 or 35 W, an AMD M880G (RS880M) chipset with an integrated Radeon HD 4250 graphics card, and an optional discrete graphics card of the Mobility Radeon HD 5000 series. Nile targeted at netbooks and ultra-thin consumer notebooks. It includes a special low-voltage processor with a maximum heat dissipation of no more than 15 W and an M880G chipset with a "slowed down" video card Radeon HD 4225.

As you can see, in all cases AMD offers the same chipset inherited from the previous generation mobile platform. It includes the rather outdated RV620 graphics core with support for 3D graphics (DirectX 10.1) and video hardware acceleration (UVD 2 decoder). Why didn't the company create new embedded graphics for the Danube and Nile platforms? Apparently, preference was given to the development of a graphics core integrated into the processor for the next generation of processors, and there was no time left to refine the current mobile platform. Unfortunately, the old platform architecture, with two system logic chips and integrated graphics as part of one of them, negatively affects performance and especially power consumption (two chipset chips consume more than the processor itself), but the developer cannot offer another solution yet.

Crystal Athlon II

AMD's laptop processor lineup has been completely overhauled. He received a new, more understandable labeling, a reduced nomenclature (as a rule, only two processors of the same type with different clock speeds are offered) and division into four lines with different trade names:

AMD V - budget processors with minimum performance (replacing the Sempron line);
AMD Athlon II - Inexpensive processors for budget and entry-level notebooks;
AMD Turion II - More powerful processors for mid-range business and home notebooks;
AMD Phenom II is a multi-core processor for high-end consumer and business notebooks.

Despite the retention of the previous names, the new processors are built on the basis of the new microarchitecture K10 and in most of their characteristics are superior to the previous generation AMD processors. Unfortunately, the official information about the kernel features Champlain, which underlies the current generation of processors, is not listed on AMD's website. We can only assume that mobile processors have a lot in common with the desktop Phenom II processors, but there are also differences due to the new adaptive power management scheme. In addition, mobile processors do not use shared L3 cache - obviously to reduce power consumption and cost.

Crystal Phenom II

Let's get acquainted with the characteristics of the processor models of each of the lines. To begin with, let's pay attention to the processors of the "standard" Danube platform.

Budget line AMD V currently includes two low performance single core processors with reduced heat dissipation (up to 25W).

The single core of the AMD V processor has halved the L2 cache (512 KB) and artificially reduced the performance of the FPU, which performs floating point operations. It is not known for certain whether these features are physical, or whether we are just talking about disabling part of the kernel to reduce performance.

In processor lines Athlon II and Turion II Processors are available in two classes - with normal (35 W, N-series) and reduced (25 W, P-series) maximum heat dissipation. In theory, the former should be installed in laptops of a standard form factor, the latter - in thin ultraportable models. But manufacturers do not adhere to this scheme and usually prefer more economical processors.

The Athlon II processor contains two stripped-down cores, each similar to the core of the V processor. At the same time, the P320 model has become the most popular and popular among notebook manufacturers due to its economy. The Turion II processor is equipped with full cores, with 1MB cache per core and a "full" 128-bit FPU. Thanks to this, it is able to demonstrate much higher performance in serious professional applications. The Phenom II N600 processor included in this group is, in fact, the same Turion II, but with a higher clock frequency.

Processor line Phenom II consists of 3- and 4-core processors on the one hand and normal and reduced power processors on the other. There is also a separate series of Black processors for gaming laptops, but they have not been requested by computer manufacturers.

Oddly enough, all processors in this series use cores with a cut-down cache and a fairly low clock frequency. For applications that actively use multithreading (graphics processing, video processing, scientific and engineering calculations), Phenom II processors are very relevant. For all other tasks, it is preferable to use Turion II or dual-core Phenom II processors.

Unfortunately, laptop manufacturers do not think about this and equip models in the upper price range with 3- and 4-core processors. Whether AMD has a single core dynamic overclocking system like Intel Turbo Boost is unknown to us. At least, the company itself does not report this. If not, then the performance situation in single-threaded applications will be depressing.

Energy efficient platform Nile Designed for ultraportable notebooks with long battery life that do not require high performance. Processors manufactured within this platform also have the modern AMD K10 microarchitecture, but are formally built on the basis of a different core - Geneva... The line of processors consists of 5 models that differ in several parameters at once.

The younger processor, V105, is built on a stripped-down core (one computing core, half the cache, instead of the HT 3.0 bus, the HT 1.0 bus is used) and in terms of performance is closer to the processors of netbooks than full-fledged laptops. The older processor, Turion II Neo K665, has a decent clock speed and two full cores, but has a much worse power consumption. Netbook and ultrathin laptop manufacturers can choose to install any of these processors, giving the buyer a choice between an affordable price and good performance.

Tests

To understand how AMD and Intel mobile platforms compare in terms of performance and power consumption, we present the results of realistic tests, not synthetic ones. BAPCo test packages use only real applications that are installed on the machine in a standard way, and special scripts that measure the response time of the system to commands issued. Performing the real task of processing data in automatic mode, the test package calculates how much time is spent on the tested machine and compares it with the time spent on a certain reference machine.

We are going to compare three laptops of different classes equipped with three different processors. HP G62 notebook is built on Intel Calpella platform with switchable graphics; the tested copy was installed with a junior Intel Pentium processor - P6000. The processor is clocked at only 1.86 GHz, has a 3MB cache, has two cores, and HyperThreading technology, which allows more optimal use of computing resources by executing two threads on one core, is disabled.

The HP 625 notebook is built on the AMD Danube platform and is equipped with a typical budget processor - Athlon II P320. The frequency of this processor is 2.1 GHz (13% higher than that of the Pentium P6000), two caches of 512 KB each, there is no support for an analogue of the HyperThreading technology (it will appear only in AMD processors of the next generation).

The third laptop, ASUS N52DA, is built on the AMD Danube platform and is equipped with the most affordable Phenom II processor - the triple-core N830. This processor contains three cores, similar to those of the Athlon II P320 processor, each with the same frequency and cache size. True, the ASUS laptop has a powerful discrete video card without a shutdown function, so we cannot estimate the "pure" power consumption of the platform.

So, about the tests. SYSMark 2007 package contains 4 scenarios: preparation of an online traffic education system (processing vector and raster graphics, animation, video), creating an advertising video (special effects, video editing, rendering and video compression), preparing an economic report (tables, database, text, presentation) and 3D modeling of the interior of the room. Thus, the test measures the performance of a machine when it is used in the workplace of a web designer, video editor, economist, and 3D modeler. The resulting rating averages data on the performance of two dozen different applications from Microsoft, Adobe, Autodesk, Sony, etc.

Based on the SYSMark 2007 test results, we state a clear victory for the Intel platform. The difference between the Pentium and Athlon II processors was 13 to 27%. The triple-core Phenom II caught up with the budget Intel processor only in video processing and 3D modeling scenarios, in other scenarios that do not actively use multi-threaded applications, its results coincide with the results of the dual-core processor.

The MobileMark 2007 benchmark measures battery life while performing the same tasks found in the SYSMark 2007 benchmark, with one exception - the benchmark simulates intermittent pauses of 1-10 minutes. To carry out this test according to the rules, you should turn off all network controllers, including Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, and set the screen brightness to the same level (approximately 70-80 cd / m2).

And again, we see that the performance of the budget Intel processor is 25% ahead of the AMD processors. The Intel platform turned out to be the most economical, with an average power consumption (during the test) of less than 11 watts. Of course, this figure varies from laptop to laptop, but for models with integrated or switchable graphics, we get a result in the range of 9-12 watts.

The results of the AMD platform with the Athlon II processor also fit into this framework, which means that we managed to catch up with the competitor. A laptop with a triple-core processor turned out to have too high power consumption, which is not surprising given its video card (Radeon HD 5730) and the declared heat dissipation of the processor (35 W plus almost the same will be consumed by the chipset).

Conclusion

AMD has finally succeeded ... no, not to catch up with the competitor, but at least to close the gap. The performance situation is still poor, especially for multi-core processors, which manage to outperform even budget Intel dual-core processors. At the same time, the budget Athlon II processors provide a decent level of power consumption and can be successfully used in notebooks that do not require a high level of performance. In general, the AMD 2010 platform is no longer subject to the problem of increased power consumption and is quite competitive in terms of its consumer characteristics, but only in the lower price segment.

Obviously, the release of Danube and Nile platforms pursued one simple goal - to regain positions in the mobile market through more thoughtful pricing and marketing policies. Of course, this goal has been achieved. In 2011, AMD will present an innovative hardware platform that will take the already prepared foothold and, if the competitor does not hurry up, can easily turn the tide on the market. Either way, we are facing exciting competition with the beneficial consequences for consumers in the form of further price reductions in low-cost and high-performance notebooks.

Subscription to news. AMD V, Athlon II, Turion II, Phenom II Mobile Processors: Background How phenom differs from athlon

AMD Phenom II X2

AMD Athlon II X2

AMD Athlon II X2 Cache

Description of test systems

The evolution of AMD dual-core processors

Phenom II X2 vs Athlon II X2

Performance

Energy consumption

Overclocking

Enabling locked cores

conclusions

Other materials on this topic

Processor specifications

Stand configuration, test applications

Overclocking

The lineup

Tests

Conclusion

Top related articles